Project Gutenberg's Thirty Years' View (Vol. I of 2), by Thomas Hart Benton
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
Title: Thirty Years' View (Vol. I of 2)
or, A History of the Working of the American Government
for Thirty Years, from 1820 to 1850
Author: Thomas Hart Benton
Release Date: February 9, 2014 [EBook #44851]
Language: English
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THIRTY YEARS' VIEW (VOL. I OF 2) ***
Produced by Curtis Weyant, Julia Neufeld and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
Transcriber's note:
Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
Small capital text has been replaced with all capitals.
Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=).
* * * * *
[Illustration: frontispiece]
[Illustration: Thomas H. Benton]
THIRTY YEARS' VIEW;
OR,
A HISTORY OF THE WORKING OF THE AMERICAN
GOVERNMENT FOR THIRTY YEARS,
FROM 1820 TO 1850.
CHIEFLY TAKEN
FROM THE CONGRESS DEBATES, THE PRIVATE PAPERS OF GENERAL JACKSON
AND THE SPEECHES OF EX-SENATOR BENTON, WITH HIS
ACTUAL VIEW OF MEN AND AFFAIRS:
WITH
HISTORICAL NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS, AND SOME NOTICES OF EMINENT
DECEASED COTEMPORARIES:
BY A SENATOR OF THIRTY YEARS.
IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. I.
NEW YORK:
D. APPLETON AND COMPANY,
1, 3, AND 5 BOND STREET.
LONDON: 16 LITTLE BRITAIN.
1883.
ENTERED, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1854, by
D. APPLETON & CO.,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States
for the Southern District of New York.
AUTO-BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.
[The outlines of the life of the lately deceased Thomas H.
Benton, which are contained in the following pages, were
prepared by the author and subject of them whilst he was
suffering excruciating pain from the disease that, a few weeks
later, closed his earthly career. They were not intended
for a Biography, properly so called, but rather to present
some salient points of character and some chief incidents of
life, and in respect of them, at least, to govern subsequent
Biographies.]
Thomas Hart Benton, known as a senator for thirty years in Congress,
and as the author of several works, was born in Orange County,
near Hillsborough, North Carolina, March 14th, 1782; and was the
son of Col. Jesse Benton, an able lawyer of that State, and of Ann
Gooch, of Hanover county, Virginia, of the family of the Gooches of
colonial residence in that State. By this descent, on the mother's
side, he took his name from the head of the Hart family (Col. Thomas
Hart, of Lexington, Kentucky), his mother's maternal uncle; and so
became related to the numerous Hart family. He was cousin to Mrs.
Clay, born Lucretia Hart, the wife of Henry Clay; and, by an easy
mistake, was often quoted during his public life as the relative of
Mr. Clay himself. He lost his father before he was eight years of
age, and fell under the care of a mother still young, and charged
with a numerous family, all of tender age--and devoting herself to
them. She was a woman of reading and observation--solid reading,
and observation of the men of the Revolution, brought together by
course of hospitality of that time, in which the houses of friends,
and not taverns, were the universal stopping places. Thomas was
the oldest son, and at the age of ten and twelve was reading solid
books with his mother, and studying the great examples of history,
and receiving encouragement to emulate these examples. His father's
library, among others, contained the famous State Trials, in the
large folios of that time, and here he got a foundation of British
history, in reading the treason, and other trials, with which
these volumes abound. She was also a pious and religious woman,
cultivating the moral and religious education of her children, and
connected all her life with the Christian church; _first_, as a
member of the English Episcopalian, and when removal to the Great
West, then in the wilderness, had broken that connection, then
in the Methodist Episcopalian--in which she died. All the minor
virtues, as well as the greater, were cherished by her; and her
house, the resort of the eminent men of the time, was the abode of
temperance, modesty, decorum. A pack of cards was never seen in her
house. From such a mother all the children received the impress
of future character; and she lived to see the fruits of her pious
and liberal cares--living a widow above fifty years, and to see her
eldest son half through his senatorial career, and taking his place
among the historic men of the country for which she had begun so
early to train him. These details deserve to be noted, though small
in themselves, as showing how much the after life of the man may
depend upon the early cares and guidance of a mother.
His scholastic education was imperfect: _first_, at a grammar
school taught by Richard Stanford, Esq., then a young New England
emigrant, soon after, and for many years, and until death, a
representative in Congress, noted as the life-long friend of Macon
and Randolph. Afterwards he was at Chapel Hill, the University of
North Carolina, but finished no course of study there, his mother
removing to Tennessee, where his father had acquired great landed
property (40,000 acres), and intended to make Nashville his home;
and now, as the eldest of the family, though not grown, the care and
management of a new settlement, in a new country, fell upon him.
The family went upon a choice tract of 3000 acres, on West Harpeth,
twenty-five miles south of Nashville, where for several years the
main care was the opening a farm in the wilderness. Wilderness! for
such was the state of the country at that time within half a day's
ride of the city of Nashville. "The widow Benton's settlement"
was the outside settlement between civilization and the powerful
southern tribes which spread to the Gulf of Mexico. The Indian wars
had just been terminated, and the boundary which these great tribes
were enabled to exact brought their frontier almost to the gates
of Nashville--within 25 miles! for the line actually touched the
outside line of the estate. The Indians swarmed about it. Their
great war trace (the trace on which they came for blood and plunder
in time of war, for trade in time of peace) led through it. Such a
position was not to be maintained by a small family alone--a widow,
and every child under age, only some twenty odd slaves. It required
strength! and found it in the idea of a little colony--leases to
settlers without price, for seven years; moderate rents afterwards.
The tract was well formed for the purpose, being four miles
square, with every attraction for settlement--rich land fine wood,
living streams. Settlers came; the ground was covered over: it was
called "Benton Town," and retains the name to this day. A rude log
school-house, a meeting house of the same primitive structure, with
roads and mills, completed the rapid conversion of this wilderness
into an abode of civilization. The scholastic education of her son
had ceased, but reading continued; and books of solid instruction
became his incessant companions. He has been heard to say that, in
no period of his life, has he ever read so much, nor with as much
system and regularity, nor with the same profit and delight. History
and geography was (what he considered) his light reading; national
law, the civil law, the common law--and, finally, the law itself,
so usually read by law students--constituted his studies. And all
this reading, and study, was carried on during the active personal
exertions which he gave to the opening of the farm and to the
ameliorations upon it which comfort exacted.
Then came the law license, indulgently granted by the three Superior
Court Judges--White, Overton, and Campbell--the former afterwards
senator in Congress, Overton an eminent lawyer before he was a
Superior Court judge, and Campbell, one of the respectable early
settlers and lawyers of the State. The law license signed, practice
followed, and successful--Gen. Jackson, Gen. James Robertson, Judge
McNairy, Major Thomas Hardeman, and the old heads of the population
giving him their support and countenance as a young man that might
become useful to the State, and so deserved to be encouraged.
Scarcely at the bar, and a legislative career was opened to him.
He was elected to the General Assembly of the State; and, though
serving but for a single session, left the impress of his mind and
principles on the statute book, and on the public policy. He was
the author of the Judicial Reform Act, by which the old system of
Superior Courts was substituted by the circuit system, in which the
administration of justice was relieved of great part of its delay,
of its expense, and of much of its inconvenience to parties and
witnesses. And he was the author of a humane law, giving to slaves
the same full benefit of jury trial which was the right of the
white man under the same accusation--a law which still remains on
the statute book, but has lost its effect under the fatal outside
interference which has checked the progress of Southern slave policy
amelioration, and turned back the current which was setting so
strongly in favor of mitigating the condition of the slave.
Returning to the practice of the law, the war of 1812 broke out.
Volunteers were called for, to descend the rivers to New Orleans,
to meet the British, expected there in the winter of 1812-'13, but
not coming until the winter of 1814-'15. Three thousand volunteers
were raised! raised in a flash! under the _prestige_ of Jackson's
name--his patriotic proclamation--and the ardent addresses of
Benton, flying from muster ground to muster ground, and stimulating
the inherent courage and patriotism of the young men. They were
formed into three regiments, of which Benton was colonel of one. He
had been appointed aide-de-camp to Jackson (then a major-general
in the Tennessee militia), on the first symptoms of war with Great
Britain, and continued to perform many of the most intimate duties
of that station, though, as colonel of a regiment, he could not
hold the place. The force descended to the Lower Mississippi: the
British did not come; the volunteers returned to Tennessee, were
temporarily disbanded, but called again into service by Gen. Jackson
at the breaking out of the Creek war. These volunteers were the
foundation of all Jackson's subsequent splendid career; and the
way in which, through their means, he was enabled to get into the
regular army, is a most curious piece of history, not told anywhere
but by Col. Benton, as a member of the House of Representatives, on
the presentation of Jackson's sword (Feb. 26th, 1855). That piece
of unknown history, which could only come from one who was part and
parcel of the transaction, deserves to be known, and to be studied
by every one who is charged with the administration of government,
and by every one who would see with what difficulties genius and
patriotism may have to contend--with what chances they may have to
wrestle--before they get an opportunity to fulfil a destiny for
which they were born.
The volunteers disbanded, Col. Benton proceeded to Washington, and
was appointed by Mr. Madison a lieutenant-colonel of infantry in the
army (1813); and afterwards (1814-15) proceeding to Canada, where
he had obtained service, he met the news of peace; and desiring no
service in time of peace, he was within a few months on the west
bank of the Mississippi, St. Louis his home, and the profession of
the law ardently recommenced. In four years the State of Missouri
was admitted into the Union, and Col. Benton was elected one of her
first senators; and, continuously by successive elections, until
1851. From that time his life was in the public eye, and the bare
enumeration of the measures of which he was the author, and the
prime promoter, would be almost a history of Congress legislation.
The enumeration is unnecessary here: the long list is known
throughout the length and breadth of the land--repeated with the
familiarity of household words from the great cities on the seaboard
to the lonely cabins on the frontier--and studied by the little
boys who feel an honorable ambition beginning to stir within their
bosoms, and a laudable desire to learn something of the history of
their country.
Omitting this detail of well-known measures, we proceed to something
else characteristic of Senator Benton's legislative life, less
known, but necessary to be known to know the man. He never had a
clerk, nor even a copyist; but did his own writing, and made his
own copies. He never had office, or contract, for himself, or any
one of his blood. He detested office seeking, and office hunting,
and all changes in politics followed by demand for office. He was
never in any Congress caucus, or convention to nominate a President
or Vice-President, nor even suffered his name to go before such a
body for any such nominations. He refused many offices which were
pressed upon him--the mission to Russia, by President Jackson; war
minister, by Mr. Van Buren; minister to France, by Mr. Polk. Three
appointments were intended for him, which he would have accepted if
the occasions had occurred--command of the army by General Jackson,
if war took place with Mexico during his administration; the same
command by the same President, if war had taken place with France,
in 1836; the command of the army in Mexico, by President Polk,
with the rank of lieutenant-general, if the bill for the rank had
not been defeated in the Senate after having passed the House by a
general vote. And none of these military appointments could have
wounded professional honor, as Col. Benton, at the time of his
retiring from the army, ranked all those who have since reached its
head.
Politically, Col. Benton always classed democratically, but with
very little regard for modern democracy, founded on the platforms
which the little political carpenters reconstruct about every
four years, generally out of office-timber, sometimes green and
sometimes rotten, and in either case equally good, as the platform
was only wanted to last until after the election. He admitted no
platform of political principles but the constitution, and viewed as
impertinent and mischievous the attempt to expound the constitution,
periodically, in a set of hurrah resolutions, juggled through the
fag-end of a packed convention, and held to be the only test of
political salvation during its brief day of supremacy.
His going to Missouri, then a Territory under the pupillage of
Congress, was at a period of great interest both for the Territory
and the Union. Violent parties were there, as usual in Territories,
and great questions coming on upon which the future fate of the
State, and perhaps of the Union, depended. The Missouri controversy
soon raged in Congress, throughout the States, and into the
Territory. An active restriction party was in the Territory, largely
reinforced by outside aid, and a decided paper was wanting to
give the proper tone to the public mind. Col. Benton had one set
up, and wrote for it with such point and vigor that the Territory
soon presented a united front, and when the convention election
came round there was but one single delegate elected on the side of
restriction. This united front had an immense effect in saving the
question in Congress.
Besides his legislative reports, bills and speeches, sufficient
to fill many volumes, Col. Benton is known as the author of some
literary works--the Thirty Years' View of the inside working of the
Federal Government; the Abridgment of Debates of Congress from 1789
to (intended) 1856; and an examination of the political part (as he
deemed it) of the Supreme Court's decision in the Dred Scott case,
that part of it which pronounced the abrogation of the Missouri
Compromise line and the self-extension of the Constitution to
Territories carrying African slavery along with it, and keeping it
there in defiance of Congress or the people of the Territory. There
was also a class of speeches, of which he delivered many, which were
out of the line of political or legislative discussion; and may be
viewed as literary. They were the funeral eulogiums which the custom
of Congress began to admit, though not to the degree at present
practised, over deceased members. These eulogiums were universally
admired, and were read over Europe, and found their charm in the
_perception of character which they exhibited_; in the perception
of the qualities which constituted the man, and gave him identity
and individuality. These qualities, thus perceived (and it requires
intimate acquaintance with the man, and some natural gift, to make
the perception), and presented with truth and simplicity, imparted
the interest to these eulogiums which survives many readings, and
will claim lasting places in biographies.
While in the early part of life, at Nashville and at St. Louis,
duels and affrays were common; and the young Benton had his share
of them: a very violent affray between himself and brother on one
side, and Genl. Jackson and some friends on the other, in which
severe pistol and dagger wounds were given, but fortunately without
loss of life; and the only use for which that violent collision
now finds a reference is in its total oblivion by the parties, and
the cordiality with which they acted together for the public good
in their subsequent long and intimate public career. A duel at St.
Louis ended fatally, of which Col. Benton has not been heard to
speak except among intimate friends, and to tell of the pang which
went through his heart when he saw the young man fall, and would
have given the world to see him restored to life. As the proof of
the manner in which he looks upon all these scenes, and his desire
to bury all remembrance of them forever, he has had all the papers
burnt which relate to them, that no future curiosity or industry
should bring to light what he wishes had never happened.
Col. Benton was married, after becoming Senator, to Elizabeth,
daughter of Col. James McDowell, of Rockbridge county, Virginia, and
of Sarah his wife, born Sarah Preston; and has surviving issue four
daughters: Mrs. William Carey Jones, Mrs. Jessie Ann Benton Fremont,
Mrs. Sarah Benton Jacob, and Madame Susan Benton Boilleau, now at
Calcutta, wife of the French consul general--all respectable in
life and worthy of their mother, who was a woman of singular merit,
judgment, elevation of character, and regard for every social duty,
crowned by a life-long connection with the church in which she was
bred, the Presbyterian old school. Following the example of their
mother, all the daughters are members of some church. Mrs. Benton
died in 1854, having been struck with paralysis in 1844, and from
the time of that calamity her husband was never known to go to any
place of festivity or amusement.
PREFACE
[Illustration: decorative]
1.--MOTIVES FOR WRITING THIS WORK.
Justice to the men with whom I acted, and to the cause in which
we were engaged, is my chief motive for engaging in this work. A
secondary motive is the hope of being useful to our republican
form of government in after ages by showing its working through a
long and eventful period; working well all the time, and thereby
justifying the hope of its permanent good operation in all time to
come, if maintained in its purity and integrity. Justice to the wise
and patriotic men who established our independence, and founded this
government, is another motive with me. I do not know how young I
was when I first read in the speeches of Lord Chatham, the encomium
which he pronounced in the House of Lords on these founders of our
republic; but it sunk deep into my memory at the time, and, what is
more, went deep into the heart: and has remained there ever since.
"When your lordships look at the papers transmitted us from America;
when you consider their decency, firmness, and wisdom, you cannot
but respect their cause, and wish to make it your own. For myself, I
must declare and avow, that in all my reading and observation--and
it has been my favorite study--I have read Thucydides, and have
studied and admired the master states of the world--that for
solidity of reasoning, force of sagacity, and wisdom of conclusion,
under such a complication of difficult circumstances, no nation,
or body of men, can stand in preference to the general congress
at Philadelphia." This encomium, so just and so grand, so grave
and so measured, and the more impressive on account of its gravity
and measure, was pronounced in the early part of our revolutionary
struggle--in its first stage--and before a long succession of
crowning events had come to convert it into history, and to show
of how much more those men were capable than they had then done.
If the great William Pitt--greater under that name than under the
title he so long refused--had lived in this day, had lived to see
these men making themselves exceptions to the maxim of the world,
and finishing the revolution which they began--seen them found a
new government and administer it in their day and generation, and
until "gathered to their fathers," and all with the same wisdom,
justice, moderation, and decorum, with which they began it: if he
had lived to have seen all this, even his lofty genius might have
recoiled from the task of doing them justice;--and, I may add, from
the task of doing justice to the PEOPLE who sustained such men.
Eulogy is not my task; but gratitude and veneration is the debt of
my birth and inheritance, and of the benefits which I have enjoyed
from their labors; and I have proposed to acknowledge this debt--to
discharge it is impossible--in laboring to preserve their work
during my day, and in now commending it, by the fruits it has borne,
to the love and care of posterity. Another motive, hardly entitled
to the dignity of being named, has its weight with me, and belongs
to the rights of "self-defence." I have made a great many speeches,
and have an apprehension that they may be published after I am
gone--published in the gross, without due discrimination--and so
preserve, or perpetuate, things said, both of men and of measures,
which I no longer approve, and would wish to leave to oblivion. By
making selections of suitable parts of these speeches, and weaving
them into this work, I may hope to prevent a general publication--or
to render it harmless if made. But I do not condemn all that I leave
out.
2.--QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE WORK.
Of these I have one, admitted by all to be considerable, but by no
means enough of itself. Mr. Macaulay says of Fox and Mackintosh,
speaking of their histories of the last of the Stuarts, and of the
Revolution of 1688: "They had one eminent qualification for writing
history; they had spoken history, acted history, lived history. The
turns of political fortune, the ebb and flow of popular feeling, the
hidden mechanism by which parties are moved, all these things were
the subject of their constant thought, and of their most familiar
conversation. Gibbon has remarked, that his history is much the
better for his having been an officer in the militia, and a member
of the House of Commons. The remark is most just. We have not the
smallest doubt that his campaigns, though he never saw an enemy, and
his parliamentary attendance, though he never made a speech, were of
far more use to him than years of retirement and study would have
been. If the time that he spent on parade and at mess in Hampshire,
or on the Treasury bench and at Brooke's, during the storms which
overthrew Lord North and Lord Shelburne, had been passed in the
Bodleian Library, he might have avoided some inaccuracies; he might
have enriched his notes with a greater number of references; but
he never could have produced so lively a picture of the court, the
camp, and the senate-house. In this respect Mr. Fox and Sir James
Mackintosh had great advantages over almost every English historian
since the time of Burnet."--I can say I have these advantages. I was
in the Senate the whole time of which I write--an active business
member, attending and attentive--in the confidence of half the
administrations, and a close observer of the others--had an inside
view of transactions of which the public only saw the outside,
and of many of which the two sides were very different--saw the
secret springs and hidden machinery by which men and parties were
to be moved, and measures promoted or thwarted--saw patriotism and
ambition at their respective labors, and was generally able to
discriminate between them. So far, I have one qualification; but
Mr. Macaulay says that Lord Lyttleton had the same, and made but a
poor history, because unable to use his material. So it may be with
me; but in addition to my senatorial means of knowledge, I have
access to the unpublished papers of General Jackson, and find among
them some that he intended for publication, and which will be used
according to his intention.
3.--THE SCOPE OF THE WORK.
I do not propose a regular history, but a political work, to show
the practical working of the government, and speak of men and events
in subordination to that design, and to illustrate the character of
Institutions which are new and complex--the first of their kind,
and upon the fate of which the eyes of the world are now fixed. Our
duplicate form of government, State and Federal, is a novelty which
has no precedent, and has found no practical imitation, and is still
believed by some to be an experiment. I believe in its excellence,
and wish to contribute to its permanence, and believe I can do so by
giving a faithful account of what I have seen of its working, and of
the trials to which I have seen it subjected.
4.--THE SPIRIT OF THE WORK.
I write in the spirit of Truth, but not of unnecessary or irrelevant
truth, only giving that which is essential to the object of the
work, and the omission of which would be an imperfection, and a
subtraction from what ought to be known. I have no animosities,
and shall find far greater pleasure in bringing out the good
and the great acts of those with whom I have differed, than in
noting the points on which I deemed them wrong. My ambition is
to make a veracious work, reliable in its statements, candid in
its conclusions, just in its views, and which cotemporaries and
posterity may read without fear of being misled.
CONTENTS OF VOLUME I.
[Illustration: decorative]
PAGE.
PRELIMINARY VIEW from 1815 to 1820 1
CHAP.
I. Personal Aspect of the Government 7
II. Admission of the State of Missouri 8
III. Finances--Reduction of the Army 11
IV. Relief of Public Land Debtors 11
V. Oregon Territory 13
VI. Florida Treaty and Cession of Texas 14
VII. Death of Mr. Lowndes 18
VIII. Death of William Pinkney 19
IX. Abolition of the Indian Factory System 20
X. Internal Improvement 21
XI. General Removal of Indians 27
XII. Visit of Lafayette to the United States 29
XIII. The Tariff, and American System 32
XIV. The A. B. Plot 34
XV. Amendment of the Constitution, in relation
to the Election of President and Vice-President 37
XVI. Internal Trade with New Mexico 41
XVII. Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections
in the Electoral Colleges 44
XVIII. Death of John Taylor, of Caroline 45
XIX. Presidential Election in the House of Representatives 46
XX. The Occupation of the Columbia 50
XXI. Commencement of Mr. Adams's Administration 54
XXII. Case of Mr. Lanman--Temporary Senatorial
Appointment from Connecticut 56
XXIII. Retiring of Mr. Rufus King 57
XXIV. Removal of the Creek Indians from Georgia 58
XXV. The Panama Mission 65
XXVI. Duel Between Mr. Clay and Mr. Randolph 70
XXVII. Death of Mr. Gaillard 77
XXVIII. Amendment of the Constitution, in relation
to the Election of President and Vice-President 78
XXIX. Reduction of Executive Patronage 80
XXX. Exclusion of Members of Congress from
Civil Office Appointments 82
XXXI. Death of the ex-Presidents, John Adams
and Thomas Jefferson 87
XXXII. British Indemnity for Deported Slaves 88
XXXIII. Meeting of the first Congress Elected under
the Administration of Mr. Adams 91
XXXIV. Revision of the Tariff 95
XXXV. The Public Lands--Their Proper Disposition--Graduated
Prices--Pre-emption
Rights--Donations to Settlers 102
XXXVI. Cession of a Part of the Territory of Arkansas
to the Cherokee Indians 107
XXXVII. Renewal of the Oregon Joint Occupation
Convention 109
XXXVIII. Presidential Election of 1828, and Further
Errors of Mons. de Tocqueville 111
XXXIX. Retiring and Death of Mr. Macon 114
XL. Commencement of General Jackson's Administration 119
XLI. First Message of General Jackson to the
two Houses of Congress 121
XLII. The recovery of the Direct Trade with the
British West India Islands 124
XLIII. Establishment of the _Globe_ Newspaper 128
XLIV. Limitation of Public Land Sales--Suspension
of Surveys--Abolition of the Office
of Surveyor General--Origin of the
United States Land System--Authorship
of the Anti-slavery Ordinance of
1778--Slavery Controversy--Protective
Tariff--Inception of the Doctrine of Nullification 130
XLV. Repeal of the Salt Tax 143
XLVI. Birthday of Mr. Jefferson, and the Doctrine
of Nullification 148
XLVII. Regulation of Commerce 149
XLVIII. Alum Salt--The Abolition of the Duty
upon it, and Repeal of the Fishing Bounty
and Allowances Founded on It 154
XLIX. Bank of the United States 158
L. Removals from Office 159
LI. Indian Sovereignties within the States 163
LII. Veto on the Maysville Road Bill 167
LIII. Rupture between President Jackson and
Vice-President Calhoun 167
LIV. Breaking up of the Cabinet, and Appointment
of another 180
LV. Military Academy 182
LVI. Bank of the United States--Non-renewal
of Charter 187
LVII. Error of De Tocqueville, in relation to the
House of Representatives 205
LVIII. The Twenty-second Congress 208
LIX. Rejection of Mr. Van Buren, Minister to
England 214
LX. Bank of the United States--Illegal, and
Vicious Currency 220
LXI. Error of Mons. de Tocqueville, in relation
to the Bank of the United States, the
President, and the People 224
LXII. Expenses of the Government 229
LXIII. Bank of the United States--Recharter--Commencement
of the Proceedings 232
LXIV. Bank of the United States--Committee
of Investigation Ordered 235
LXV. The Three per Cent. Debt, and Loss in
not Paying it when the Rate was Low,
and the Money in the Bank of the
United States without Interest 242
LXVI. Bank of the United States--Bill for the
Recharter Reported in the Senate, and
Passed that Body 243
LXVII. Bank of the United States--Bill for the
Renewed Charter Passed in the House
of Representatives 250
LXVIII. The Veto 251
LXXIX. The Protective System 265
LXX. Public Lands--Distribution to the States 275
LXXI. Settlement of French and Spanish Land
Claims 279
LXXII. "Effects of the Veto" 280
LXXIII. Presidential Election of 1832 282
LXXIV. First Annual Message of President Jackson,
after his Second Election 283
LXXV. Bank of The United States--Delay in
Paying the Three per Cents.--Committee
of Investigation 287
LXXVI. Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt 291
LXXVII. Sale of United States Stock in the National
Bank 294
LXXVIII. Nullification Ordinance in South Carolina 297
LXXIX. Proclamation against Nullification 299
LXXX. Message on the South Carolina Proceedings 303
LXXXI. Reduction of Duties--Mr. Verplanck's
Bill 308
LXXXII. Reduction of Duties--Mr. Clay's Bill 313
LXXXIII. Revenue Collection, or Force Bill 330
LXXXIV. Mr. Calhoun's Nullification Resolutions 334
LXXXV. Secret History of the "Compromise" of
1833 342
LXXXVI. Compromise Legislation; and the Act,
so called, of 1833 344
LXXXVII. Virginia resolutions of '98-'99--Disabused
of their South Carolina Interpretation--1.
Upon their Own Words--2.
Upon Contemporaneous Interpretation 347
LXXXVIII. Virginia Resolutions of 1798--Disabused
of Nullification by their Author 354
LXXXIX. The Author's own View of the Nature
of Our Government, as being a Union
in Contradistinction to a League--Presented
in a Subsequent Speech on Missouri
Resolutions 360
XC. Public Lands--Distribution of Proceeds 362
XCI. Commencement of the Twenty-third
Congress--The Members', and President's
Message 369
XCII. Removal of the Deposits from the Bank
of the United States 373
XCIII. Bank Proceedings, on Seeing the Decision
of the President, in relation to the
Removal of the Deposits 379
XCIV. Report of the Secretary of the Treasury
to Congress on the Removal of the Deposits 381
XCV. Nomination of Government Directors,
and their Rejection 385
XCVI. Secretary's Report on the Removal of
Deposits 393
XCVII. Call on the President for a Copy of the
"Paper Read to the Cabinet" 399
XCVIII. Mistakes of Public Men--Great Combination
against General Jackson--Commencement
of the Panic 400
XCIX. Mr. Clay's Speech against President Jackson
on the Removal of the Deposits--Extracts 402
C. Mr. Benton's Speech in Reply to Mr. Clay--Extracts 406
CI. Condemnation of President Jackson--Mr.
Calhoun's Speech--Extracts 411
CII. Public Distress 415
CIII. Senatorial Condemnation of President
Jackson--his Protest--Notice of the
Expunging Resolution 423
CIV. Mr. Webster's Plan of Relief 433
CV. Revival of the Gold Currency--Mr. Benton's
Speech 436
CVI. Attempted Investigation of the Bank of
the United States 458
CVII. Mr. Taney's Report on the Finances--Exposure
of the Distress Alarms--End of the Panic 462
CVIII. Revival of the Gold Currency 469
CIX. Rejection of Mr. Taney--Nominated for
Secretary of the Treasury 470
CX. Senatorial Investigation of the Bank of
the United States 470
CXI. Downfall of the Bank of the United States 471
CXII. Death of John Randolph, of Roanoake 473
CXIII. Death of Mr. Wirt 475
CXIV. Death of the last of the Signers of the
Declaration of Independence 476
CXV. Commencement of the Session, 1834-'35:
President's Message 477
CXVI. Report of the Bank Committee 481
CXVII. French Spoliations before 1800 487
CXVIII. French Spoliations--Speech of Mr.
Wright, of New-York 489
CXIX. French Spoliations--Mr. Webster's Speech 505
CXX. French Spoliations--Mr. Benton's Speech 514
CXXI. Attempted Assassination of President
Jackson 521
CXXII. Alabama Expunging Resolutions 524
CXXIII. The Expunging Resolution 528
CXXIV. Expunging Resolution: Rejected, and
Renewed 549
CXXV. Branch Mints at New Orleans, and in the
Gold Regions of Georgia and North
Carolina 550
CXXVI. Regulation Deposit Bill 553
CXXVII. Defeat of the Defence Appropriation, and
loss of the Fortification Bill 554
CXXVIII. Distribution of Revenue 556
CXXIX. Commencement of Twenty-Fourth Congress--
President's Message 568
CXXX. Abolition of Slavery in the District of
Columbia 576
CXXXI. Mail Circulation of Incendiary Publications 580
CXXXII. French Affairs--Approach at a French
Squadron--Apology Required 588
CXXXIII. French Indemnities--British Mediation--
Indemnities Paid 600
CXXXIV. President Jackson's Foreign Diplomacy 601
CXXXV. Slavery Agitation 609
CXXXVI. Removal of the Cherokees from Georgia 624
CXXXVII. Extension of the Missouri Boundary 626
CXXXVIII. Admission of the States of Arkansas and
Michigan into the Union 627
CXXXIX. Attempted Inquiry into the Military
Academy 638
CXL. Military Academy--Speech of Mr. Pierce 641
CXLI. Expunging Resolution--Peroration of
Senator Benton's Second Speech 645
CXLII. Distribution of the Land Revenue 649
CXLIII. Recharter of the District Banks--Speech
of Mr. Benton--The Parts of Local and
Temporary Interest Omitted 658
CXLIV. Independence of Texas 665
CXLV. Texas Independence--Mr. Benton's
Speech 670
CXLVI. The Specie Circular 676
CXLVII. Death of Mr. Madison, Fourth President
of the United States 678
CXLVIII. Death of Mr. Monroe, Fifth President of
the United States 679
CXLIX. Death of Chief Justice Marshall 681
CL. Death of Col. Burr, Third Vice-President
of the United States 681
CLI. Death of William B. Giles, of Virginia 682
CLII. Presidential Election of 1836 683
CLIII. Last Annual Message of President Jackson 684
CLIV. Final Removal of the Indians 690
CLV. Recision of the Treasury Circular 694
CLVI. Distribution of Lands and Money--Various
Propositions 707
CLVII. Military Academy--Its Riding House 712
CLVIII. Salt Tax--Mr. Benton's Fourth Speech 714
CLIX. Expunging Resolution--Preparation for
Decision 717
CLX. Expunging Resolution--Mr. Benton's
Third Speech 719
CLXI. Expunging Resolution--Mr. Clay, Mr.
Calhoun, Mr. Webster--Last Scene--Resolution
Passed and Executed 727
CLXII. The Supreme Court--Judges and Officers 731
CLXIII. Farewell Address of President Jackson--Extract 732
CLXIV. Conclusion of General Jackson's Administration 733
CLXV. Retiring and Death of General Jackson--
Administration of Martin Van Buren 735
PRELIMINARY VIEW.
FROM 1815 TO 1820
The war with Great Britain commenced in 1812 and ended in 1815. It
was a short war, but a necessary and important one, and introduced
several changes, and made some new points of departure in American
policy, which are necessary to be understood in order to understand
the subsequent working of the government, and the VIEW of that
working which is proposed to be given.
1. It struggled and labored under the state of the finances and
the currency, and terminated without any professed settlement of
the cause for which it began. There was no national currency--no
money, or its equivalent, which represented the same value in
all places. The first Bank of the United States had ceased to
exist in 1811. Gold, from being undervalued, had ceased to be a
currency--had become an article of merchandise, and of export--and
was carried to foreign countries. Silver had been banished by the
general use of bank notes, had been reduced to a small quantity,
insufficient for a public demand; and, besides, would have been
too cumbrous for a national currency. Local banks overspread the
land; and upon these the federal government, having lost the
currency of the constitution, was thrown for a currency and for
loans. They, unequal to the task, and having removed their own
foundations by banishing specie with profuse paper issues, sunk
under the double load of national and local wants, and stopped
specie payments--all except those of New England, which section
of the Union was unfavorable to the war. Treasury notes were then
the resort of the federal government. They were issued in great
quantities; and not being convertible into coin at the will of the
holder, soon began to depreciate. In the second year of the war
the depreciation had already become enormous, especially towards
the Canada frontier, where the war raged, and where money was most
wanted. An officer setting out from Washington with a supply of
these notes found them sunk one-third by the time he arrived at the
northern frontier--his every three dollars counting but two. After
all, the treasury notes could not be used as a currency, neither
legally, nor in fact: they could only be used to obtain local bank
paper--itself greatly depreciated. All government securities were
under par, even for depreciated bank notes. Loans were obtained with
great difficulty--at large discount--almost on the lender's own
terms; and still attainable only in depreciated local bank notes.
In less than three years the government, paralyzed by the state of
the finances, was forced to seek peace, and to make it, without
securing, by any treaty stipulation, the object for which war had
been declared. Impressment was the object--the main one, with the
insults and the outrages connected with it--and without which there
would have been no declaration of war. The treaty of peace did
not mention or allude to the subject--the first time, perhaps, in
modern history, in which a war was terminated by treaty without any
stipulation derived from its cause. Mr. Jefferson, in 1807, rejected
upon his own responsibility, without even its communication to the
Senate, the treaty of that year negotiated by Messrs. Monroe and
Pinkney, because it did not contain an express renunciation of the
practice of impressment--because it was silent on that point. It
was a treaty of great moment, settled many troublesome questions,
was very desirable for what it contained; but as it was silent on
the main point, it was rejected, without even a reference to the
Senate. Now we were in a like condition after a war. The war was
struggling for its own existence under the state of the finances,
and had to be stopped without securing by treaty the object for
which it was declared. The object was obtained, however, by the war
itself. It showed the British government that the people of the
United States would fight upon that point--that she would have war
again if she impressed again: and there has been no impressment
since. Near forty years without a case! when we were not as many
days, oftentimes, without cases before, and of the most insulting
and outrageous nature. The spirit and patriotism of the people
in furnishing the supplies, volunteering for the service, and
standing to the contest in the general wreck of the finances and
the currency, without regard to their own losses--and the heroic
courage of the army and navy, and of the militia and volunteers,
made the war successful and glorious in spite of empty treasuries;
and extorted from a proud empire that security in point of fact
which diplomacy could not obtain as a treaty stipulation. And it
was well. Since, and now, and henceforth, we hold exemption from
impressment as we hold our independence--by right, and by might--and
now want the treaty acknowledgment of no nation on either point.
But the glorious termination of the war did not cure the evil of a
ruined currency and defective finances, nor render less impressive
the financial lesson which it taught. A return to the currency of
the constitution--to the hard-money government which our fathers
gave us--no connection with banks--no bank paper for federal
uses--the establishment of an independent treasury for the federal
government; this was the financial lesson which the war taught.
The new generation into whose hands the working of the government
fell during the THIRTY YEARS, eventually availed themselves of
that lesson:--with what effect, the state of the country since,
unprecedentedly prosperous; the state of the currency, never
deranged; of the federal treasury, never polluted with "unavailable
funds," and constantly crammed to repletion with solid gold;
the issue of the Mexican war, carried on triumphantly without a
national bank, and with the public securities constantly above
par--sufficiently proclaim. No other tongue but these results is
necessary to show the value of that financial lesson, taught us by
the war of 1812.
2. The establishment of the second national bank grew out of
this war. The failure of the local banks was enough to prove the
necessity of a national currency, and the re-establishment of a
national bank was the accepted remedy. No one seemed to think of
the currency of the constitution--especially of that gold currency
upon which the business of the world had been carried on from the
beginning of the world, and by empires whose expenses for a week
were equal to those of the United States for a year, and which the
framers of the constitution had so carefully secured and guarded
for their country. A national bank was the only remedy thought of.
Its constitutionality was believed by some to have been vindicated
by the events of the war. Its expediency was generally admitted.
The whole argument turned upon the word "necessary," as used in the
grant of implied powers at the end of the enumeration of powers
expressly granted to Congress; and this _necessity_ was affirmed
and denied on each side at the time of the establishment of the
first national bank, with a firmness and steadiness which showed
that these fathers of the constitution knew that the whole field of
argument lay there. Washington's queries to his cabinet went to that
point; the close reasoning of Hamilton and Jefferson turned upon it.
And it is worthy of note, in order to show how much war has to do
with the working of government, and the trying of its powers, that
the strongest illustration used by General Hamilton, and the one,
perhaps, which turned the question in Washington's mind, was the
state of the Indian war in the Northwest, then just become a charge
upon the new federal government, and beginning to assume the serious
character which it afterward attained. To carry on war at that time,
with such Indians as were then, supported by the British traders,
themselves countenanced by their government, at such a distance in
the wilderness, and by the young federal government, was a severe
trial upon the finances of the federal treasury, as well as upon the
courage and discipline of the troops; and General Hamilton, the head
of the treasury, argued that with the aid of a national bank, the
war would be better and more successfully conducted: and, therefore,
that it was "_necessary_," and might be established as a means of
executing a granted power, to wit, the power of making war. That war
terminated well; and the bank having been established in the mean
time, got the credit of having furnished its "sinews." The war of
1812 languished under the state of the finances and the currency,
no national bank existing; and this want seemed to all to be the
cause of its difficulties, and to show the necessity for a bank.
The second national bank was then established--many of its old,
most able, and conscientious opponents giving in to it, Mr. Madison
at their head. Thus the question of a national bank again grew
up--grew up out of the events of the war--and was decided against
the strict construction of the constitution--to the weakening of a
principle which was fundamental in the working of the government,
and to the damage of the party which stood upon the doctrine of a
strict construction of the constitution. But in the course of the
"Thirty Years" of which it is proposed to take a "View," some of
the younger generation became impressed with the belief that the
constitutional currency had not had a fair trial in that war of
1812! that, in fact, it had had no trial at all! that it was not
even in the field! not even present at the time when it was supposed
to have failed! and that it was entitled to a trial before it was
condemned. That trial has been obtained. The second national bank
was left to expire upon its own limitation. The gold currency and
the independent treasury were established. The Mexican war tried
them. They triumphed. And thus a national bank was shown to be
"unnecessary," and therefore unconstitutional. And thus a great
question of constitutional construction, and of party division,
three times decided by the events of war, and twice against the
constitution and the strict constructionists, was decided the last
time in their favor; and is entitled to stand, being the last, and
the only one in which the constitutional currency had a trial.
3. The protection of American industry, as a substantive object,
independent of the object of revenue, was a third question growing
out of the war. Its incidental protection, under the revenue clause
in the constitution, had been always acknowledged, and granted; but
protection as a substantive object was a new question growing out
of the state of things produced by the war. Domestic manufactures
had taken root and grown up during the non-importation periods
of the embargo, and of hostilities with Great Britain, and under
the temporary double duties which ensued the war, and which were
laid for revenue. They had grown up to be a large interest, and a
new one, classing in importance after agriculture and commerce.
The want of articles necessary to national defence, and of others
essential to individual comfort--then neither imported nor made at
home--had been felt during the interruption of commerce occasioned
by the war; and the advantage of a domestic supply was brought home
to the conviction of the public mind. The question of protection
for the sake of protection was brought forward, and carried (in the
year 1816); and very unequivocally in the _minimum_ provision in
relation to duties on cotton goods. This reversed the old course of
legislation--made protection the object instead of the incident,
and revenue the incident instead of the object; and was another
instance of constitutional construction being made dependent, not
upon its own words but upon extrinsic, accidental and transient
circumstances. It introduced a new and a large question of
constitutional law, and of national expediency, fraught with many
and great consequences, which fell upon the period of the THIRTY
YEARS' VIEW to settle, or to grapple with.
4. The question of internal improvement within the States, by the
federal government, took a new and large development after the
war. The want of facilities of transportation had been felt in
our military operations. Roads were bad, and canals few; and the
question of their construction became a prominent topic in Congress
common turnpike roads--for railways had not then been invented,
nor had MacAdam yet given his name to the class of roads which has
since borne it. The power was claimed as an incident to the granted
powers--as a means of doing what was authorized--as a means of
accomplishing an end: and the word "necessary" at the end of the
enumerated powers, was the phrase in which this incidental power was
claimed to have been found. It was the same derivation which was
found for the creation of a national bank, and involved very nearly
the same division of parties. It greatly complicated the national
legislation from 1820 to 1850, bringing the two parts of our double
system of government--State and Federal--into serious disagreement,
and threatening to compromise their harmonious action. Grappled with
by a strong hand, it seemed at one time to have been settled, and
consistently with the rights of the States; but sometimes returns to
vex the deliberations of Congress. To territories the question did
not extend. They have no political rights under the constitution,
and are governed by Congress according to its discretion, under that
clause which authorizes it to "dispose of and make all needful rules
and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging
to the United States." The improvement of rivers and harbors, was
a branch of the internal improvement question, but resting on a
different clause in the constitution--the commercial and revenue
clause--and became complex and difficult from its extension to small
and local objects. The party of strict construction contend for its
restriction to national objects--rivers of national character, and
harbors yielding revenue.
5. The boundaries between the treaty-making and the legislative
departments of the government, became a subject of examination after
the war, and gave rise to questions deeply affecting the working
of these two departments. A treaty is the supreme law of the land,
and as such it becomes obligatory on the House of Representatives
to vote the money which it stipulates, and to co-operate in forming
the laws necessary to carry it into effect. That is the broad
proposition. The qualification is in the question whether the treaty
is confined to the business of the treaty-making power? to the
subjects which fall under its jurisdiction? and does not encroach
upon the legislative power of Congress? This is the qualification,
and a vital one: for if the President and Senate, by a treaty with
a foreign power, or a tribe of Indians, could exercise ordinary
legislation, and make it supreme, a double injury would have been
done, and to the prejudice of that branch of the government which
lies closest to the people, and emanates most directly from them.
Confinement to their separate jurisdictions is the duty of each; but
if encroachments take place, which is to judge? If the President and
Senate invade the legislative field of Congress, which is to judge?
or who is to judge between them? or is each to judge for itself?
The House of Representatives, and the Senate in its legislative
capacity, but especially the House, as the great constitutional
depository of the legislative power, becomes its natural guardian
and defender, and is entitled to deference, in the event of a
difference of opinion between the two branches of the government.
The discussions in Congress between 1815 and 1820 greatly elucidated
this question; and while leaving unimpugned the obligation of the
House to carry into effect a treaty duly made by the President and
Senate within the limits of the treaty making power--upon matters
subject to treaty regulation--yet it belongs to the House to judge
when these limits have been transcended, and to preserve inviolate
the field of legislation which the constitution has intrusted to the
immediate representatives of the people.
6. The doctrine of secession--the right of a State, or a combination
of States, to withdraw from the Union, was born of that war. It
was repugnant to the New England States, and opposed by them, not
with arms, but with argument and remonstrance, and refusal to vote
supplies. They had a convention, famous under the name of Hartford,
to which the design of secession was imputed. That design was never
avowed by the convention, or authentically admitted by any leading
member; nor is it the intent of this reference to decide upon the
fact of that design. The only intent is to show that the existence
of that convention raised the question of secession, and presented
the first instance of the greatest danger in the working of the
double form of our government--that of a collision between a part
of the States and the federal government. This question, and this
danger, first arose then--grew out of the war of 1812--and were
hushed by its sudden termination; but they have reappeared in a
different quarter, and will come in to swell the objects of the
THIRTY YEARS' VIEW. At the time of its first appearance the right of
secession was repulsed and repudiated by the democracy generally,
and in a large degree by the federal party--the difference between
a UNION and a LEAGUE being better understood at that time when so
many of the fathers of the new government were still alive. The
leading language in respect to it south of the Potomac was, that no
State had a right to withdraw from the Union--that it required the
same power to dissolve as to form the Union--and that any attempt
to dissolve it, or to obstruct the action of constitutional laws,
was treason. If, since that time, political parties and sectional
localities, have exchanged attitudes on this question, it cannot
alter the question of right, and may receive some interest from
the development of causes which produce such changes. Secession,
a question of speculation during the war of 1812, has become a
practical question (almost) during the THIRTY YEARS; and thus far
has been "compromised," not settled.
7. Slavery agitation took its rise during this time (1819-'20),
in the form of attempted restriction on the State of Missouri--a
prohibition to hold slaves, to be placed upon her as a condition of
her admission into the Union, and to be binding upon her afterwards.
This agitation came from the North, and under a federal lead,
and soon swept both parties into its vortex. It was quieted, so
far as that form of the question was concerned, by admitting the
State without restriction, and imposing it on the remainder of
the Louisiana territory north and west of that State, and above
the parallel of 36 degrees, 30 minutes; which is the prolongation
of the southern boundary line of Virginia and Kentucky. This was
called a "compromise," and was all clear gain to the antislavery
side of the question, and was done under the lead of the united
slave state vote in the Senate, the majority of that vote in the
House of Representatives, and the undivided sanction of a Southern
administration. It was a Southern measure, and divided free and
slave soil far more favorably to the North than the ordinance of
1787. That divided about equally: this of 1820 gave about all
to the North. It abolished slavery over an immense extent of
territory where it might then legally exist, over nearly the whole
of Louisiana, left it only in Florida and Arkansas territory,
and opened no new territory to its existence. It was an immense
concession to the non-slaveholding States; but the genius of slavery
agitation was not laid. It reappeared, and under different forms,
first from the North, in the shape of petitions to Congress to
influence legislation on the subject; then from the South, as a
means of exciting one half the Union against the other, and laying
the foundation for a Southern confederacy. With this new question,
in all its forms, the men of the new generation have had to grapple
for the whole period of the "Thirty Years."
8. The war had created a debt, which, added to a balance of that of
the Revolution, the purchase of Louisiana, and some other items,
still amounted to ninety-two millions of dollars at the period of
the commencement of this "View;" and the problem was to be solved,
whether a national debt could be paid and extinguished in a season
of peace, leaving a nation wholly free from that encumbrance;
or whether it was to go on increasing, a burthen in itself, and
absorbing with its interest and changes an annual portion of the
public revenues. That problem was solved, contrary to the experience
of the world, and the debt paid; and the practical benefit added to
the moral, of a corresponding reduction in the public taxes.
9. Public distress was a prominent feature of the times to be
embraced in this PRELIMINARY VIEW. The Bank of the United States
was chartered in 1816, and before 1820 had performed one of its
cycles of delusive and bubble prosperity, followed by actual and
wide-spread calamity. The whole paper system, of which it was
the head and the citadel, after a vast expansion, had suddenly
collapsed, spreading desolation over the land, and carrying ruin
to debtors. The years 1819 and '20 were a period of gloom and
agony. No money, either gold or silver: no paper convertible into
specie: no measure, or standard of value, left remaining. The local
banks (all but those of New England), after a brief resumption of
specie payments, again sank into a state of suspension. The Bank
of the United States, created as a remedy for all those evils, now
at the head of the evil, prostrate and helpless, with no power
left but that of suing its debtors, and selling their property,
and purchasing for itself at its own nominal price. No price
for property, or produce. No sales but those of the sheriff and
the marshal. No purchasers at execution sales but the creditor,
or some hoarder of money. No employment for industry--no demand
for labor--no sale for the product of the farm--no sound of the
hammer, but that of the auctioneer, knocking down property.
Stop laws--property laws--replevin laws--stay laws--loan office
laws--the intervention of the legislator between the creditor and
the debtor: this was the business of legislation in three-fourths
of the States of the Union--of all south and west of New England.
No medium of exchange but depreciated paper: no change even, but
little bits of foul paper, marked so many cents, and signed by some
tradesman, barber, or innkeeper: exchanges deranged to the extent
of fifty or one hundred per cent. DISTRESS, the universal cry of
the people: RELIEF, the universal demand thundered at the doors of
all legislatures, State and federal. It was at the moment when this
distress had reached its maximum--1820-'21--and had come with its
accumulated force upon the machine of the federal government, that
this "VIEW" of its working begins. It is a doleful starting point,
and may furnish great matter for contrast, or comparison, at its
concluding period in 1850.
Such were some of the questions growing out of the war of 1812,
or immediately ensuing its termination. That war brought some
difficulties to the new generation, but also great advantages, at
the head of them the elevation of the national character throughout
the world. It immensely elevated the national character, and, as a
consequence, put an end to insults and outrages to which we had
been subject. No more impressments: no more searching our ships:
no more killing: no more carrying off to be forced to serve on
British ships against their own country. The national flag became
respected. It became the Ægis of those who were under it. The
national character appeared in a new light abroad. We were no longer
considered as a people so addicted to commerce as to be insensible
to insult: and we reaped all the advantages, social, political,
commercial, of this auspicious change. It was a war necessary to the
honor and interest of the United States, and was bravely fought, and
honorably concluded, and makes a proud era in our history. I was
not in public life at the time it was declared, but have understood
from those who were, that, except for the exertions of two men (Mr.
Monroe in the Cabinet, and Mr. Clay in Congress), the declaration of
war could not have been obtained. Honor to their memories!
THIRTY YEARS' VIEW.
CHAPTER I.
PERSONAL ASPECT OF THE GOVERNMENT.
All the departments of the government appeared to great advantage
in the personal character of their administrators at the time of
my arrival as Senator at Washington. Mr. Monroe was President;
Governor Tompkins, Vice-President; Mr. John Quincy Adams, Secretary
of State; Mr. William H. Crawford, Secretary of the Treasury; Mr.
John C. Calhoun, Secretary at War; Mr. Smith Thompson, of New-York,
Secretary of the Navy; Mr. John McLean, Postmaster General; William
Wirt, Esq., Attorney General. These constituted the Executive
Department, and it would be difficult to find in any government,
in any country, at any time, more talent and experience, more
dignity and decorum, more purity of private life, a larger mass of
information, and more addiction to business, than was comprised
in this list of celebrated names. The legislative department was
equally impressive. The Senate presented a long list of eminent
men who had become known by their services in the federal or State
governments, and some of them connected with its earliest history.
From New-York there were Mr. Rufus King and Nathan Sanford; from
Massachusetts, Mr. Harrison Gray Otis; from North Carolina, Mr.
Macon and Governor Stokes; from Virginia, the two Governors,
James Barbour and James Pleasants; from South Carolina, Mr. John
Gaillard, so often and so long President, _pro tempore_, of the
Senate, and Judge William Smith; from Rhode Island, Mr. William
Hunter; from Kentucky, Colonel Richard M. Johnson; from Louisiana,
Mr. James Brown and Governor Henry Johnson; from Maryland, Mr.
William Pinkney and Governor Edward Lloyd from New Jersey, Mr.
Samuel L. Southard; Colonel John Williams, of Tennessee; William
R. King and Judge Walker, from Alabama; and many others of later
date, afterwards becoming eminent, and who will be noted in their
places. In the House of Representatives there was a great array
of distinguished and of business talent. Mr. Clay, Mr. Randolph,
Mr. Lowndes were there. Mr. Henry Baldwin and Mr. John Sergeant,
from Pennsylvania; Mr. John W. Taylor, Speaker, and Henry Storrs,
from New-York; Dr. Eustis, of revolutionary memory, and Nathaniel
Silsbee, of Massachusetts; Mr. Louis McLane, from Delaware; General
Samuel Smith, from Maryland; Mr. William S. Archer, Mr. Philip P.
Barbour, General John Floyd, General Alexander Smythe, Mr. John
Tyler, Charles Fenton Mercer, George Tucker, from Virginia; Mr.
Lewis Williams, who entered the House young, and remained long
enough to be called its "Father," Thomas H. Hall, Weldon N. Edwards,
Governor Hutchins G. Burton, from North Carolina; Governor Earle and
Mr. Charles Pinckney, from South Carolina; Mr. Thomas W. Cobb and
Governor George Gilmer, from Georgia; Messrs. Richard C. Anderson,
Jr., David Trimble, George Robertson, Benjamin Hardin, and Governor
Metcalfe, from Kentucky; Mr. John Rhea, of revolutionary service,
Governor Newton Cannon, Francis Jones, General John Cocke, from
Tennessee; Messrs. John W. Campbell, John Sloan and Henry Bush,
from Ohio; Mr. William Hendricks, from Indiana; Thomas Butler,
from Louisiana; Daniel P. Cook, from Illinois; John Crowell, from
Alabama; Mr. Christopher Rankin, from Mississippi; and a great
many other business men of worth and character from the different
States, constituting a national representation of great weight,
efficiency and decorum. The Supreme Court was still presided over
by Chief Justice Marshall, almost septuagenarian, and still in the
vigor of his intellect, associated with Mr. Justice Story, Mr.
Justice Johnson, of South Carolina, Mr. Justice Duval, and Mr.
Justice Washington, of Virginia. Thus all the departments, and all
the branches of the government, were ably and decorously filled, and
the friends of popular representative institutions might contemplate
their administration with pride and pleasure, and challenge their
comparison with any government in the world.
CHAPTER II.
ADMISSION OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI.
This was the exciting and agitating question of the session of
1820-'21. The question of restriction, that is, of prescribing the
abolition of slavery within her limits, had been "compromised" the
session before, by agreeing to admit the State without restriction,
and abolishing it in all the remainder of the province of Louisiana,
north and west of the State of Missouri, and north of the parallel
of 36 degrees, 30 minutes. This "compromise" was the work of the
South, sustained by the united voice of Mr. Monroe's cabinet, the
united voices of the Southern senators, and a majority of the
Southern representatives. The unanimity of the cabinet has been
shown, impliedly, by a letter of Mr. Monroe, and positively by
the Diary of Mr. John Quincy Adams. The unanimity of the slave
States in the Senate, where the measure originated, is shown by its
journal, not on the motion to insert the section constituting the
compromise (for on that motion the yeas and nays were not taken),
but on the motion to strike it out, when they were taken, and
showed 30 votes for the compromise, and 15 against it--every one of
the latter from non-slaveholding States--the former comprehending
every slave State vote present, and a few from the North. As the
constitutionality of this compromise, and its binding force, have,
in these latter times, begun to be disputed, it is well to give
the list of the senators names voting for it, that it may be seen
that they were men of judgment and weight, able to know what the
constitution was, and not apt to violate it. They were Governor
Barbour and Governor Pleasants, of Virginia; Mr. James Brown and
Governor Henry Johnson, of Louisiana; Governor Edwards and Judge
Jesse B. Thomas, of Illinois; Mr. Elliott and Mr. Walker, of
Georgia; Mr. Gaillard, President, _pro tempore_, of the Senate and
Judge William Smith, from South Carolina; Messrs. Horsey and Van
Dyke, of Delaware; Colonel Richard M. Johnson and Judge Logan, from
Kentucky; Mr. William R. King, since Vice-President of the United
States, and Judge John W. Walker, from Alabama; Messrs. Leake and
Thomas H. Williams, of Mississippi; Governor Edward Lloyd, and the
great jurist and orator, William Pinkney, from Maryland; Mr. Macon
and Governor Stokes, from North Carolina; Messrs. Walter Lowrie and
Jonathan Roberts, from Pennsylvania; Mr. Noble and Judge Taylor,
from Indiana; Mr. Palmer, from Vermont; Mr. Parrott, from New
Hampshire. This was the vote of the Senate for the compromise. In
the House, there was some division among Southern members; but the
whole vote in favor of it was 134, to 42 in the negative--the latter
comprising some Northern members, as the former did a majority
of the Southern--among them one whose opinion had a weight never
exceeded by that of any other American statesman, William Lowndes,
of South Carolina. This array of names shows the Missouri compromise
to have been a Southern measure, and the event put the seal upon
that character by showing it to be acceptable to the South. But
it had not allayed the Northern feeling against an increase of
slave States, then openly avowed to be a question of political
power between the two sections of the Union. The State of Missouri
made her constitution, sanctioning slavery, and forbidding the
legislature to interfere with it. This prohibition, not usual in
State constitutions, was the effect of the Missouri controversy
and of foreign interference, and was adopted for the sake of
peace--for the sake of internal tranquillity--and to prevent the
agitation of the slave question, which could only be accomplished
by excluding it wholly from the forum of elections and legislation.
I was myself the instigator of that prohibition, and the cause
of its being put into the constitution--though not a member of
the convention--being equally opposed to slavery agitation and to
slavery extension. There was also a clause in it, authorizing the
legislature to prohibit the emigration of free people of color
into the State; and this clause was laid hold of in Congress to
resist the admission of the State. It was treated as a breach of
that clause in the federal constitution, which guarantees equal
privileges in all the States to the citizens of every State, of
which privileges the right of emigration was one; and free people
of color being admitted to citizenship in some of the States,
this prohibition of emigration was held to be a violation of that
privilege in their persons. But the real point of objection was the
slavery clause, and the existence of slavery in the State, which
it sanctioned, and seemed to perpetuate. The constitution of the
State, and her application for admission, was presented by her
late delegate and representative elect, Mr. John Scott; and on his
motion, was referred to a select committee. Mr. Lowndes, of South
Carolina, Mr. John Sergeant, of Pennsylvania, and General Samuel
Smith, of Maryland, were appointed the committee; and the majority
being from slave States, a resolution was quickly reported in favor
of the admission of the State. But the majority of the House being
the other way, the resolution was rejected, 79 to 83--and by a clear
slavery and anti-slavery vote, the exceptions being but three, and
they on the side of admission, and contrary to the sentiment of
their own State. They were Mr. Henry Shaw, of Massachusetts, and
General Bloomfield and Mr. Bernard Smith, of New-Jersey. In the
Senate, the application of the State shared a similar fate. The
constitution was referred to a committee of three, Messrs. Judge
William Smith, of South Carolina, Mr. James Burrill, of Rhode
Island, and Mr. Macon, of North Carolina, a majority of whom being
from slave States, a resolution of admission was reported, and
passed the Senate--Messrs. Chandler and Holmes, of Maine, voting
with the friends of admission; but was rejected in the House of
Representatives. A second resolution to the same effect passed the
Senate, and was again rejected in the House. A motion was then made
in the House by Mr. Clay to raise a committee to act jointly with
any committee which might be appointed by the Senate, "to consider
and report to the Senate and the House respectively, whether it be
expedient or not, to make provision for the admission of Missouri
into the Union on the same footing as the original States, and
for the due execution of the laws of the United States within
Missouri? and if not, whether any other, and what provision adapted
to her actual condition ought to be made by law." This motion
was adopted by a majority of nearly two to one--101 to 55--which
shows a large vote in its favor from the non-slaveholding States.
Twenty-three, being a number equal to the number of the States, were
then appointed on the part of the House, and were: Messrs. Clay,
Thomas W. Cobb, of Georgia; Mark Langdon Hill, of Massachusetts;
Philip P. Barbour, of Virginia; Henry R. Storrs, of New-York; John
Cocke, of Tennessee; Christopher Rankin, of Mississippi; William
S. Archer, of Virginia; William Brown, of Kentucky; Samuel Eddy,
from Rhode Island; William D. Ford, of New-York; William Culbreth,
Aaron Hackley, of New-York; Samuel Moore, of Pennsylvania; James
Stevens, of Connecticut; Thomas J. Rogers, from Pennsylvania; Henry
Southard, of New-Jersey; John Randolph; James S. Smith, of North
Carolina; William Darlington, of Pennsylvania; Nathaniel Pitcher, of
New-York; John Sloan, of Ohio, and Henry Baldwin, of Pennsylvania.
The Senate by a vote almost unanimous--29 to 7--agreed to the joint
committee proposed by the House of Representatives; and Messrs. John
Holmes, of Maine; James Barbour, of Virginia; Jonathan Roberts,
of Pennsylvania; David L. Morril, of New-Hampshire; Samuel L.
Southard, of New-Jersey; Colonel Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky;
and Rufus King, of New-York, to be a committee on its part. The
joint committee acted, and soon reported a resolution in favor of
the admission of the State, upon the condition that her legislature
should first declare that the clause in her constitution relative
to the free colored emigration into the State, should never be
construed to authorize the passage of any act by which any citizen
of either of the States of the Union should be excluded from the
enjoyment of any privilege to which he may be entitled under
the constitution of the United States; and the President of the
United States being furnished with a copy of said act, should, by
proclamation, declare the State to be admitted. This resolution was
passed in the House by a close vote--86 to 82--several members from
non-slaveholding States voting for it. In the Senate it was passed
by two to one--28 to 14; and the required declaration having been
soon made by the General Assembly of Missouri, and communicated to
the President, his proclamation was issued accordingly, and the
State admitted. And thus ended the "Missouri controversy," or that
form of the slavery question which undertook to restrict a State
from the privilege of having slaves if she chose. The question
itself, under other forms, has survived, and still survives, but not
under the formidable aspect which it wore during that controversy,
when it divided Congress geographically, and upon the slave line.
The real struggle was political, and for the balance of power, as
frankly declared by Mr. Rufus King, who disdained dissimulation; and
in that struggle the non-slaveholding States, though defeated in the
State of Missouri, were successful in producing the "compromise,"
conceived and passed as a Southern measure. The resistance made to
the admission of the State on account of the clause in relation
to free people of color, was only a mask to the real cause of
opposition, and has since shown to be so by the facility with
which many States, then voting in a body against the admission
of Missouri on that account, now exclude the whole class of the
free colored emigrant population from their borders, and without
question, by statute, or by constitutional amendment. For a while
this formidable Missouri question threatened the total overthrow
of all political parties upon principle, and the substitution of
geographical parties discriminated by the slave line, and of course
destroying the just and proper action of the federal government, and
leading eventually to a separation of the States. It was a federal
movement, accruing to the benefit of that party, and at first was
overwhelming, sweeping all the Northern democracy into its current,
and giving the supremacy to their adversaries. When this effect was
perceived the Northern democracy became alarmed, and only wanted a
turn or abatement in the popular feeling at home, to take the first
opportunity to get rid of the question by admitting the State, and
re-establishing party lines upon the basis of political principle.
This was the decided feeling when I arrived at Washington, and many
of the old Northern democracy took early opportunities to declare
themselves to me to that effect, and showed that they were ready
to vote the admission of the State in any form which would answer
the purpose, and save themselves from going so far as to lose their
own States, and give the ascendant to their political adversaries.
In the Senate, Messrs. Lowrie and Roberts, from Pennsylvania;
Messrs. Morril and Parrott, from New-Hampshire; Messrs. Chandler and
Holmes, from Maine; Mr. William Hunter, from Rhode Island; and Mr.
Southard, from New-Jersey, were of that class; and I cannot refrain
from classing with them Messrs. Horsey and Vandyke, from Delaware,
which, though counted as a slave State, yet from its isolated and
salient position, and small number of slaves, seems more justly to
belong to the other side. In the House the vote of nearly two to
one in favor of Mr. Clay's resolution for a joint committee, and
his being allowed to make out his own list of the House committee
(for it was well known that he drew up the list of names himself,
and distributed it through the House to be voted), sufficiently
attest the temper of that body, and showed the determination of the
great majority to have the question settled. Mr. Clay has been often
complimented as the author of the "compromise" of 1820, in spite of
his repeated declaration to the contrary, that measure coming from
the Senate; but he is the undisputed author of the final settlement
of the Missouri controversy in the actual admission of the State.
He had many valuable coadjutors from the North--Baldwin, of
Pennsylvania; Storrs and Meigs, of New-York; Shaw, of Massachusetts:
and he had also some opponents from the South--members refusing to
vote for the "conditional" admission of the State, holding her to
be entitled to absolute admission--among them Mr. Randolph. I have
been minute in stating this controversy, and its settlement, deeming
it advantageous to the public interest that history and posterity
should see it in the proper point of view; and that it was a
political movement for the balance of power, balked by the Northern
democracy, who saw their own overthrow, and the eventual separation
of the States, in the establishment of geographical parties divided
by a slavery and anti-slavery line.
CHAPTER III.
FINANCES.--REDUCTION OF THE ARMY.
The distress of the country became that of the government. Small as
the government expenditure then was, only about twenty-one millions
of dollars (including eleven millions for permanent or incidental
objects), it was still too great for the revenues of the government
at this disastrous period. Reductions of expense, and loans, became
the resort, and economy--that virtuous policy in all times--became
the obligatory and the forced policy of this time. The small regular
army was the first, and the largest object on which the reduction
fell. Small as it was, it was reduced nearly one-half--from 10,000
to 6,000 men. The navy felt it next--the annual appropriation of
one million for its increase being reduced to half a million. The
construction and armament of fortifications underwent the like
process. Reductions of expense took place at many other points,
and even the abolition of a clerkship of $800 in the office of the
Attorney General, was not deemed an object below the economical
attention of Congress. After all a loan became indispensable, and
the President was authorized to borrow five millions of dollars.
The sum of twenty-one millions then to be raised for the service
of the government, small as it now appears, was more than double
the amount required for the actual expenses of the government--for
the actual expense of its administration, or the working its
machinery. More than half went to permanent or incidental objects,
to wit: principal and interest of the public debt, five and a half
millions; gradual increase of the navy, one million; pensions, one
and a half millions; fortifications, $800,000; arms, munitions,
ordnance, and other small items, about two millions; making in the
whole about eleven millions, and leaving for the expense of keeping
the machinery of government in operation, about ten millions of
dollars; and which was reduced to less than nine millions after
the reductions of this year were effected. A sum of one million of
dollars, over and above the estimated expenditure of the government,
was always deemed necessary to be provided and left in the treasury
to meet contingencies--a sum which, though small in itself, was
absolutely unnecessary for that purpose, and the necessity for
which was founded in the mistaken idea that the government expends
every year, within the year, the amount of its income. This is
entirely fallacious, and never did and never can take place; for
a large portion of the government payments accruing within the
latter quarters of any year are not paid until the next year. And
so on in every quarter of every year. The sums becoming payable in
each quarter being in many instances, and from the nature of the
service, only paid in the next quarter, while new revenue is coming
in. This process regularly going on always leaves a balance in the
treasury at the end of the year, not called for until the beginning
of the next year, and when there is a receipt of money to meet the
demand, even if there had been no balance in hand. Thus, at the end
of the year 1820, one of the greatest depression, and when demands
pressed most rapidly upon the treasury, there was a balance of above
two millions of dollars in the treasury--to be precise, $2,076,607
14, being one-tenth of the annual revenue. In prosperous years the
balance is still larger, sometimes amounting to the fourth, or
the fifth of the annual revenue; as may be seen in the successive
annual reports of the finances. There is, therefore, no necessity to
provide for keeping any balance as a reserve in the treasury, though
in later times this provision has been carried up to six millions--a
mistake which economy, the science of administration, and the purity
of the government, requires to be corrected.
CHAPTER IV.
RELIEF OF PUBLIC LAND DEBTORS.
Distress was the cry of the day; relief the general demand. State
legislatures were occupied in devising measures of local relief;
Congress in granting it to national debtors. Among these was the
great and prominent class of the public land purchasers. The
credit system then prevailed, and the debt to the government had
accumulated to twenty-three millions of dollars--a large sum in
itself, but enormous when considered in reference to the payors,
only a small proportion of the population, and they chiefly the
inhabitants of the new States and territories, whose resources
were few. Their situation was deplorable. A heavy debt to pay, and
lands already partly paid for to be forfeited if full payment was
not made. The system was this: the land was sold at a minimum price
of two dollars per acre, one payment in hand and the remainder in
four annual instalments, with forfeiture of all that had been paid
if each successive instalment was not delivered to the day. In the
eagerness to procure fresh lands, and stimulated by the delusive
prosperity which multitudes of banks created after the war, there
was no limit to purchasers except in the ability to make the
first payment. That being accomplished, it was left to the future
to provide for the remainder. The banks failed; money vanished;
instalments were becoming due which could not be met; and the
opening of Congress in November, 1820, was saluted by the arrival
of memorials from all the new States, showing the distress, and
praying relief to the purchasers of the public lands. The President,
in his annual message to Congress, deemed it his duty to bring the
subject before that body, and in doing so recommended indulgence in
consideration of the unfavorable change which had occurred since
the sales. Both Houses of Congress took up the subject, and a
measure of relief was devised by the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr.
Crawford, which was equally desirable both to the purchaser and the
government. The principle of the relief was to change all future
sales from the credit to the cash system, and to reduce the minimum
price of the lands to one dollar, twenty-five cents per acre, and
to give all present debtors the benefit of that system, by allowing
them to consolidate payments already made on different tracts on
any particular one, relinquishing the rest; and allowing a discount
for ready pay on all that had been entered, equal to the difference
between the former and present minimum price. This released the
purchasers from debt, and the government from the inconvenient
relation of creditor to its own citizens. A debt of twenty-three
millions of dollars was quietly got rid of; and purchasers were
enabled to save lands, at the reduced price, to the amount of their
payments already made: and thus saved in all cases their homes and
fields, and as much more of their purchases as they were able to
pay for at the reduced rate. It was an equitable arrangement of a
difficult subject, and lacked but two features to make it perfect;
_first_, a pre-emptive right to all first settlers; and, _secondly_,
a periodical reduction of price according to the length of time
the land should have been in market, so as to allow of different
prices for different qualities, and to accomplish in a reasonable
time the sale of the whole. Applications were made at that time for
the establishment of the pre-emptive system; but without effect,
and, apparently without the prospect of eventual success. Not
even a report of a committee could be got in its favor--nothing
more than temporary provisions, as special favors, in particular
circumstances. But perseverance was successful. The new States
continued to press the question, and finally prevailed; and now the
pre-emptive principle has become a fixed part of our land system,
permanently incorporated with it, and to the equal advantage of the
settler and the government. The settler gets a choice home in a new
country, due to his enterprise, courage, hardships and privations in
subduing the wilderness: the government gets a body of cultivators
whose labor gives value to the surrounding public lands, and whose
courage and patriotism volunteers for the public defence whenever
it is necessary. The second, or graduation principle, though much
pressed, has not yet been established, but its justice and policy
are self-evident, and the exertions to procure it should not be
intermitted until successful. The passage of this land relief bill
was attended by incidents which showed the delicacy of members at
that time, in voting on questions in which they might be interested.
Many members of Congress were among the public land debtors, and
entitled to the relief to be granted. One of their number, Senator
William Smith, from South Carolina, brought the point before the
Senate on a motion to be excused from voting on account of his
interest. The motion to excuse was rejected, on the ground that
his interest was general, in common with the country, and not
particular, in relation to himself: and that his constituents were
entitled to the benefit of his vote.
CHAPTER V.
OREGON TERRITORY.
The session of 1820-21 is remarkable as being the first at which any
proposition was made in Congress for the occupation and settlement
of our territory on the Columbia River--the only part then owned by
the United States on the Pacific coast. It was made by Dr. Floyd, a
representative from Virginia, an ardent man, of great ability, and
decision of character, and, from an early residence in Kentucky,
strongly imbued with western feelings. He took up this subject
with the energy which belonged to him, and it required not only
energy, but courage, to embrace a subject which, at that time,
seemed more likely to bring ridicule than credit to its advocate.
I had written and published some essays on the subject the year
before, which he had read. Two gentlemen (Mr. Ramsay Crooks, of
New-York, and Mr. Russell Farnham, of Massachusetts), who had been
in the employment of Mr. John Jacob Astor in founding his colony
of Astoria, and carrying on the fur trade on the northwest coast
of America, were at Washington that winter, and had their quarters
at the same hotel (Brown's), where Dr. Floyd and I had ours. Their
acquaintance was naturally made by Western men like us--in fact,
I knew them before; and their conversation, rich in information
upon a new and interesting country, was eagerly devoured by the
ardent spirit of Floyd. He resolved to bring forward the question
of occupation, and did so. He moved for a select committee to
consider and report upon the subject. The committee was granted by
the House, more through courtesy to a respected member, than with
any view to business results. It was a committee of three, himself
chairman, according to parliamentary rule, and Thomas Metcalfe, of
Kentucky (since Governor of the State), and Thomas V. Swearingen,
from Western Virginia, for his associates--both like himself ardent
men, and strong in western feeling. They reported a bill within six
days after the committee was raised, "to authorize the occupation
of the Columbia River, and to regulate trade and intercourse with
the Indian tribes thereon," accompanied by an elaborate report,
replete with valuable statistics, in support of the measure. The
fur trade, the Asiatic trade, and the preservation of our own
territory, were the advantages proposed. The bill was treated with
the parliamentary courtesy which respect for the committee required:
it was read twice, and committed to a committee of the whole House
for the next day--most of the members not considering it a serious
proceeding. Nothing further was done in the House that session, but
the first blow was struck: public attention was awakened, and the
geographical, historical, and statistical facts set forth in the
report, made a lodgment in the public mind which promised eventual
favorable consideration. I had not been admitted to my seat in the
Senate at the time, but was soon after, and quickly came to the
support of Dr. Floyd's measure (who continued to pursue it with zeal
and ability); and at a subsequent session presented some views on
the subject which will bear reproduction at this time. The danger
of a contest with Great Britain, to whom we had admitted a joint
possession, and who had already taken possession, was strongly
suggested, if we delayed longer our own occupation; "and a vigorous
effort of policy, and perhaps of arms, might be necessary to break
her hold." Unauthorized, or individual occupation was intimated as
a consequence of government neglect, and what has since taken place
was foreshadowed in this sentence: "mere adventurers may enter
upon it, as Æneas entered upon the Tiber, and as our forefathers
came upon the Potomac, the Delaware and the Hudson, and renew the
phenomenon of individuals laying the foundation of a future empire."
The effect upon Asia of the arrival of an American population on the
coast of the Pacific Ocean was thus exhibited: "Upon the people of
Eastern Asia the establishment of a civilized power on the opposite
coast of America, could not fail to produce great and wonderful
benefits. Science, liberal principles in government, and the true
religion, might cast their lights across the intervening sea. The
valley of the Columbia might become the granary of China and Japan,
and an outlet to their imprisoned and exuberant population. The
inhabitants of the oldest and the newest, the most despotic and the
freest governments, would become the neighbors, and the friends
of each other. To my mind the proposition is clear, that Eastern
Asia and the two Americas, as they become neighbors should become
friends and I for one had as lief see American ministers going to
the emperors of China and Japan, to the king of Persia, and even
to the Grand Turk, as to see them dancing attendance upon those
European legitimates who hold every thing American in contempt and
detestation." Thus I spoke; and this I believe was the first time
that a suggestion for sending ministers to the Oriental nations was
publicly made in the United States. It was then a "wild" suggestion:
it is now history. Besides the preservation of our own territory
on the Pacific, the establishment of a port there for the shelter
of our commercial and military marine, the protection of the fur
trade and aid to the whaling vessels, the accomplishment of Mr.
Jefferson's idea of a commercial communication with Asia through
the heart of our own continent, was constantly insisted upon as
a consequence of planting an American colony at the mouth of the
Columbia. That man of large and useful ideas--that statesman who
could conceive measures useful to all mankind, and in all time to
come--was the first to propose that commercial communication, and
may also be considered the first discoverer of the Columbia River.
His philosophic mind told him that where a snow-clad mountain,
like that of the Rocky Mountains, shed the waters on one side
which collected into such a river as the Missouri, there must be a
corresponding shedding and collection of waters on the other; and
thus he was perfectly assured of the existence of a river where
the Columbia has since been found to be, although no navigator had
seen its mouth and no explorer trod its banks. His conviction was
complete; but the idea was too grand and useful to be permitted to
rest in speculation. He was then minister to France, and the famous
traveller Ledyard, having arrived at Paris on his expedition of
discovery to the Nile, was prevailed upon by Mr. Jefferson to enter
upon a fresher and more useful field of discovery. He proposed
to him to change his theatre from the Old to the New World, and,
proceeding to St. Petersburg upon a passport he would obtain for
him, he should there obtain permission from the Empress Catharine
to traverse her dominions in a high northern latitude to their
eastern extremity--cross the sea from Kamschatka, or at Behring's
Straits, and descending the northwest coast of America, come down
upon the river which must head opposite the head of the Missouri,
ascend it to its source in the Rocky Mountains, and then follow the
Missouri to the French settlements on the Upper Mississippi; and
thence home. It was a magnificent and a daring project of discovery,
and on that account the more captivating to the ardent spirit of
Ledyard. He undertook it--went to St. Petersburg--received the
permission of the Empress--and had arrived in Siberia when he was
overtaken by a revocation of the permission, and conducted as a
spy out of the country. He then returned to Paris, and resumed his
original design of that exploration of the Nile to its sources which
terminated in his premature death, and deprived the world of a young
and adventurous explorer, from whose ardour, courage, perseverance
and genius, great and useful results were to have been expected.
Mr. Jefferson was balked in that, his first attempt, to establish
the existence of the Columbia River. But a time was coming for
him to undertake it under better auspices. He became President of
the United States, and in that character projected the expedition
of Lewis and Clark, obtained the sanction of Congress, and sent
them forth to discover the head and course of the river (whose
mouth was then known), for the double purpose of opening an inland
commercial communication with Asia, and enlarging the boundaries of
geographical science. The commercial object was placed first in his
message, and as the object to legitimate the expedition. And thus
Mr. Jefferson was the first to propose the North American road to
India, and the introduction of Asiatic trade on that road; and all
that I myself have either said or written on that subject from the
year 1819, when I first took it up, down to the present day when I
still contend for it, is nothing but the fruit of the seed planted
in my mind by the philosophic hand of Mr. Jefferson. Honor to all
those who shall assist in accomplishing his great idea.
CHAPTER VI.
FLORIDA TREATY AND CESSION OF TEXAS.
I was a member of the bar at St. Louis, in the then territory of
Missouri, in the year 1818, when the Washington City newspapers
made known the progress of that treaty with Spain, which was signed
on the 22d day of February following, and which, in acquiring
Florida, gave away Texas. I was shocked at it--at the cession of
Texas, and the new boundaries proposed for the United States on
the southwest. The acquisition of Florida was a desirable object,
long sought, and sure to be obtained in the progress of events;
but the new boundaries, besides cutting off Texas, dismembered the
valley of the Mississippi, mutilated two of its noblest rivers,
brought a foreign dominion (and it non-slave-holding), to the
neighborhood of New Orleans, and established a wilderness barrier
between Missouri and New Mexico--to interrupt their trade, separate
their inhabitants, and shelter the wild Indian depredators upon
the lives and property of all who undertook to pass from one to
the other. I was not then in politics, and had nothing to do with
political affairs; but I saw at once the whole evil of this great
sacrifice, and instantly raised my voice against it in articles
published in the St. Louis newspapers, and in which were given, in
advance, all the national reasons against giving away the country,
which were afterwards, and by so many tongues, and at the expense of
war and a hundred millions, given to get it back. I denounced the
treaty, and attacked its authors and their motives, and imprecated
a woe on the heads of those who should continue to favor it.
"The magnificent valley of the Mississippi is ours, with all its
fountains, springs and floods; and woe to the statesman who shall
undertake to surrender one drop of its water, one inch of its soil,
to any foreign power." In these terms I spoke, and in this spirit I
wrote, before the treaty was even ratified. Mr. John Quincy Adams,
the Secretary of State, negotiator and ostensible author of the
treaty, was the statesman against whom my censure was directed,
and I was certainly sincere in my belief of his great culpability.
But the declaration which he afterwards made on the floor of the
House, absolved him from censure on account of that treaty, and
placed the blame on the majority in Mr. Monroe's cabinet, southern
men, by whose vote he had been governed in ceding Texas and fixing
the boundary which I so much condemned. After this authoritative
declaration, I made, in my place in the Senate, the honorable amends
to Mr. Adams, which was equally due to him and to myself. The
treaty was signed on the anniversary of the birth-day of Washington,
and sent to the Senate the same day, and unanimously ratified on
the next day, with the general approbation of the country, and the
warm applause of the newspaper press. This unanimity of the Senate,
and applause of the press, made no impression upon me. I continued
to assail the treaty and its authors, and the more bitterly,
because the official correspondence, when published, showed that
this great sacrifice of territory, rivers, and proper boundaries,
was all gratuitous and voluntary on our part--"_that the Spanish
government had offered us more than we accepted_;" and that it was
our policy, and not hers, which had deprived us of Texas and the
large country, in addition to Texas, which lay between the Red River
and Upper Arkansas. This was an enigma, the solution of which, in
my mind, strongly connected itself with the Missouri controversy
then raging (1819) with its greatest violence, threatening existing
political parties with subversion, and the Union with dissolution.
My mind went there--to that controversy--for the solution, but with
a misdirection of its application. I blamed the northern men in Mr.
Monroe's cabinet: the private papers of General Jackson, which have
come to my hands, enable me to correct that error, and give me an
inside view of that which I could only see on the outside before.
In a private letter from Mr. Monroe to General Jackson, dated at
Washington, May 22d, 1820--more than one year after the negotiation
of the treaty, written to justify it, and evidently called out by
Mr. Clay's attack upon it--are these passages: "Having long known
the repugnance with which the eastern portion of our Union, or
rather some of those who have enjoyed its confidence (for I do not
think that the people themselves have any interest or wish of that
kind), have seen its aggrandizement to the West and South, I have
been decidedly of opinion that we ought to be content with Florida
for the present, and until the public opinion in that quarter shall
be reconciled to any further change. I mention these circumstances
to show you that our difficulties are not with Spain alone, but are
likewise internal, proceeding from various causes, which certain men
are prompt to seize and turn to the account of their own ambitious
views." This paragraph from Mr. Monroe's letter lifts the curtain
which concealed the secret reason for ceding Texas--that secret
which explains what was incomprehensible--our having refused to
accept as much as Spain had offered. Internal difficulties, it was
thus shown, had induced that refusal; and these difficulties grew
out of the repugnance of leading men in the northeast to see the
further aggrandizement of the Union upon the South and West. This
repugnance was then taking an operative form in the shape of the
Missouri controversy; and, as an immediate consequence, threatened
the subversion of political party lines, and the introduction of the
slavery question into the federal elections and legislation, and
bringing into the highest of those elections--those of President
and Vice-President--a test which no southern candidate could stand.
The repugnance in the northeast was not merely to territorial
aggrandizement in the southwest, but to the consequent extension
of slavery in that quarter; and to allay that repugnance, and to
prevent the slavery extension question from becoming a test in the
presidential election, was the true reason for giving away Texas,
and the true solution of the enigma involved in the strange refusal
to accept as much as Spain offered. The treaty was disapproved
by Mr. Jefferson, to whom a similar letter was written to that
sent to General Jackson, and for the same purpose--to obtain his
approbation; but he who had acquired Louisiana, and justly gloried
in the act, could not bear to see that noble province mutilated,
and returned his dissent to the act, and his condemnation of the
policy on which it was done. General Jackson had yielded to the
arguments of Mr. Monroe, and consented to the cession of Texas as a
temporary measure. The words of his answer to Mr. Monroe's letter
were: "I am clearly of your opinion, that, for the present, we ought
to be contented with the Floridas." But Mr. Jefferson would yield
to no temporary views of policy, and remained inflexibly opposed to
the treaty; and in this he was consistent with his own conduct in
similar circumstances. Sixteen years before, he had been in the same
circumstances--at the time of the acquisition of Louisiana--when he
had the same repugnance to southwestern aggrandizement to contend
with, and the same bait (Florida) to tempt him. Then eastern men
raised the same objections; and as early as August 1803--only
four months after the purchase of Louisiana--he wrote to Dr.
Breckenridge: "Objections are raising to the eastward to the vast
extent of our boundaries, and propositions are made to exchange
Louisiana, or a part of it, for the Floridas; but as I have said,
we shall get the Floridas without; and I would not give one inch
of the waters of the Mississippi to any foreign nation." So that
Mr. Jefferson, neither in 1803 nor in 1819, would have mutilated
Louisiana to obtain the cession of Florida, which he knew would be
obtained without that mutilation; nor would he have yielded to the
threatening discontent in the east. I have a gratification that,
without knowing it, and at a thousand miles from him, I took the
same ground that Mr. Jefferson stood on, and even used his own
words: "Not an inch of the waters of the Mississippi to any nation."
But I was mortified at the time, that not a paper in the United
States backed my essays. It was my first experience in standing
"solitary and alone;" but I stood it without flinching, and even
incurred the imputation of being opposed to the administration--had
to encounter that objection in my first election to the Senate,
and was even viewed as an opponent by Mr. Monroe himself, when I
first came to Washington. He had reason to know before his office
expired, and still more after it expired, that no one (of the young
generation) had a more exalted opinion of his honesty, patriotism,
firmness and general soundness of judgment; or would be more ready,
whenever the occasion permitted, to do justice to his long and
illustrious career of public service. The treaty, as I have said,
was promptly and unanimously ratified by the American Senate; not so
on the part of Spain. She hesitated, delayed, procrastinated; and
finally suffered the time limited for the exchange of ratifications
to expire, with out having gone through that indispensable
formality. Of course this put an end to the treaty, unless it
could be revived; and, thereupon, new negotiations and vehement
expostulations against the conduct which refused to ratify a treaty
negotiated upon full powers and in conformity to instructions. It
was in the course of this renewed negotiation, and of these warm
expostulations, that Mr. Adams used the strong expressions to the
Spanish ministry, so enigmatical at the time, "That Spain had
offered more than we accepted, and that she dare not deny it."
Finally, after the lapse of a year or so, the treaty was ratified by
Spain. In the mean time Mr. Clay had made a movement against it in
the House of Representatives, unsuccessful, of course, but exciting
some sensation, both for the reasons he gave and the vote of some
thirty-odd members who concurred with him. This movement very
certainly induced the letters of Mr. Monroe to General Jackson and
Mr. Jefferson, as they were contemporaneous (May, 1820), and also
some expressions in the letter to General Jackson, which evidently
referred to Mr. Clay's movement. The ratification of Spain was given
October, 1820, and being after the time limited, it became necessary
to submit it again to the American Senate, which was done at the
session of 1820-21. It was ratified again, and almost unanimously,
but not quite, four votes being given against it, and all by western
senators, namely: Colonel Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky; Colonel
John Williams, of Tennessee; Mr. James Brown, of Louisiana, and
Colonel Trimble, of Ohio. I was then in Washington, and a senator
elect, though not yet entitled to a seat, in consequence of the
delayed admission of the new State of Missouri into the Union, and
so had no opportunity to record my vote against the treaty. But
the progress of events soon gave me an opportunity to manifest my
opposition, and to appear in the parliamentary history as an enemy
to it. The case was this: While the treaty was still encountering
Spanish procrastination in the delay of exchanging ratifications,
Mexico (to which the amputated part of Louisiana and the whole of
Texas was to be attached), itself ceased to belong to Spain. She
established her independence, repulsed all Spanish authority, and
remained at war with the mother country. The law for giving effect
to the treaty by providing for commissioners to run and mark the
new boundary, had not been passed at the time of the ratification
of the treaty; it came up after I took my seat, and was opposed by
me. I opposed it, not only upon the grounds of original objections
to the treaty, but on the further and obvious ground, that the
revolution in Mexico--her actual independence--had superseded the
Spanish treaty in the whole article of the boundaries, and that it
was with Mexico herself that we should now settle them. The act was
passed, however, by a sweeping majority, the administration being
for it, and senators holding themselves committed by previous
votes; but the progress of events soon justified my opposition
to it. The country being in possession of Mexico, and she at war
with Spain, no Spanish commissioners could go there to join ours
in executing it; and so the act remained a dead letter upon the
statute-book. Its futility was afterwards acknowledged by our
government, and the misstep corrected by establishing the boundary
with Mexico herself. This was done by treaty in the year 1828,
adopting the boundaries previously agreed upon with Spain, and
consequently amputating our rivers (the Red and the Arkansas), and
dismembering the valley of the Mississippi, to the same extent as
was done by the Spanish treaty of 1819. I opposed the ratification
of the treaty with Mexico for the same reason that I opposed its
original with Spain, but without success. Only two senators voted
with me, namely, Judge William Smith, of South Carolina, and Mr.
Powhatan Ellis, of Mississippi. Thus I saw this treaty, which
repulsed Texas, and dismembered the valley of the Mississippi--which
placed a foreign dominion on the upper halves of the Red River
and the Arkansas--placed a foreign power and a wilderness between
Missouri and New Mexico, and which brought a non-slaveholding empire
to the boundary line of the State of Louisiana, and almost to the
southwest corner of Missouri--saw this treaty three times ratified
by the American Senate, as good as unanimously every time, and with
the hearty concurrence of the American press. Yet I remained in the
Senate to see, within a few years, a political tempest sweeping the
land and overturning all that stood before it, to get back this very
country which this treaty had given away; and menacing the Union
itself with dissolution, if it was not immediately done, and without
regard to consequences. But of this hereafter. The point to be now
noted of this treaty of 1819, is, that it completed, very nearly,
the extinction of slave territory within the limits of the United
States, and that it was the work of southern men, with the sanction
of the South. It extinguished or cut off the slave territory beyond
the Mississippi, below 36 degrees, 30 minutes, all except the
diagram in Arkansas, which was soon to become a State. The Missouri
compromise line had interdicted slavery in all the vast expanse of
Louisiana north of 36 degrees, 30 minutes; this treaty gave away,
first to Spain, and then to Mexico, nearly all the slave territory
south of that line; and what little was left by the Spanish treaty
was assigned in perpetuity by laws and by treaties to different
Indian tribes. These treaties (Indian and Spanish), together with
the Missouri compromise line--a measure contemporaneous with the
treaty--extinguished slave soil in all the United States territory
west of the Mississippi, except in the diagram which was to
constitute the State of Arkansas; and, including the extinction
in Texas consequent upon its cession to a non-slaveholding power,
constituted the largest territorial abolition of slavery that was
ever effected by the political power of any nation. The ordinance
of 1787 had previously extinguished slavery in all the northwest
territory--all the country east of the Mississippi, above the Ohio,
and out to the great lakes; so that, at this moment--era of the
second election of Mr. Monroe--slave soil, except in Arkansas and
Florida, was extinct in the territory of the United States. The
growth of slave States (except of Arkansas and Florida) was stopped;
the increase of free States was permitted in all the vast expanse
from Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains,
and to Oregon; and there was not a ripple of discontent visible on
the surface of the public mind at this mighty transformation of
slave into free territory. No talk then about dissolving the Union,
if every citizen was not allowed to go with all his "property,"
that is, all his slaves, to all the territory acquired by the
"common blood and treasure" of all the Union. But this belongs to
the chapter of 1844, whereof I have the material to write the true
and secret history, and hope to use it with fairness, with justice,
and with moderation. The outside view of the slave question in the
United States at this time, which any chronicler can write, is,
that the extension of slavery was then arrested, circumscribed,
and confined within narrow territorial limits, while free States
were permitted an almost unlimited expansion. That is the outside
view; the inside is, that all this was the work of southern men,
candidates for the presidency, some in abeyance, some in _præsenti_;
and all yielding to that repugnance to territorial aggrandizement,
and slavery extension in the southwest, which Mr. Monroe mentioned
in his letter to General Jackson as the "internal difficulty" which
occasioned the cession of Texas to Spain. This chapter is a point
in the history of the times which will require to be understood by
all who wish to understand and appreciate the events and actors of
twenty years later.
CHAPTER VII.
DEATH OF MR. LOWNDES.
I had but a slight acquaintance with Mr. Lowndes. He resigned
his place on account of declining health soon after I came into
Congress; but all that I saw of him confirmed the impression of
the exalted character which the public voice had ascribed to him.
Virtue, modesty, benevolence, patriotism were the qualities of
his heart; a sound judgment, a mild persuasive elocution were the
attributes of his mind; his manners gentle, natural, cordial,
and inexpressibly engaging. He was one of the galaxy, as it was
well called, of the brilliant young men which South Carolina sent
to the House of Representatives at the beginning of the war of
1812--Calhoun, Cheves, Lowndes;--and was soon the brightest star
in that constellation. He was one of those members, rare in all
assemblies, who, when he spoke, had a cluster around him, not of
friends, but of the House--members quitting their distant seats, and
gathering up close about him, and showing by their attention, that
each one would feel it a personal loss to have missed a word that he
said. It was the attention of affectionate confidence. He imparted
to others the harmony of his own feelings, and was the moderator as
well as the leader of the House and was followed by its sentiment
in all cases in which inexorable party feeling, or some powerful
interest, did not rule the action of the members; and even then he
was courteously and deferentially treated. It was so the only time
I ever heard him speak--session of 1820-21--and on the inflammable
subject of the admission of the State of Missouri--a question on
which the inflamed passions left no room for the influence of reason
and judgment, and in which the members voted by a geographical line.
Mr. Lowndes was of the democratic school, and strongly indicated
for an early elevation to the presidency--indicated by the public
will and judgment, and not by any machinery or individual or party
management--from the approach of which he shrunk, as from the touch
of contamination. He was nominated by the legislature of his native
State for the election of 1824; but died before the event came
round. It was he who expressed that sentiment, so just and beautiful
in itself, and so becoming in him because in him it was true, "That
the presidency was an office neither to be sought, nor declined."
He died at the age of forty-two; and his death at that early age,
and in the impending circumstances of the country, was felt by
those who knew him as a public and national calamity. I do not
write biographies, but note the death and character of some eminent
deceased contemporaries, whose fame belongs to the country, and goes
to make up its own title to the respect of the world.
CHAPTER VIII.
DEATH OF WILLIAM PINKNEY.
He died at Washington during the session of the Congress of which
he was a member, and of the Supreme Court of which he was a
practitioner. He fell like the warrior, in the plenitude of his
strength, and on the field of his fame--under the double labors
of the Supreme Court and of the Senate, and under the immense
concentration of thought which he gave to the preparation of his
speeches. He was considered in his day the first of American
orators, but will hardly keep that place with posterity, because he
spoke more to the hearer than to the reader--to the present than to
the absent--and avoided the careful publication of his own speeches.
He labored them hard, but it was for the effect of their delivery,
and the triumph of present victory. He loved the admiration of the
crowded gallery--the trumpet-tongued fame which went forth from
the forum--the victory which crowned the effort; but avoided the
publication of what was received with so much applause, giving as
a reason that the published speech would not sustain the renown of
the delivered one. His _forte_ as a speaker lay in his judgment,
his logic, his power of argument; but, like many other men of
acknowledged pre-eminence in some great gift of nature, and who are
still ambitious of some inferior gift, he courted his imagination
too much, and laid too much stress upon action and delivery--so
potent upon the small circle of actual hearers, but so lost upon
the national audience which the press now gives to a great speaker.
In other respects Mr. Pinkney was truly a great orator, rich in his
material, strong in his argument--clear, natural and regular in the
exposition of his subject, comprehensive in his views, and chaste
in his diction. His speeches, both senatorial and forensic, were
fully studied and laboriously prepared--all the argumentative parts
carefully digested under appropriate heads, and the showy passages
often fully written out and committed to memory. He would not speak
at all except upon preparation; and at sexagenarian age--that at
which I knew him--was a model of study and of labor to all young
men. His last speech in the Senate was in reply to Mr. Rufus King,
on the Missouri question, and was the master effort of his life.
The subject, the place, the audience, the antagonist, were all such
as to excite him to the utmost exertion. The subject was a national
controversy convulsing the Union and menacing it with dissolution;
the place was the American Senate; the audience was Europe and
America; the antagonist was PRINCEPS SENATUS, illustrious for
thirty years of diplomatic and senatorial service, and for great
dignity of life and character. He had ample time for preparation,
and availed himself of it. Mr. King had spoken the session before,
and published the "Substance" of his speeches (for there were two
of them), after the adjournment of Congress. They were the signal
guns for the Missouri controversy. It was to these published
speeches that Mr. Pinkney replied, and with the interval between
two sessions to prepare. It was a dazzling and overpowering reply,
with the prestige of having the union and the harmony of the States
for its object, and crowded with rich material. The most brilliant
part of it was a highly-wrought and splendid amplification (with
illustrations from Greek and Roman history), of that passage in Mr.
Burke's speech upon "Conciliation with the Colonies," in which,
and in looking to the elements of American resistance to British
power, he looks to the spirit of the slaveholding colonies as a
main ingredient, and attributes to the masters of slaves, who are
not themselves slaves, the highest love of liberty and the most
difficult task of subjection. It was the most gorgeous speech
ever delivered in the Senate, and the most applauded; but it was
only a magnificent exhibition, as Mr. Pinkney knew, and could not
sustain in the reading the plaudits it received in delivery; and
therefore he avoided its publication. He gave but little attention
to the current business of the Senate, only appearing in his place
when the "Salaminian galley was to be launched," or some special
occasion called him--giving his time and labor to the bar, where
his pride and glory was. He had previously served in the House
of Representatives, and his first speech there was attended by
an incident illustrative of Mr. Randolph's talent for delicate
intimation, and his punctilious sense of parliamentary etiquette.
Mr. Pinkney came into the House with a national reputation, in
the fulness of his fame, and exciting a great expectation--which
he was obliged to fulfil. He spoke on the treaty-making power--a
question of diplomatic and constitutional law; and he having been
minister to half the courts of Europe, attorney general of the
United States, and a jurist by profession, could only speak upon it
in one way--as a great master of the subject; and, consequently,
appeared as if instructing the House. Mr. Randolph--a veteran of
twenty years' parliamentary service--thought a new member should
serve a little apprenticeship before he became an instructor, and
wished to signify that to Mr. Pinkney. He had a gift, such as man
never had, at a delicate intimation where he desired to give a hint,
without offence; and he displayed it on this occasion. He replied
to Mr. Pinkney, referring to him by the parliamentary designation
of "the member from Maryland;" and then pausing, as if not certain,
added, "I believe he is from Maryland." This implied doubt as to
where he came from, and consequently as to who he was, amused Mr.
Pinkney, who understood it perfectly, and taking it right, went over
to Mr. Randolph's seat, introduced himself, and assured him that
he was "from Maryland." They became close friends for ever after;
and it was Mr. Randolph who first made known his death in the House
of Representatives, interrupting for that purpose an angry debate,
then raging, with a beautiful and apt quotation from the quarrel of
Adam and Eve at their expulsion from paradise. The published debates
give this account of it: "Mr. Randolph rose to announce to the House
an event which he hoped would put an end, at least for this day, to
all further jar or collision, here or elsewhere, among the members
of this body. Yes, for this one day, at least, let us say, as our
first mother said to our first father--
'While yet we live, scarce one short hour perhaps,
Between us two let there be peace.'
"I rise to announce to the House the not unlooked for death of a man
who filled the first place in the public estimation, in the first
profession in that estimation, in this or in any other country. We
have been talking of General Jackson, and a greater than him is, not
here, but gone for ever. I allude, sir, to the boast of Maryland,
and the pride of the United States--the pride of all of us, but more
particularly the pride and ornament of the profession of which you,
Mr. Speaker (Mr. Philip P. Barbour), are a member, and an eminent
one."
Mr. Pinkney was kind and affable in his temper, free from every
taint of envy or jealousy, conscious of his powers, and relying upon
them alone for success. He was a model, as I have already said, and
it will bear repetition, to all young men in his habits of study and
application, and at more than sixty years of age was still a severe
student. In politics he classed democratically, and was one of the
few of our eminent public men who never seemed to think of the
presidency. Oratory was his glory, the law his profession, the bar
his theatre; and his service in Congress was only a brief episode,
dazzling each House, for he was a momentary member of each, with a
single and splendid speech.
CHAPTER IX.
ABOLITION OF THE INDIAN FACTORY SYSTEM.
The experience of the Indian factory system, is an illustration of
the unfitness of the federal government to carry on any system of
trade, the liability of the benevolent designs of the government
to be abused, and the difficulty of detecting and redressing abuses
in the management of our Indian affairs. This system originated in
the year 1796, under the recommendation of President Washington, and
was intended to counteract the influence of the British traders,
then allowed to trade with the Indians of the United States within
our limits; also to protect the Indians from impositions from our
own traders, and for that purpose to sell them goods at cost and
carriage, and receive their furs and peltries at fair and liberal
prices; and which being sold on account of the United States,
would defray the expenses of the establishment, and preserve the
capital undiminished--to be returned to the treasury at the end
of the experiment. The goods were purchased at the expense of
the United States--the superintendent and factors were paid out
of the treasury, and the whole system was to be one of favor and
benevolence to the Indians, guarded by the usual amount of bonds
and oaths prescribed by custom in such cases. Being an experiment,
it was first established by a temporary act, limited to two
years--the usual way in which equivocal measures get a foothold in
legislation. It was soon suspected that this system did not work
as disinterestedly as had been expected--that it was of no benefit
to the Indians--no counteraction to British traders--an injury
to our own fur trade--and a loss to the United States; and many
attempts were made to get rid of it, but in vain. It was kept up
by continued temporary renewals for a quarter of a century--from
1796 to 1822--the name of Washington being always invoked to
continue abuses which he would have been the first to repress and
punish. As a citizen of a frontier State, I had seen the working
of the system--seen its inside working, and knew its operation to
be entirely contrary to the benevolent designs of its projectors.
I communicated all this, soon after my admission to a seat in the
Senate, to Mr. Calhoun, the Secretary at War, to whose department
the supervision of this branch of service belonged, and proposed to
him the abolition of the system; but he had too good an opinion of
the superintendent (then Mr. Thomas L. McKinney), to believe that
any thing was wrong in the business, and refused his countenance
to my proposition. Confident that I was right, I determined to
bring the question before the Senate--did so--brought in a bill to
abolish the factories, and throw open the fur trade to individual
enterprise, and supported the bill with all the facts and reasons
of which I was master. The bill was carried through both Houses,
and became a law; but not without the strenuous opposition which
the attack of every abuse for ever encounters--not that any member
favored the abuse, but that those interested in it were vigilant
and active, visiting the members who would permit such visits,
furnishing them with adverse statements, lauding the operation
of the system, and constantly lugging in the name of Washington
as its author. When the system was closed up, and the inside of
it seen, and the balance struck, it was found how true all the
representations were which had been made against it. The Indians
had been imposed upon in the quality and prices of the goods sold
them; a general trade had been carried on with the whites as well
as with the Indians; large per centums had been charged upon every
thing sold; and the total capital of three hundred thousand dollars
was lost and gone. It was a loss which, at that time (1822), was
considered large, but now (1850) would be considered small; but its
history still has its uses, in showing how differently from its
theory a well intended act may operate--how long the Indians and
the government may be cheated without knowing it--and how difficult
it is to get a bad law discontinued (where there is an interest in
keeping it up), even though first adopted as a temporary measure,
and as a mere experiment. It cost me a strenuous exertion--much
labor in collecting facts, and much speaking in laying them
before the Senate--to get this two years' law discontinued, after
twenty-five years of injurious operation and costly experience. Of
all the branches of our service, that of the Indian affairs is most
liable to abuse, and its abuses the most difficult of detection.
CHAPTER X.
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT.
The Presidential election of 1824 was approaching, the candidates
in the field, their respective friends active and busy, and popular
topics for the canvass in earnest requisition. The New-York canal
had just been completed, and had brought great popularity to its
principal advocate (De Witt Clinton), and excited a great appetite
in public men for that kind of fame. Roads and canals--meaning
common turnpike, for the steam car had not then been invented, nor
McAdam impressed his name on the new class of roads which afterwards
wore it--were all the vogue; and the candidates for the Presidency
spread their sails upon the ocean of internal improvements. Congress
was full of projects for different objects of improvement, and the
friends of each candidate exerted themselves in rivalry of each
other, under the supposition that their opinions would stand for
those of their principals. Mr. Adams, Mr. Clay, and Mr. Calhoun,
were the avowed advocates of the measure, going thoroughly for
a general national system of internal improvement: Mr. Crawford
and General Jackson, under limitations and qualifications. The
Cumberland road, and the Chesapeake and Ohio canal, were the
two prominent objects discussed; but the design extended to a
general system, and an act was finally passed, intended to be
annual and permanent, to appropriate $30,000 to make surveys of
national routes. Mr. Monroe signed this bill as being merely for
the collection of information, but the subject drew from him the
most elaborate and thoroughly considered opinion upon the general
question which has ever been delivered by any of our statesmen.
It was drawn out by the passage of an act to provide for the
preservation and repair of the Cumberland road, and was returned
by him to the House in which it originated, with his objections,
accompanied by a state paper, in exposition of his opinions upon
the whole subject; for the whole subject was properly before him.
The act which he had to consider, though modestly entitled for the
"preservation" and "repair" of the Cumberland road, yet, in its
mode of accomplishing that purpose, assumed the whole of the powers
which were necessary to the execution of a general system. It passed
with singular unanimity through both Houses, in the Senate, only
seven votes against it, of which I afterwards felt proud to have
been one. He denied the power; but before examining the arguments
for and against it, very properly laid down the amount and variety
of jurisdiction and authority which it would require the federal
government to exercise within the States, in order to execute a
system, and that in each and every part--in every mile of each and
every canal road--it should undertake to construct. He began with
acquiring the right of way, and pursued it to its results in the
construction and preservation of the work, involving jurisdiction,
ownership, penal laws, and administration. Commissioners, he said,
must first be appointed to trace a route, and to acquire a right
to the ground over which the road or canal was to pass, with a
sufficient breadth for each. The ground could only be acquired
by voluntary grants from individuals, or by purchases, or by
condemnation of the property, and fixing its value through a jury
of the vicinage, if they refused to give or sell, or demanded an
exorbitant price. After all this was done, then came the repairs,
the care of which was to be of perpetual duration, and of a kind to
provide against criminal and wilful injuries, as well as against
the damages of accident, and deterioration from time and use. There
are persons in every community capable of committing voluntary
injuries, of pulling down walls that are made to sustain the road;
of breaking the bridges over water-courses, and breaking the road
itself. Some living near it might be disappointed that it did not
pass through their lands, and commit these acts of violence and
waste from revenge. To prevent these crimes Congress must have a
power to pass laws to punish the offenders, wherever they may be
found. Jurisdiction over the road would not be sufficient, though it
were exclusive. There must be power to follow the offenders wherever
they might go. It would seldom happen that the parties would be
detected in the act. They would generally commit it in the night,
and fly far off before the sun appeared. Right of pursuit must
attach, or the power of punishing become nugatory. Tribunals, State
or federal, must be invested with power to execute the law. Wilful
injuries would require all this assumption of power, and machinery
of administration, to punish and prevent them. Repair of natural
deteriorations would require the application of a different remedy.
Toll gates, and persons to collect the tolls, were the usual resort
for repairing this class of injuries, and keeping the road in order.
Congress must have power to make such an establishment, and to enact
a code of regulations for it, with fines and penalties, and agents
to execute it. To all these exercises of authority the question of
the constitutionality of the law may be raised by the prosecuted
party. But opposition might not stop with individuals. States might
contest the right of the federal government thus to possess and
to manage all the great roads and canals within their limits; and
then a collision would be brought on between two governments, each
claiming to be sovereign and independent in its actions over the
subject in dispute.
Thus did Mr. Monroe state the question in its practical bearings,
traced to their legitimate results, and the various assumptions
of power, and difficulties with States or individuals which
they involved; and the bare statement which he made--the bare
presentation of the practical working of the system, constituted a
complete argument against it, as an invasion of State rights, and
therefore unconstitutional, and, he might have added, as complex and
unmanageable by the federal government, and therefore inexpedient.
But, after stating the question, he examined it under every head
of constitutional derivation under which its advocates claimed the
power, and found it to be granted by no one of them, and virtually
prohibited by some of them. These were, _first_, the right to
establish post-offices and post-roads; _second_, to declare war;
_third_, to regulate commerce among the States; _fourth_, the power
to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general
welfare of the United States; _fifth_, to make all laws necessary
and proper to carry into effect the granted (enumerated) powers;
_sixth_, from the power to dispose of, and make all needful rules
and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the
United States. Upon this long enumeration of these claimed sources
of power, Mr. Monroe well remarked that their very multiplicity
was an argument against them, and that each one was repudiated by
some of the advocates for each of the others: that these advocates
could not agree among themselves upon any one single source of
the power; and that it was sought for from place to place, with
an assiduity which proclaimed its non-existence any where. Still
he examined each head of derivation in its order, and effectually
disposed of each in its turn. 1. The post-office and post-road
grant. The word "establish" was the ruling term: roads and offices
were the subjects on which it was to act. And how? Ask any number of
enlightened citizens, who had no connection with public affairs,
and whose minds were unprejudiced, what was the meaning of the word
"establish," and the extent of the grant it controls, and there
would not be a difference of opinion among them. They would answer
that it was a power given to Congress to legalize existing roads
as post routes, and existing places as post-offices--to fix on the
towns, court-houses, and other places throughout the Union, at
which there should be post-offices; the routes by which the mails
should be carried; to fix the postages to be paid; and to protect
the post-offices and mails from robbery, by punishing those who
commit the offence. The idea of a right to lay off roads to take the
soil from the proprietor against his will; to establish turnpikes
and tolls; to establish a criminal code for the punishment of
injuries to the road; to do what the protection and repair of a road
requires: these are things which would never enter into his head.
The use of the existing road would be all that would be thought
of; the jurisdiction and soil remaining in the State, or in those
authorized by its legislature to change the road at pleasure.
2. The war power. Mr. Monroe shows the object of this grant of
power to the federal government--the terms of the grant itself--its
incidents as enumerated in the constitution--the exclusion of
constructive incidents--and the pervading interference with the
soil and jurisdiction of the States which the assumption of the
internal improvement power by Congress would carry along with it. He
recites the grant of the power to make war, as given to Congress,
and prohibited to the States, and enumerates the incidents granted
along with it, and necessary to carrying on war: which are, to raise
money by taxes, duties, excises, and by loans; to raise and support
armies and a navy; to provide for calling out, arming, disciplining,
and governing the militia, when in the service of the United States;
establishing fortifications, and to exercise exclusive jurisdiction
over the places granted by the State legislatures for the sites of
forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.
And having shown this enumeration of incidents, he very naturally
concludes that it is an exclusion of constructive incidents, and
especially of one so great in itself, and so much interfering with
the soil and jurisdiction of the States, as the federal exercise
of the road-making power would be. He exhibits the enormity of
this interference by a view of the extensive field over which it
would operate. The United States are exposed to invasion through
the whole extent of their Atlantic coast (to which may now be added
seventeen degrees of the Pacific coast) by any European power with
whom we might be engaged in war: on the northern and northwestern
frontier, on the side of Canada, by Great Britain, and on the
southern by Spain, or any power in alliance with her. If internal
improvements are to be carried on to the full extent to which they
may be useful for military purposes, the power, as it exists, must
apply to all the roads of the Union, there being no limitation to
it. Wherever such improvements may facilitate the march of troops,
the transportation of cannon, or otherwise aid the operations, or
mitigate the calamities of war along the coast, or in the interior,
they would be useful for military purposes, and might therefore be
made. They must be coextensive with the Union. The power following
as an incident to another power can be measured, as to its extent,
by reference only to the obvious extent of the power to which it is
incidental. It has been shown, after the most liberal construction
of all the enumerated powers of the general government, that the
territory within the limits of the respective States belonged to
them; that the United States had no right, under the powers granted
to them (with the exceptions specified), to any the smallest portion
of territory within a State, all those powers operating on a
different principle, and having their full effect without impairing,
in the slightest degree, this territorial right in the States.
By specifically granting the right, as to such small portions of
territory as might be necessary for these purposes (forts, arsenals,
magazines, dock-yards and other needful _buildings_), and, on
certain conditions, minutely and well defined, it is manifest that
it was not intended to grant it, as to any other portion, for
any purpose, or in any manner whatever. The right of the general
government must be complete, if a right at all. It must extend to
every thing necessary to the enjoyment and protection of the right.
It must extend to the seizure and condemnation of the property, if
necessary; to the punishment of the offenders for injuries to the
roads and canals; to the establishment and enforcement of tolls; to
the unobstructed construction protection, and preservation of the
roads. It must be a complete right, to the extent above stated, or
it will be of no avail. That right does not exist.
3. The commercial power. Mr. Monroe argues that the sense in which
the power to regulate commerce was understood and exercised by the
States, was doubtless that in which it was transferred to the United
States; and then shows that their regulation of commerce was by the
imposition of duties and imposts; and that it was so regulated by
them (before the adoption of the constitution), equally in respect
to each other, and to foreign powers. The goods, and the vessels
employed in the trade, are the only subject of regulation. It can
act on none other. He then shows the evil out of which that grant
of power grew, and which evil was, in fact, the predominating
cause in the call for the convention which framed the federal
constitution. Each State had the right to lay duties and imposts,
and exercised the right on narrow, jealous, and selfish principles.
Instead of acting as a nation in regard to foreign powers, the
States, individually, had commenced a system of restraint upon
each other, whereby the interests of foreign powers were promoted
at their expense. This contracted policy in some of the States was
counteracted by others. Restraints were immediately laid on such
commerce by the suffering States; and hence grew up a system of
restrictions and retaliations, which destroyed the harmony of the
States, and threatened the confederacy with dissolution. From this
evil the new constitution relieved us; and the federal government,
as successors to the States in the power to regulate commerce,
immediately exercised it as they had done, by laying duties and
imposts, to act upon goods and vessels: and that was the end of the
power.
4. To pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general
welfare of the Union. Mr. Monroe considers this "common defence"
and "general welfare" clause as being no grant of power, but, in
themselves, only an object and end to be attained by the exercise of
the enumerated powers. They are found in that sense in the preamble
to the constitution, in company with others, as inducing causes to
the formation of the instrument, and as benefits to be obtained by
the powers granted in it. They stand thus in the preamble: "In order
to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic
tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution." These are
the objects to be accomplished, but not by allowing Congress to
do what it pleased to accomplish them (in which case there would
have been no need for investing it with specific powers), but to
be accomplished by the exercise of the powers granted in the body
of the instrument. Considered as a distinct and separate grant,
the power to provide for the "common defence" and the "general
welfare," or either of them, would give to Congress the command of
the whole force, and of all the resources of the Union--absorbing
in their transcendental power all other powers, and rendering all
the grants and restrictions nugatory and vain. The idea of these
words forming an original grant, with unlimited power, superseding
every other grant, is (must be) abandoned. The government of the
United States is a limited government, instituted for great national
purposes, and for those only. Other interests are left to the States
individually, whose duty it is to provide for them. Roads and
canals fall into this class, the powers of the General Government
being utterly incompetent to the exercise of the rights which their
construction, and protection, and preservation require. Mr. Monroe
examines the instances of roads made in territories, and through
the Indian countries, and the one upon Spanish territory below the
31st degree of north latitude (with the consent of Spain), on the
route from Athens in Georgia to New Orleans, before we acquired the
Floridas; and shows that there was no objection to these territorial
roads, being all of them, to the States, ex-territorial. He examines
the case of the Cumberland road, made within the States, and upon
compact, but in which the United States exercised no power, founded
on any principle of "jurisdiction or right." He says of it: This
road was founded on an article of compact between the United States
and the State of Ohio, under which that State came into the Union,
and by which the expense attending it was to be defrayed by the
application of a certain portion of the money arising from the sales
of the public lands within the State. And, in this instance, the
United States have exercised no act of jurisdiction or sovereignty
within either of the States through which the road runs, by
taking the land from the proprietors by force--by passing acts for
the protection of the road--or to raise a revenue from it by the
establishment of turnpikes and tolls--or any other act founded on
the principles of jurisdiction or right. And I can add, that the
bill passed by Congress, and which received his veto, died under
his veto message, and has never been revised, or attempted to be
revised, since; and the road itself has been abandoned to the States.
5. The power to make all laws which shall be necessary and
proper to carry into effect the powers specifically granted to
Congress. This power, as being the one which chiefly gave rise
to the latitudinarian constructions which discriminated parties,
when parties were founded upon principle, is closely and clearly
examined by Mr. Monroe, and shown to be no grant of power at all,
nor authorizing Congress to do any thing which might not have been
done without it, and only added to the enumerated powers, through
caution, to secure their complete execution. He says: I have always
considered this power as having been granted on a principle of
greater caution, to secure the complete execution of all the powers
which had been vested in the General Government. It contains no
distinct and specific power, as every other grant does, such as to
lay and collect taxes, to declare war, to regulate commerce, and
the like. Looking to the whole scheme of the General Government, it
gives to Congress authority to make all laws which should be deemed
necessary and proper for carrying all its powers into effect. My
impression has invariably been, that this power would have existed,
substantially, if this grant had not been made. It results, by
necessary implication (such is the tenor of the argument), from
the granted powers, and was only added from caution, and to leave
nothing to implication. To act under it, it must first be shown that
the thing to be done is already specified in one of the enumerated
powers. This is the point and substance of Mr. Monroe's opinion on
this incidental grant, and which has been the source of division
between parties from the foundation of the government--the fountain
of latitudinous construction--and which, taking the judgment of
Congress as the rule and measure of what was "necessary and proper"
in legislation, takes a rule which puts an end to the limitations
of the constitution, refers all the powers of the body to its own
discretion, and becomes as absorbing and transcendental in its scope
as the "general welfare" and "common defence clauses" would be
themselves.
6. The power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and
regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United
States. This clause, as a source of power for making roads and
canals within a State, Mr. Monroe disposes of summarily, as having
no relation whatever to the subject. It grew out of the cessions of
territory which different States had made to the United States, and
relates solely to that territory (and to such as has been acquired
since the adoption of the constitution), and which lay without the
limits of a State. Special provision was deemed necessary for such
territory, the main powers of the constitution operating internally,
not being applicable or adequate thereto; and it follows that this
power gives no authority, and has even no bearing on the subject.
Such was this great state paper, delivered at a time when internal
improvement by the federal government, having become an issue
in the canvass for the Presidency, and ardently advocated by
three of the candidates, and qualifiedly by two others, had an
immense current in its favor, carrying many of the old strict
constitutionists along with it. Mr. Monroe stood firm vetoed the
bill which assumed jurisdiction over the Cumberland road, and drew
up his sentiments in full, for the consideration of Congress and
the country. His argument is abridged and condensed in this view of
it; but his positions and conclusions preserved in full, and with
scrupulous correctness. And the whole paper, as an exposition of
the differently understood parts of the constitution, by one among
those most intimately acquainted with it, and as applicable to the
whole question of constructive powers, deserves to be read and
studied by every student of our constitutional law. The only point
at which Mr. Monroe gave way, or yielded in the least, to the temper
of the times, was in admitting the power of appropriation--the right
of Congress to appropriate, but not to apply money--to internal
improvements; and in that he yielded against his earlier, and,
as I believe, better judgment. He had previously condemned the
appropriation as well as the application, but finally yielded on
this point to the counsels that beset him; but nugatorially, as
appropriation without application was inoperative, and a balk to
the whole system. But an act was passed soon after for surreys--for
making surveys of routes for roads and canals of general and
national importance, and the sum of $30,000 was appropriated for
that purpose. The act was as carefully guarded as words could do
so, in its limitation to objects of national importance, but only
presented another to the innumerable instances of the impotency of
words in securing the execution of a law. The selection of routes
under the act, rapidly degenerated from national to sectional,
from sectional to local, and from local to mere neighborhood
improvements. Early in the succeeding administration, a list of
some ninety routes were reported to Congress, from the Engineer
Department, in which occurred names of places hardly heard of
before outside of the State or section in which they were found.
Saugatuck, Amounisuck, Pasumic, Winnispiseogee, Piscataqua, Titonic
Falls, Lake Memphramagog, Conneaut Creek, Holmes' Hole, Lovejoy's
Narrows, Steele's Ledge, Cowhegan, Androscoggin, Cobbiesconte,
Ponceaupechaux, alias Soapy Joe, were among the objects which
figured in the list for national improvement. The bare reading
of the list was a condemnation of the act under which they were
selected, and put an end to the annual appropriations which were in
the course of being made for these surveys. No appropriation was
made after the year 1827. Afterwards the veto message of President
Jackson put an end to legislation upon local routes, and the
progress of events has withdrawn the whole subject--the subject of
a _system_ of national internal improvement, once so formidable and
engrossing in the public mind--from the halls of Congress, and the
discussions of the people. Steamboats and steam-cars have superseded
turnpikes and canals; individual enterprise has dispensed with
national legislation. Hardly a great route exists in any State which
is not occupied under State authority. Even great works accomplished
by Congress, at vast cost and long and bitter debates in Congress,
and deemed eminently national at the time, have lost that character,
and sunk into the class of common routes. The Cumberland road, which
cost $6,670,000 in money, and was a prominent subject in Congress
for thirty-four years--from 1802, when it was conceived to 1836,
when it was abandoned to the States: this road, once so absorbing
both of public money and public attention, has degenerated into a
common highway, and is entirely superseded by the parallel railroad
route. The same may be said, in a less degree, of the Chesapeake
and Ohio canal, once a national object of federal legislation
intended, as its name imports, to connect the tide water of the
Atlantic with the great rivers of the West; now a local canal,
chiefly used by some companies, very beneficial in its place, but
sunk from the national character which commanded for it the votes
of Congress and large appropriations from the federal treasury. Mr.
Monroe was one of the most cautious and deliberate of our public
men, thoroughly acquainted with the theory and the working of the
constitution, his opinions upon it entitled to great weight; and
on this point (of internal improvement within the States by the
federal government) his opinion has become law. But it does not
touch the question of improving national rivers or harbors yielding
revenue--appropriations for the Ohio and Mississippi and other large
streams, being easily had when unincumbered with local objects, as
shown by the appropriation, in a separate bill, in 1824, of $75,000
for the improvement of these two rivers, and which was approved and
signed by Mr. Monroe.
CHAPTER XI.
GENERAL REMOVAL OF INDIANS.
The Indian tribes in the different sections of the Union, had
experienced very different fates--in the northern and middle States
nearly extinct--in the south and west they remained numerous and
formidable. Before the war of 1812, with Great Britain, these
southern and western tribes held vast, compact bodies of land in
these States, preventing the expansion of the white settlements
within their limits, and retaining a dangerous neighbor within
their borders. The victories of General Jackson over the Creeks,
and the territorial cessions which ensued made the first great
breach in this vast Indian domain; but much remained to be done
to free the southern and western States from a useless and
dangerous population--to give them the use and jurisdiction of
all the territory within their limits, and to place them, in that
respect, on an equality with the northern and middle States.
From the earliest periods of the colonial settlements, it had
been the policy of the government, by successive purchases of
their territory, to remove these tribes further and further to the
west; and that policy, vigorously pursued after the war with Great
Britain, had made much progress in freeing several of these States
(Kentucky entirely, and Tennessee almost) from this population,
which so greatly hindered the expansion of their settlements and
so much checked the increase of their growth and strength. Still
there remained up to the year 1824--the last year of Mr. Monroe's
administration--large portions of many of these States, and of the
territories, in the hands of the Indian tribes; in Georgia, nine and
a half millions of acres; in Alabama, seven and a half millions; in
Mississippi, fifteen and three quarter millions; in the territory
of Florida, four millions; in the territory of Arkansas, fifteen
and a half millions; in the State of Missouri, two millions and
three quarters; in Indiana and Illinois, fifteen millions; and in
Michigan, east of the lake, seven millions. All these States and
territories were desirous, and most justly and naturally so, to get
possession of these vast bodies of land, generally the best within
their limits. Georgia held the United States bound by a compact to
relieve her. Justice to the other States and territories required
the same relief; and the applications to the federal government,
to which the right of purchasing Indian lands, even within the
States, exclusively belonged, were incessant and urgent. Piecemeal
acquisitions, to end in getting the whole, were the constant effort;
and it was evident that the encumbered States and territories would
not, and certainly ought not to be satisfied, until all their soil
was open to settlement, and subject to their jurisdiction. To the
Indians themselves it was equally essential to be removed. The
contact and pressure of the white race was fatal to them. They had
dwindled under it, degenerated, become depraved, and whole tribes
extinct, or reduced to a few individuals, wherever they attempted to
remain in the old States; and could look for no other fate in the
new ones.
"What," exclaimed Mr. Elliott, senator from Georgia, in advocating
a system of general removal--"what has become of the immense hordes
of these people who once occupied the soil of the older States?
In New England, where numerous and warlike tribes once so fiercely
contended for supremacy with our forefathers, but two thousand
five hundred of their descendants remain, and they are dispirited
and degraded. Of the powerful league of the Six Nations, so long
the scourge and terror of New-York, only about five thousand souls
remain. In New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, the numerous
and powerful tribes once seen there, are either extinct, or so
reduced as to escape observation in any enumeration of the States'
inhabitants. In Virginia, Mr. Jefferson informs us that there were
at the commencement of its colonization (1607), in the comparatively
small portion of her extent which lies between the sea-coast and
the mountains, and from the Potomac to the most southern waters of
James River, upwards of forty tribes of Indians: now there are but
forty-seven individuals in the whole State! In North Carolina none
are counted: in South Carolina only four hundred and fifty. While in
Georgia, where thirty years since there were not less than thirty
thousand souls, there now remain some fifteen thousand--the one half
having disappeared in a single generation. That many of these people
have removed, and others perished by the sword in the frequent
wars which have occurred in the progress of our settlements, I am
free to admit. But where are the hundreds of thousands, with their
descendants, who neither removed, nor were thus destroyed? Sir, like
a promontory of sand, exposed to the ceaseless encroachments of the
ocean, they have been gradually wasting away before the current of
the advancing white population which set in upon them from every
quarter; and unless speedily removed beyond the influence of this
cause, of the many tens of thousands now within the limits of the
southern and western States, a remnant will not long be found to
point you to the graves of their ancestors, or to relate the sad
story of their disappearance from earth."
Mr. Jefferson, that statesman in fact as well as in name, that
man of enlarged and comprehensive views, whose prerogative it was
to foresee evils and provide against them, had long foreseen the
evils both to the Indians and to the whites, in retaining any
part of these tribes within our organized limits; and upon the
first acquisition of Louisiana--within three months after the
acquisition--proposed it for the future residence of all the
tribes on the east of the Mississippi; and his plan had been acted
upon in some degree, both by himself and his immediate successor.
But it was reserved for Mr. Monroe's administration to take up
the subject in its full sense, to move upon it as a system, and
to accomplish at a single operation the removal of all the tribes
from the east to the west side of the Mississippi--from the settled
States and territories, to the wide and wild expanse of Louisiana.
Their preservation and civilization, and permanency in their new
possessions, were to be their advantages in this removal--delusive,
it might be, but still a respite from impending destruction if they
remained where they were. This comprehensive plan was advocated
by Mr. Calhoun, then Secretary of War, and charged with the
administration of Indian affairs. It was a plan of incalculable
value to the southern and western States, but impracticable without
the hearty concurrence of the northern and non-slaveholding States.
It might awaken the slavery question, hardly got to sleep after the
alarming agitations of the Missouri controversy. The States and
territories to be relieved were slaveholding. To remove the Indians
would make room for the spread of slaves. No removal could be
effected without the double process of a treaty and an appropriation
act--the treaty to be ratified by two thirds of the Senate, where
the slave and free States were equal, and the appropriation to be
obtained from Congress, where free States held the majority of
members. It was evident that the execution of the whole plan was
in the hands of the free States; and nobly did they do their duty
by the South. Some societies, and some individuals, no doubt, with
very humane motives, but with the folly, and blindness, and injury
to the objects of their care which generally attend a gratuitous
interference with the affairs of others, attempted to raise an
outcry, and made themselves busy to frustrate the plan; but the free
States themselves, in their federal action, and through the proper
exponents of their will--their delegations in Congress--cordially
concurred in it, and faithfully lent it a helping and efficient
hand. The President, Mr. Monroe, in the session 1824-'25,
recommended its adoption to Congress, and asked the necessary
appropriation to begin from the Congress. A bill was reported in the
Senate for that purpose, and unanimously passed that body. What is
more, the treaties made with the Kansas and Osage tribes in 1825,
for the cession to the United States of all their vast territory
west of Missouri and Arkansas, except small reserves to themselves,
and which treaties had been made without previous authority from the
government, and for the purpose of acquiring new homes for all the
Indians east of the Mississippi, were duly and readily ratified.
Those treaties were made at St. Louis by General Clarke, without any
authority, so far as this large acquisition was concerned, at my
instance, and upon my assurance that the Senate would ratify them.
It was done. They were ratified: a great act of justice was rendered
to the South. The foundation was laid for the future removal of
the Indians, which was followed up by subsequent treaties and acts
of Congress, until the southern and western States were as free
as the northern from the incumbrance of an Indian population; and
I, who was an actor in these transactions, who reported the bills
and advocated the treaties which brought this great benefit to the
south and west, and witnessed the cordial support of the members
from the free States, without whose concurrence they could not have
been passed--I, who wish for harmony and concord among all the
States, and all the sections of this Union, owe it to the cause of
truth and justice, and to the cultivation of fraternal feelings,
to bear this faithful testimony to the just and liberal conduct of
the non-slaveholding States, in relieving the southern and western
States from so large an incumbrance, and aiding the extension of
their settlement and cultivation. The recommendation of Mr. Monroe,
and the treaties of 1825, were the beginning of the system of total
removal; but it was a beginning which assured the success of the
whole plan, and was followed up, as will be seen, in the history of
each case, until the entire system was accomplished.
CHAPTER XII.
VISIT OF LAFAYETTE TO THE UNITED STATES.
In the summer of this year General Lafayette, accompanied by his
son, Mr. George Washington Lafayette, and under an invitation
from the President, revisited the United States after a lapse
of forty years. He was received with unbounded honor, affection,
and gratitude by the American people. To the survivors of the
Revolution, it was the return of a brother; to the new generation,
born since that time, it was the apparition of an historical
character, familiar from the cradle; and combining all the titles to
love, admiration, gratitude, enthusiasm, which could act upon the
heart and the imagination of the young and the ardent. He visited
every State in the Union, doubled in number since, as the friend
and pupil of Washington, he had spilt his blood, and lavished his
fortune, for their independence. His progress through the States was
a triumphal procession, such as no Roman ever led up--a procession
not through a city, but over a continent--followed, not by captives
in chains of iron, but by a nation in the bonds of affection. To
him it was an unexpected and overpowering reception. His modest
estimate of himself had not allowed him to suppose that he was to
electrify a continent. He expected kindness, but not enthusiasm.
He expected to meet with surviving friends--not to rouse a young
generation. As he approached the harbor of New-York, he made inquiry
of some acquaintance to know whether he could find a hack to convey
him to a hotel? Illustrious man, and modest as illustrious! Little
did he know that all America was on foot to receive him--to take
possession of him the moment he touched her soil--to fetch and
to carry him--to feast and applaud him--to make him the guest of
cities, States, and the nation, as long as he could he detained.
Many were the happy meetings which he had with old comrades,
survivors for near half a century of their early hardships and
dangers; and most grateful to his heart it was to see them, so many
of them, exceptions to the maxim which denies to the beginners of
revolutions the good fortune to conclude them (and of which maxim
his own country had just been so sad an exemplification), and to
see his old comrades not only conclude the one they began, but live
to enjoy its fruits and honors. Three of his old associates he
found ex-presidents (Adams, Jefferson, and Madison), enjoying the
respect and affection of their country, after having reached its
highest honors. Another, and the last one that _Time_ would admit
to the Presidency (Mr. Monroe), now in the Presidential chair, and
inviting him to revisit the land of his adoption. Many of his
early associates seen in the two Houses of Congress--many in the
State governments, and many more in all the walks of private life,
patriarchal sires, respected for their characters, and venerated for
their patriotic services. It was a grateful spectacle, and the more
impressive from the calamitous fate which he had seen attend so many
of the revolutionary patriots of the Old World. But the enthusiasm
of the young generation astonished and excited him, and gave him a
new view of himself--a future glimpse of himself--and such as he
would be seen in after ages. Before _them_, he was in the presence
of posterity; and in their applause and admiration he saw his own
future place in history, passing down to the latest time as one of
the most perfect and beautiful characters which one of the most
eventful periods of the world had produced. Mr. Clay, as Speaker of
the House of Representatives, and the organ of their congratulations
to Lafayette (when he was received in the hall of the House),
very felicitously seized the idea of his present confrontation
with posterity, and adorned and amplified it with the graces of
oratory. He said: "The vain wish has been sometimes indulged, that
Providence would allow the patriot, after death, to return to his
country, and to contemplate the intermediate changes which had taken
place--to view the forests felled, the cities built, the mountains
levelled, the canals cut, the highways opened, the progress of the
arts, the advancement of learning, and the increase of population.
General! your present visit to the United States is the realization
of the consoling object of that wish, hitherto vain. You are in
the midst of posterity! Every where you must have been struck with
the great changes, physical and moral, which have occurred since
you left us. Even this very city, bearing a venerated name, alike
endearing to you and to us, has since emerged from the forest which
then covered its site. In one respect you behold us unaltered, and
that is, in the sentiment of continued devotion to liberty, and of
ardent affection and profound gratitude to your departed friend,
the father of his country, and to your illustrious associates in
the field and in the cabinet, for the multiplied blessings which
surround us, and for the very privilege of addressing you, which I
now have." He was received in both Houses of Congress with equal
honor; but the Houses did not limit themselves to honors: they
added substantial rewards for long past services and sacrifices--two
hundred thousand dollars in money, and twenty-four thousand acres
of fertile land in Florida. These noble grants did not pass without
objection--objection to the principle, not to the amount. The
ingratitude of republics is the theme of any declaimer: it required
a _Tacitus_ to say, that gratitude was the death of republics, and
the birth of monarchies; and it belongs to the people of the United
States to exhibit an exception to that profound remark (as they do
to so many other lessons of history), and show a young republic that
knows how to be grateful without being unwise, and is able to pay
the debt of gratitude without giving its liberties in the discharge
of the obligation. The venerable Mr. Macon, yielding to no one in
love and admiration of Lafayette, and appreciation of his services
and sacrifices in the American cause, opposed the grants in the
Senate, and did it with the honesty of purpose and the simplicity
of language which distinguished all the acts of his life. He said:
"It was with painful reluctance that he felt himself obliged to
oppose his voice to the passage of this bill. He admitted, to the
full extent claimed for them, the great and meritorious services of
General Lafayette, and he did not object to the precise sum which
this bill proposed to award him; but he objected to the bill on
this ground: he considered General Lafayette, to all intents and
purposes, as having been, during our revolution, a son adopted into
the family, taken into the household, and placed, in every respect,
on the same footing with the other sons of the same family. To treat
him as others were treated, was all, in this view of his relation
to us, that could be required, and this had been done. That General
Lafayette made great sacrifices, and spent much of his money in the
service of this country (said Mr. M.), I as firmly believe as I do
any other thing under the sun. I have no doubt that every faculty of
his mind and body were exerted in the Revolutionary war, in defence
of this country; but this was equally the case with all the sons
of the family. Many native Americans spent their all, made great
sacrifices, and devoted their lives in the same cause. This was the
ground of his objection to this bill, which, he repeated, it was
as disagreeable to him to state as it could be to the Senate to
hear. He did not mean to take up the time of the Senate in debate
upon the principle of the bill, or to move any amendment to it. He
admitted that, when such things were done, they should be done with
a free hand. It was to the principle of the bill, therefore, and not
to the sum proposed to be given by it, that he objected."
The ardent Mr. Hayne, of South Carolina, reporter of the bill
in the Senate, replied to the objections, and first showed from
history (not from Lafayette, who would have nothing to do with
the proposed grant), his advances, losses, and sacrifices in our
cause. He had expended for the American service, in six years, from
1777 to 1783, the sum of 700,000 francs ($140,000), and under what
circumstances?--a foreigner, owing us nothing, and throwing his
fortune into the scale with his life, to be lavished in our cause.
He left the enjoyments of rank and fortune, and the endearments of
his family, to come and serve in our almost destitute armies, and
without pay. He equipped and armed a regiment for our service, and
freighted a vessel to us, loaded with arms and munitions. It was not
until the year 1794, when almost ruined by the French revolution,
and by his efforts in the cause of liberty, that he would receive
the naked pay, without interest, of a general officer for the
time he had served with us. He was entitled to land as one of the
officers of the Revolution, and 11,500 acres was granted to him,
to be located on any of the public lands of the United States. His
agent located 1000 acres adjoining the city of New Orleans; and
Congress afterwards, not being informed of the location, granted the
same ground to the city of New Orleans. His location was valid, and
he was so informed; but he refused to adhere to it, saying that he
would have no contest with any portion of the American people, and
ordered the location to be removed; which was done, and carried upon
ground of little value--thus giving up what was then worth $50,000,
and now $500,000. These were his moneyed advances, losses, and
sacrifices, great in themselves, and of great value to our cause,
but perhaps exceeded by the moral effect of his example in joining
us, and his influence with the king and ministry, which procured us
the alliance of France.
The grants were voted with great unanimity, and with the general
concurrence of the American people. Mr. Jefferson was warmly for
them, giving as a reason, in a conversation with me while the
grants were depending (for the bill was passed in the Christmas
holidays, when I had gone to Virginia, and took the opportunity
to call upon that great man), which showed his regard for liberty
abroad as well as at home, and his far-seeing sagacity into future
events. He said there would be a change in France and Lafayette
would be at the head of it, and ought to be easy and independent
in his circumstances, to be able to act efficiently in conducting
the movement. This he said to me on Christmas day, 1824. Six
years afterwards this view into futurity was verified. The old
Bourbons had to retire: the Duke of Orleans, a brave general in
the republican armies, at the commencement of the Revolution, was
handed to the throne by Lafayette, and became the "citizen king,
surrounded by republican institutions." And in this Lafayette was
consistent and sincere. He was a republican himself, but deemed
a constitutional monarchy the proper government for France, and
labored for that form in the person of Louis XVI. as well as in that
of Louis Philippe.
Loaded with honors, and with every feeling of his heart gratified
in the noble reception he had met in the country of his adoption,
Lafayette returned to the country of his birth the following summer,
still as the guest of the United States, and under its flag.
He was carried back in a national ship of war, the new frigate
Brandywine--a delicate compliment (in the name and selection of the
ship) from the new President, Mr. Adams, Lafayette having wet with
his blood the sanguinary battle-field which takes its name from the
little stream which gave it first to the field, and then to the
frigate. Mr. Monroe, then a subaltern in the service of the United
States, was wounded at the same time. How honorable to themselves
and to the American people, that nearly fifty years afterwards,
they should again appear together, and in exalted station; one as
President, inviting the other to the great republic, and signing the
acts which testified a nation's gratitude; the other as a patriot
hero, tried in the revolutions of two countries, and resplendent in
the glory of virtuous and consistent fame.
CHAPTER XIII.
THE TARIFF, AND AMERICAN SYSTEM.
The revision of the Tariff, with a view to the protection of home
industry, and to the establishment of what was then called, "The
American System," was one of the large subjects before Congress
at the session 1823-24, and was the regular commencement of the
heated debates on that question which afterwards ripened into a
serious difficulty between the federal government and some of the
southern States. The presidential election being then depending,
the subject became tinctured with party politics, in which, so far
as that ingredient was concerned, and was not controlled by other
considerations, members divided pretty much on the line which always
divided them on a question of constructive powers. The protection
of domestic industry not being among the granted powers, was looked
for in the incidental; and denied by the strict constructionists
to be a substantive power, to be exercised for the direct purpose
of protection; but admitted by all at that time, and ever since
the first tariff act of 1789, to be an incident to the revenue
raising power, and an incident to be regarded in the exercise of
that power. Revenue the object, protection the incident, had been
the rule in the earlier tariffs: now that rule was sought to be
reversed, and to make protection the object of the law, and revenue
the incident. The revision, and the augmentation of duties which it
contemplated, turned, not so much on the emptiness of the treasury
and the necessity for raising money to fill it, as upon the distress
of the country, and the necessity of creating a home demand for
labor, provisions and materials, by turning a larger proportion of
our national industry into the channel of domestic manufactures.
Mr. Clay, the leader in the proposed revision, and the champion of
the American System, expressly placed the proposed augmentation of
duties on this ground; and in his main speech upon the question,
dwelt upon the state of the country, and gave a picture of the
public distress, which deserves to be reproduced in this VIEW of
the working of our government, both as the leading argument for the
new tariff, and as an exhibition of a national distress, which
those who were not cotemporary with the state of things which he
described, would find it difficult to conceive or to realize. He
said:
"In casting our eyes around us, the most prominent circumstance
which fixes our attention and challenges our deepest regret,
is the general distress which pervades the whole country. It
is forced upon us by numerous facts of the most incontestable
character. It is indicated by the diminished exports of native
produce; by the depressed and reduced state of our foreign
navigation; by our diminished commerce; by successive unthreshed
crops of grain perishing in our barns for want of a market;
by the alarming diminution of the circulating medium; by the
numerous bankruptcies; by a universal complaint of the want
of employment, and a consequent reduction of the wages of
labor; by the ravenous pursuit after public situations, not
for the sake of their honors, and the performance of their
public duties, but as a means of private subsistence; by the
reluctant resort to the perilous use of paper money; by the
intervention of legislation in the delicate relation between
debtor and creditor; and, above all, by the low and depressed
state of the value of almost every description of the whole
mass of the property of the nation, which has, on an average,
sunk not less than about fifty per centum within a few years.
This distress pervades every part of the Union, every class
of society; all feel it, though it may be felt, at different
places, in different degrees. It is like the atmosphere which
surrounds us: all must inhale it, and none can escape from it.
A few years ago, the planting interest consoled itself with
its happy exemptions from the general calamity; but it has now
reached this interest also, which experiences, though with less
severity, the general suffering. It is most painful to me to
attempt to sketch, or to dwell on the gloom of this picture. But
I have exaggerated nothing. Perfect fidelity to the original
would have authorized me to have thrown on deeper and darker
hues."
Mr. Clay was the leading speaker on the part of the bill in the
House of Representatives, but he was well supported by many able
and effective speakers--by Messrs. Storrs, Tracy, John W. Taylor,
from New-York; by Messrs. Buchanan, Todd, Ingham, Hemphill, Andrew
Stewart, from Pennsylvania; by Mr. Louis McLane, from Delaware;
by Messrs. Buckner F. Johnson, Letcher, Metcalfe, Trimble, White
Wickliffe, from Kentucky; by Messrs. Campbell, Vance, John W.
Wright, Vinton, Whittlesey, from Ohio; Mr. Daniel P. Cook, from
Illinois.
Mr. Webster was the leading speaker on the other side, and disputed
the universality of the distress which had been described; claiming
exemption from it in New England; denied the assumed cause for it
where it did exist, and attributed it to over expansion and collapse
of the paper system, as in Great Britain, after the long suspension
of the Bank of England; denied the necessity for increased
protection to manufactures, and its inadequacy, if granted, to the
relief of the country where distress prevailed; and contested the
propriety of high or prohibitory duties, in the present active
and intelligent state of the world, to stimulate industry and
manufacturing enterprise. He said:
"Within my own observation, there is no cause for such gloomy
and terrifying a representation. In respect to the New England
States, with the condition of which I am best acquainted, they
present to me a period of very general prosperity. Supposing
the evil then to be a depression of prices, and a partial
pecuniary pressure; the next inquiry is into the causes of
that evil. A depreciated currency existed in a great part of
the country--depreciated to such a degree as that, at one
time, exchange between the centre and the north was as high as
twenty per cent. The Bank of the United States was instituted
to correct this evil; but, for causes which it is not now
necessary to enumerate, it did not for some years bring back
the currency of the country to a sound state. In May, 1819, the
British House of Commons, by an unanimous vote, decided that
the resumption of cash payments by the Bank of England should
not be deferred beyond the ensuing February (it had then been
in a state of suspension near twenty-five years). The paper
system of England had certainly communicated an artificial
value to property. It had encouraged speculation, and excited
overtrading. When the shock therefore came, and this violent
pressure for money acted at the same moment on the Continent
and in England, inflated and unnatural prices could be kept up
no longer. A reduction took place, which has been estimated to
have been at least equal to a fall of thirty, if not forty, per
cent. The depression was universal; and the change was felt in
the United States severely, though not equally so in every part
of them. About the time of these foreign events, our own bank
system underwent a change; and all these causes, in my view of
the subject, concurred to produce the great shock which took
place in our commercial cities, and through many parts of the
country. The year 1819 was a year of numerous failures, and
very considerable distress, and would have furnished far better
grounds than exist at present for that gloomy representation
which has been presented. Mr. Speaker (Clay) has alluded to
the strong inclination which exists, or has existed, in various
parts of the country, to issue paper money, as a proof of great
existing difficulties. I regard it rather as a very productive
cause of those difficulties; and we cannot fail to observe,
that there is at this moment much the loudest complaint of
distress precisely where there has been the greatest attempt
to relieve it by a system of paper credit. Let us not suppose
that we are _beginning_ the protection of manufactures by
duties on imports. Look to the history of our laws; look to the
present state of our laws. Consider that our whole revenue,
with a trifling exception, is collected from the custom-house,
and always has been; and then say what propriety there is in
calling on the government for protection, as if no protection
had heretofore been afforded. On the general question, allow me
to ask if the doctrine of prohibition, as a general doctrine,
be not preposterous? Suppose all nations to act upon it: they
would be prosperous, then, according to the argument, precisely
in the proportion in which they abolished intercourse with one
another. The best apology for laws of prohibition and laws of
monopoly, will be found in that state of society, not only
unenlightened, but sluggish, in which they are most generally
established. Private industry in those days, required strong
provocatives, which government was seeking to administer by
these means. Something was wanted to actuate and stimulate men,
and the prospects of such profits as would, in our times, excite
unbounded competition, would hardly move the sloth of former
ages. In some instances, no doubt, these laws produced an effect
which, in that period, would not have taken place without them.
(Instancing the protection to the English woollen manufactures
in the time of the Henrys and the Edwards). But our age is
wholly of a different character, and its legislation takes
another turn. Society is full of excitement: competition comes
in place of monopoly; and intelligence and industry ask only for
fair play and an open field."
With Mr. Webster were numerous and able speakers on the side of
free trade: From his own State, Mr. Baylies; from New-York, Mr.
Cambreling; from Virginia, Messrs. Randolph, Philip P. Barbour,
John S. Barbour, Garnet, Alexander Smythe, Floyd, Mercer, Archer,
Stevenson, Rives, Tucker, Mark Alexander; from North Carolina,
Messrs. Mangum, Saunders, Spaight, Lewis Williams, Burton, Weldon
N. Edwards; from South Carolina, Messrs. McDuffie, James Hamilton,
Poinsett; from Georgia, Messrs. Forsyth, Tatnall, Cuthbert, Cobb;
from Tennessee, Messrs. Blair, Isaaks, Reynolds; from Louisiana,
Mr. Edward Livingston; from Alabama, Mr. Owen; from Maryland, Mr.
Warfield; from Mississippi, Mr. Christopher Rankin.
The bill was carried in the House, after a protracted contest of ten
weeks, by the lean majority of five--107 to 102--only two members
absent, and the voting so zealous that several members were brought
in upon their sick couches. In the Senate the bill encountered a
strenuous resistance. Mr. Edward Lloyd, of Maryland, moved to refer
it to the committee on finance--a motion considered hostile to the
bill; and which was lost by one vote--22 to 23. It was then, on the
motion of Mr. Dickerson, of New Jersey, referred to the committee
on manufactures; a reference deemed favorable to the bill, and by
which committee it was soon returned to the Senate without any
proposed amendment. It gave rise to a most earnest debate, and many
propositions of amendment, some of which, of slight import, were
carried. The bill itself was carried by the small majority of four
votes--25 to 21. The principal speakers in favor of the bill were:
Messrs. Dickerson, of New Jersey; D'Wolf, of Rhode Island; Holmes,
of Maine; E. M. Johnson, of Kentucky; Lowrie, of Pennsylvania;
Talbot, of Kentucky; Van Buren. Against it the principal speakers
were: Messrs. James Barbour and John Taylor, of Virginia (usually
called John Taylor of Caroline); Messrs. Branch, of North Carolina;
Hayne, of South Carolina; Henry Johnson and Josiah Johnston, of
Louisiana; Kelly and King, of Alabama; Rufus King, of New-York;
James Lloyd, of Massachusetts; Edward Lloyd and Samuel Smith, of
Maryland; Macon, of North Carolina; Van Dyke, of Delaware. The bill,
though brought forward avowedly for the protection of domestic
manufactures, was not entirely supported on that ground. An increase
of revenue was the motive with some, the public debt being still
near ninety millions, and a loan of five millions being authorized
at that session. An increased protection to the products of several
States, as lead in Missouri and Illinois, hemp in Kentucky, iron in
Pennsylvania, wool in Ohio and New-York, commanded many votes for
the bill; and the impending presidential election had its influence
in its favor. Two of the candidates, Messrs. Adams and Clay, were
avowedly for it; General Jackson, who voted for the bill, was for
it, as tending to give a home supply of the articles necessary in
time of war, and as raising revenue to pay the public debt. Mr.
Crawford was opposed to it; and Mr. Calhoun had been withdrawn from
the list of presidential candidates, and become a candidate for
the Vice-Presidency. The Southern planting States were extremely
dissatisfied with the passage of the bill, believing that the new
burdens upon imports which it imposed fell upon the producers of
the exports, and tended to enrich one section of the Union at the
expense of another. The attack and support of the bill took much of
a sectional aspect; Virginia, the two Carolinas, Georgia, and some
others being nearly unanimous against it. Pennsylvania, New-York,
Ohio, Kentucky being nearly unanimous for it. Massachusetts, which
up to this time had a predominating interest in commerce, voted
all, except one member, against it. With this sectional aspect,
a tariff for protection also began to assume a political aspect,
being taken under the care of the party since discriminated as Whig,
which drew from Mr. Van Buren a sagacious remark, addressed to the
manufacturers themselves; that if they suffered their interests
to become identified with a political party (any one), they would
share the fate of that party, and go down with it whenever it sunk.
Without the increased advantages to some States, the pendency of the
presidential election, and the political tincture which the question
began to receive, the bill would not have passed--so difficult is
it to prevent national legislation from falling under the influence
of extrinsic and accidental causes. The bill was approved by Mr.
Monroe--a proof that that careful and strict constructionist of
the Constitution did not consider it as deprived of its revenue
character by the degree of protection which it extended.
CHAPTER XIV.
THE A. B. PLOT.
On Monday, the 19th of April, the Speaker of the House (Mr. Clay)
laid before that body a note just received from Ninian Edwards,
Esq., late Senator in Congress, from Illinois, and then Minister to
Mexico, and then on his way to his post, requesting him to present
to the House a communication which accompanied the note, and
which charged illegalities and misconduct on the Secretary of the
Treasury, Mr. William H. Crawford. The charges and specifications,
spread through a voluminous communication, were condensed at its
close into six regular heads of accusation, containing matter of
impeachment; and declaring them all to be susceptible of proof,
if the House would order an investigation. The communication was
accompanied by ten numbers of certain newspaper publications, signed
A. B., of which Mr. Edwards avowed himself to be the author, and
asked that they might be received as a part of his communication,
and printed along with it, and taken as the specifications under the
six charges. Mr. Crawford was then a prominent candidate for the
Presidency, and the A. B. papers, thus communicated to the House,
were a series of publications made in a Washington City paper,
during the canvass, to defeat his election, and would doubtless
have shared the usual fate of such publications, and sunk into
oblivion after the election was over, had it not been for this
formal appeal to the House (the grand inquest of the nation) and
this call for investigation. The communication, however, did not
seem to contemplate an early investigation, and certainly not at
the then session of Congress. Congress was near its adjournment;
the accuser was on his way to Mexico; the charges were grave;
the specifications under them numerous and complex; and many of
them relating to transactions with the remote western banks. The
evident expectation of the accuser was, that the matter would
lie over to the next session, before which time the presidential
election would take place, and all the mischief be done to Mr.
Crawford's character, resulting from unanswered accusations of so
much gravity, and so imposingly laid before the impeaching branch
of Congress. The friends of Mr. Crawford saw the necessity of
immediate action; and Mr. Floyd of Virginia, instantly, upon the
reading of the communication, moved that a committee be appointed
to take it into consideration, and that it be empowered to send
for persons and papers--to administer oaths--take testimony--and
report it to the House; with leave to sit after the adjournment,
if the investigation was not finished before; and publish their
report. The committee was granted, with all the powers asked for,
and was most unexceptionably composed by the speaker (Mr. Clay); a
task of delicacy and responsibility, the Speaker being himself a
candidate for the Presidency, and every member of the House a friend
to some one of the candidates, including the accused. It consisted
of Mr. Floyd, the mover; Mr. Livingston, of Louisiana; Mr. Webster,
of Massachusetts; Mr. Randolph, of Virginia; Mr. J. W. Taylor, of
New-York; Mr. Duncan McArthur, of Ohio; and Mr. Owen, of Alabama.
The sergeant-at-arms of the House was immediately dispatched by the
committee in pursuit of Mr. Edwards: overtook him at fifteen hundred
miles; brought him back to Washington; but did not arrive until
Congress had adjourned. In the mean time, the committee sat, and
received from Mr. Crawford his answer to the six charges: an answer
pronounced by Mr. Randolph to be "a triumphant and irresistible
vindication; the most temperate, passionless, mild, dignified, and
irrefragable exposure of falsehood that ever met a base accusation;
and without one harsh word towards their author." This was the true
character of the answer; but Mr. Crawford did not write it. He was
unable at that time to write any thing. It was written and read
to him as it went on, by a treasury clerk, familiar with all the
transactions to which the accusations related--Mr. Asbury Dickens,
since secretary of the Senate. This Mr. Crawford told himself at
the time, with his accustomed frankness. His answer being mentioned
by a friend, as a proof that his paralytic stroke had not affected
his strength, he replied, that was no proof--that Dickens wrote
it. The committee went on with the case (Mr. Edwards represented
by his son-in-law, Mr. Cook), examined all the evidence in their
reach, made a report unanimously concurred in, and exonerating Mr.
Crawford from every dishonorable or illegal imputation. The report
was accepted by the House; but Mr. Edwards, having far to travel
on his return journey, had not yet been examined; and to hear him
the committee continued to sit after Congress had adjourned. He was
examined fully, but could prove nothing; and the committee made
a second report, corroborating the former, and declaring it as
their unanimous opinion--the opinion of every one present--"that
nothing had been proved to impeach the integrity of the Secretary,
or to bring into doubt the general correctness and ability of his
administration of the public finances."
The committee also reported all the testimony taken, from which
it appeared that Mr. Edwards himself had contradicted all the
accusations in the A. B. papers; had denied the authorship of
them; had applauded the conduct of Mr. Crawford in the use of the
western banks, and their currency in payment of the public lands,
as having saved farmers from the loss of their homes; and declared
his belief, that no man in the government could have conducted the
fiscal and financial concerns of the government with more integrity
and propriety than he had done. This was while his nomination as
minister to Mexico was depending in the Senate, and to Mr. Noble, a
Senator from Indiana, and a friend to Mr. Crawford. He testified:
"That he had had a conversation with Mr. Edwards, introduced
by Mr. E. himself, concerning Mr. Crawford's management of the
western banks, and the authorship of the A. B. letters. That it
was pending his nomination made by the President to the Senate,
as minister to Mexico. He (Mr. E.) stated that he was about to
be attacked in the Senate, for the purpose of defeating his
nomination: that party and political spirit was now high; that
he understood that charges would be exhibited against him,
and that it had been so declared in the Senate. He further
remarked, that he knew me to be the decided friend of William H.
Crawford, and said, I am considered as being his bitter enemy;
and I am charged with being the author of the numbers signed A.
B.; but (raising his hand) I pledge you my honor, I am not the
author, nor do I know who the author is. Crawford and I, said
Mr. Edwards, have had a little difference; but I have always
considered him a high-minded, honorable, and vigilant officer
of the government. He has been abused about the western banks
and the unavailable funds. Leaning forward, and extending his
hand, he added, now damn it, you know we both live in States
where there are many poor debtors to the government for lands,
together with a deranged currency. The notes on various banks
being depreciated, after the effect and operation of the war
in that portion of the Union, and the banks, by attempting to
call in their paper, having exhausted their specie, the notes
that were in circulation became of little or no value. Many men
of influence in that country, said he, have united to induce
the Secretary of the Treasury to select certain banks as banks
of deposit, and to take the notes of certain banks in payment
for public land. Had he (Mr. Crawford) not done so, many of our
inhabitants would have been turned out of doors, and lost their
land; and the people of the country would have had a universal
disgust against Mr. Crawford. And I will venture to say, said
Mr. Edwards, notwithstanding I am considered his enemy, that
no man in this government could have managed the fiscal and
financial concerns of the government with more integrity and
propriety than Mr. Crawford did. He (Mr. Noble) had never
repeated this conversation to any body until the evening of the
day that I (he) was informed that Gov. Edwards' 'address' was
presented to the House of Representatives. On that evening, in
conversation with several members of the House, amongst whom
were Mr. Reid and Mr. Nelson, some of whom said that Governor
Edwards had avowed himself to be the author of A. B., and others
said that he had not done so, I remarked, that they must have
misunderstood the 'address,' for Gov. Edwards had pledged his
honor to me that he was not the author of A. B."
Other witnesses testified to his denials, while the nomination was
depending, of all authorship of these publications: among them, the
editors of the National Intelligencer,--friends to Mr. Crawford. Mr.
Edwards called at their office at that time (the first time he had
been there within a year), to exculpate himself from the imputed
authorship; and did it so earnestly that the editors believed him,
and published a contradiction of the report against him in their
paper, stating that they had a "good reason" to know that he was
not the author of these publications. That "good reason," they
testified, was his own voluntary denial in this unexpected visit
to their office, and his declarations in what he called a "frank
and free" conversation with them on the subject. Such testimony,
and the absence of all proof on the other side, was fatal to the
accusations, and to the accuser. The committee reported honorably
and unanimously in favor of Mr. Crawford; the Congress and the
country accepted it; Mr. Edwards resigned his commission, and
disappeared from the federal political theatre: and that was the
end of the A. B. plot, which had filled some newspapers for a year
with publications against Mr. Crawford, and which might have passed
into oblivion, as the current productions and usual concomitants
of a Presidential canvass, had it not been for their formal
communication to Congress as ground of impeachment against a high
officer. That communication carried the "six charges," and their
ten chapters of specifications, into our parliamentary history,
where their fate becomes one of the instructive lessons which it
is the province of history to teach. The newspaper in which the A.
B. papers were published, was edited by a war-office clerk, in the
interest of the war Secretary (Mr. Calhoun), to the serious injury
of that gentleman, who received no vote in any State voting for Mr.
Crawford.
CHAPTER XV.
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION IN RELATION TO THE ELECTION OF
PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT.
European writers on American affairs are full of mistakes on the
working of our government; and these mistakes are generally to the
prejudice of the democratic element. Of these mistakes, and in their
ignorance of the difference between the theory and the working of
our system in the election of the two first officers, two eminent
French writers are striking instances: Messrs. de Tocqueville and
Thiers. Taking the working and the theory of our government in this
particular to be the same, they laud the institution of electors,
to whom they believe the whole power of election belongs (as it was
intended);--and hence attribute to the superior sagacity of these
electors the merit of choosing all the eminent Presidents who have
adorned the presidential chair. This mistake between theory and
practice is known to every body in America, and should be known
to enlightened men in Europe, who wish to do justice to popular
government. The electors have no practical power over the election,
and have had none since their institution. From the beginning
they have stood pledged to vote for the candidates indicated (in
the early elections) by the public will; afterwards, by Congress
caucuses, as long as those caucuses followed the public will; and
since, by assemblages called conventions, whether they follow
the public will or not. In every case the elector has been an
instrument, bound to obey a particular impulsion; and disobedience
to which would be attended with infamy, and with every penalty which
public indignation could inflict. From the beginning these electors
have been useless, and an inconvenient intervention between the
people and the object of their choice; and, in time, may become
dangerous: and being useless, inconvenient, and subject to abuse and
danger; having wholly failed to answer the purpose for which they
were instituted (and for which purpose no one would now contend); it
becomes a just conclusion that the institution should be abolished,
and the election committed to the direct vote of the people. And,
to obviate all excuse for previous nominations by intermediate
bodies, a second election to be held forthwith between the two
highest or leading candidates, if no one had had a majority of the
whole number on the first trial. These are not new ideas, born of
a spirit of change and innovation; but old doctrine, advocated in
the convention which framed the Constitution, by wise and good men;
by Dr. Franklin and others, of Pennsylvania; by John Dickinson and
others, of Delaware. But the opinion prevailed in the convention,
that the mass of the people would not be sufficiently informed,
discreet, and temperate to exercise with advantage so great a
privilege as that of choosing the chief magistrate of a great
republic; and hence the institution of an intermediate body, called
the electoral college--its members to be chosen by the people--and
when assembled in conclave (I use the word in the Latin sense of
_con_ and _clavis_, under key), to select whomsoever they should
think proper for President and Vice-President. All this scheme
having failed, and the people having taken hold of the election, it
became just and regular to attempt to legalize their acquisition
by securing to them constitutionally the full enjoyment of the
rights which they imperfectly exercised. The feeling to this effect
became strong as the election of 1824 approached, when there were
many candidates in the field, and Congress caucuses fallen into
disrepute; and several attempts were made to obtain a constitutional
amendment to accomplish the purpose. Mr. McDuffie, in the House
of Representatives, and myself in the Senate, both proposed such
amendments; the mode of taking the direct votes to be in districts,
and the persons receiving the greatest number of votes for President
or Vice-President in any district, to count one vote for such office
respectively; which is nothing but substituting the candidates
themselves for their electoral representatives, while simplifying
the election, insuring its integrity, and securing the rights of
the people. In support of my proposition in the Senate, I delivered
some arguments in the form of a speech, from which I here add some
extracts, in the hope of keeping the question alive, and obtaining
for it a better success at some future day.
"The evil of a want of uniformity in the choice of presidential
electors, is not limited to its disfiguring effect upon the
face of our government, but goes to endanger the rights of
the people, by permitting sudden alterations on the eve of an
election, and to annihilate the right of the small States, by
enabling the large ones to combine, and to throw all their votes
into the scale of a particular candidate. These obvious evils
make it certain that _any uniform rule_ would be preferable to
the present state of things. But, in fixing on one, it is the
duty of statesmen to select that which is calculated to give
to every portion of the Union its due share in the choice of
the Chief Magistrate, and to every individual citizen, a fair
opportunity of voting according to his will. This would be
effected by adopting the _District System_. It would divide
every State into districts, equal to the whole number of votes
to be given, and the people of each district would be governed
by its own majority, and not by a majority existing in some
remote part of the State. This would be agreeable to the
_rights_ of individuals: for, in entering into society, and
submitting to be bound by the decision of the majority, each
individual retained the right of voting for himself wherever
it was practicable, and of being governed by a majority of the
vicinage, and not by majorities brought from remote sections
to overwhelm him with their accumulated numbers. It would be
agreeable to the _interests_ of all parts of the States; for
each State may have different interests in different parts;
one part may be agricultural, another manufacturing, another
commercial; and it would be unjust that the strongest should
govern, or that two should combine and sacrifice the third.
The district system would be agreeable to the _intention_ of
our present constitution, which, in giving to each elector a
separate vote, instead of giving to each State a consolidated
vote, composed of all its electoral suffrages, clearly intended
that each mass of persons entitled to one elector, should have
the right of giving one vote, according to their own sense of
their own interest.
"The general ticket system now existing in ten States, was the
offspring of policy, and not of any disposition to give fair
play to the will of the people. It was adopted by the leading
men of those States, to enable them to consolidate the vote
of the State. It would be easy to prove this by referring to
facts of historical notoriety. It contributes to give power and
consequence to the leaders who manage the elections, but it is
a departure from the intention of the constitution; violates
the rights of the minorities, and is attended with many other
evils. The intention of the constitution is violated, because
it was the intention of that instrument to give to each mass
of persons, entitled to one elector, the power of giving an
electoral vote to any candidate they preferred. The rights of
minorities are violated, because a majority of _one_ will carry
the vote of the whole State. This principle is the same, whether
the elector is chosen by general ticket or by legislative
ballot; a majority of _one_, in either case, carries the
vote of the whole State. In New-York, thirty-six electors are
chosen; nineteen is a majority, and the candidate receiving
this majority is fairly entitled to count nineteen votes; but
he counts in reality, thirty-six: because the minority of
seventeen are added to the majority. Those seventeen votes
belong to seventeen masses of people, of 40,000 souls each, in
all 680,000 people, whose votes are seized upon, taken away, and
presented to whom the majority pleases. Extend the calculation
to the seventeen States now choosing electors by general ticket
or legislative ballot, and it will show that three millions of
souls, a population equal to that which carried us through the
Revolution, may have their votes taken from them in the same
way. To _lose_ their votes, is the fate of all minorities,
and it is their duty to submit; but this is not a case of
votes _lost_, but of votes _taken away_, added to those of the
majority, and given to a person to whom the minority was opposed.
"He said, this objection (to the direct vote of the people) had
a weight in the year 1787, to which it is not entitled in the
year 1824. Our government was then young, schools and colleges
were scarce, political science was then confined to few, and
the means of diffusing intelligence were both inadequate and
uncertain. The experiment of a popular government was just
beginning; the people had been just released from subjection
to an hereditary king, and were not yet practised in the art
of choosing a temporary chief for themselves. But thirty-six
years have reversed this picture. Thirty-six years, which
have produced so many wonderful changes in America, have
accomplished the work of many centuries upon the intelligence
of its inhabitants. Within that period, school, colleges, and
universities have multiplied to an amazing extent. The means of
diffusing intelligence have been wonderfully augmented by the
establishment of six hundred newspapers, and upwards of five
thousand post-offices. The whole course of an American's life,
civil, social, and religious, has become one continued scene of
intellectual and of moral improvement. Once in every week, more
than eleven thousand men, eminent for learning and for piety,
perform the double duty of amending the hearts, and enlightening
the understandings, of more than eleven thousand congregations
of people. Under the benign influence of a free government,
both our public institutions and private pursuits, our juries,
elections, courts of justice, the liberal professions and
the mechanic arts, have each become a school of political
science and of mental improvement. The federal legislature,
in the annual message of the President, in reports from heads
of departments, and committees of Congress, and speeches of
members, pours forth a flood of intelligence which carries its
waves to the remotest confines of the republic. In the different
States, twenty-four State executives and State legislatures
are annually repeating the same process within a more limited
sphere. The habit of universal travelling, and the practice of
universal interchange of thought, are continually circulating
the intelligence of the country, and augmenting its mass. The
face of our country itself, its vast extent, its grand and
varied features, contribute to expand the human intellect, and
to magnify its power. Less than half a century of the enjoyment
of liberty has given practical evidence of the great moral
truth, that, under a free government, the power of the intellect
is the only power which rules the affairs of men; and virtue and
intelligence the only durable passports to honor and preferment.
The conviction of this great truth has created an universal
taste for learning and for reading, and has convinced every
parent that the endowments of the mind, and the virtues of the
heart, are the only imperishable, the only inestimable riches
which he can leave to his posterity.
"This objection (the danger of tumults and violence at the
elections) is taken from the history of the ancient republics;
from the tumultuary elections of Rome and Greece. But the
justness of the example is denied. There is nothing in the laws
of physiology which admits a parallel between the sanguinary
Roman, the volatile Greek, and the phlegmatic American. There is
nothing in the state of the respective countries, or in their
manner of voting, which makes one an example for the other. The
Romans voted in a mass, at a single voting place, even when the
qualified voters amounted to millions of persons. They came
to the polls armed, and divided into classes, and voted, not
by heads, but by centuries. In the Grecian Republics all the
voters were brought together in one great city, and decided the
contest in one great struggle. In such assemblages, both the
inducement to violence, and the means of committing it, were
prepared by the government itself. In the United States all
this is different. The voters are assembled in small bodies, at
innumerable voting places, distributed over a vast extent of
country. They come to the polls without arms, without odious
distinctions, without any temptation to violence, and with every
inducement to harmony. If heated during the day of election,
they cool off upon returning to their homes, and resuming their
ordinary occupations.
"But let us admit the truth of the objection. Let us admit that
the American people would be as tumultuary at their presidential
elections, as were the citizens of the ancient republics at
the election of their chief magistrates. What then? Are we
thence to infer the inferiority of the officers thus elected,
and the consequent degradation of the countries over which
they presided? I answer no. So far from it, that I assert the
superiority of these officers over all others ever obtained for
the same countries, either by hereditary succession, or the most
select mode of election. I affirm those periods of history to
be the most glorious in arms, the most renowned in arts, the
most celebrated in letters, the most useful in practice, and
the most happy in the condition of the people, in which the
whole body of the citizens voted direct for the chief officer
of their country. Take the history of that commonwealth which
yet shines as the leading star in the firmament of nations. Of
the twenty-five centuries that the Roman state has existed, to
what period do we look for the generals and statesmen, the poets
and orators, the philosophers and historians, the sculptors,
painters, and architects, whose immortal works have fixed upon
their country the admiring eyes of all succeeding ages? Is it
to the reigns of the seven first kings?--to the reigns of the
emperors, proclaimed by the prætorian bands?--to the reigns of
the Sovereign Pontiffs, chosen by a select body of electors
in a conclave of most holy cardinals? No--We look to none of
these, but to that short interval of four centuries and a half
which lies between the expulsion of the Tarquins, and the
re-establishment of monarchy in the person of Octavius Cæsar. It
is to this short period, during which the consuls, tribunes, and
prætors, were annually elected by a direct vote of the people,
to which we look ourselves, and to which we direct the infant
minds of our children, for all the works and monuments of Roman
greatness; for roads, bridges, and aqueducts, constructed;
for victories gained, nations vanquished, commerce extended,
treasure imported, libraries founded, learning encouraged, the
arts flourishing, the city embellished, and the kings of the
earth humbly suing to be admitted into the friendship, and
taken under the protection, of the Roman people. It was of this
magnificent period that Cicero spoke, when he proclaimed the
people of Rome to be the masters of kings, and the conquerors
and commanders of all the nations of the earth. And, what is
wonderful, during this whole period, in a succession of four
hundred and fifty annual elections, the people never once
preferred a citizen to the consulship who did not carry the
prosperity and the glory of the Republic to a point beyond that
at which he had found it.
"It is the same with the Grecian Republics. Thirty centuries
have elapsed since they were founded; yet it is to an ephemeral
period of one hundred and fifty years only, the period of
popular elections which intervened between the dispersion of a
cloud of petty tyrants, and the coming of a great one in the
person of Philip, king of Macedon, that we are to look for that
galaxy of names which shed so much lustre upon their country,
and in which we are to find the first cause of that intense
sympathy which now burns in our bosoms at the name of Greece.
"These short and brilliant periods exhibit the great triumph of
popular elections; often tumultuary, often stained with blood,
but always ending gloriously for the country. Then the right
of suffrage was enjoyed; the sovereignty of the people was no
fiction. Then a sublime spectacle was seen, when the Roman
citizen advanced to the polls and proclaimed: '_I vote for Cato
to be Consul_;' the Athenian, '_I vote for Aristides to be
Archon_;' the Theban, '_I vote for Pelopidas to be Bæotrach_;'
the Lacedemonian, '_I vote for Leonidas to be first of the
Ephori_.' And why may not an American citizen do the same?
Why may not he go up to the poll and proclaim, '_I vote for
Thomas Jefferson to be President of the United States?_' Why
is he compelled to put his vote in the hands of another, and
to incur all the hazards of an irresponsible agency, when he
himself could immediately give his own vote for his own chosen
candidate, without the slightest assistance from agents or
managers?
"But, said Mr. Benton, I have other objections to these
intermediate electors. They are the peculiar and favorite
institution of aristocratic republics, and elective monarchies.
I refer the Senate to the late republics of Venice and Genoa; of
France, and her litter; to the kingdom of Poland; the empire of
Germany, and the Pontificate of Rome. On the contrary, a direct
vote by the people is the peculiar and favorite institution of
democratic republics; as we have just seen in the governments
of Rome, Athens, Thebes, and Sparta; to which may be added the
principal cities of the Amphyctionic and Achaian leagues, and
the renowned republic of Carthage when the rival of Rome.
"I have now answered the objections which were brought forward
in the year '87. I ask for no judgment upon their validity
at that day, but I affirm them to be without force or reason
in the year 1824. TIME and EXPERIENCE have so decided. Yes,
_time_ and _experience_, the only infallible tests of good or
bad institutions, have now shown that the continuance of the
electoral system will be both useless and dangerous to the
liberties of the people; and that '_the only effectual mode
of preserving our government from the corruptions which have
undermined the liberty of so many nations, is, to confide the
election of our chief magistrate to those who are farthest
removed from the influence of his patronage_;'[1] that is to
say, TO THE WHOLE BODY OF AMERICAN CITIZENS!
[1] Report of a Committee of the House of Representatives on Mr.
McDuffie's proposition.
"The electors are not independent; they have no superior
intelligence; they are not left to their own judgment in the
choice of President; they are not above the control of the
people; on the contrary, every elector is pledged, before he
is chosen, to give his vote according to the will of those
who choose him. He is nothing but an agent, tied down to the
execution of a precise trust. Every reason which induced the
convention to institute electors has failed. They are no longer
of any use, and may be dangerous to the liberties of the
people. They are not useful, because they have no power over
their own vote, and because the people can vote for a President
as easily as they can vote for an elector. They are dangerous
to the liberties of the people, because, in the _first_ place,
they introduce extraneous considerations into the election of
President; and, in the _second_ place, they may sell the vote
which is intrusted to their keeping. They introduce extraneous
considerations, by bringing their own character and their
own exertions into the presidential canvass. Every one sees
this. Candidates for electors are now selected, not for the
reasons mentioned in the Federalist, but for their devotion
to a particular party, for their manners, and their talent at
electioneering. The elector may betray the liberties of the
people, by selling his vote. The operation is easy, because he
votes by ballot; detection is impossible, because he does not
sign his vote; the restraint is nothing but his own conscience,
for there is no legal punishment for his breach of trust. If
a swindler defrauds you out of a few dollars in property or
money, he is whipped and pilloried, and rendered infamous in
the eye of the law; but, if an elector should defraud 40,000
people of their vote, there is no remedy but to abuse him in the
newspapers, where the best men in the country may be abused, as
much as Benedict Arnold, or Judas Iscariot. Every reason for
instituting electors has failed, and every consideration of
prudence requires them to be discontinued. They are nothing but
agents, in a case which requires no agent; and no prudent man
would, or ought, to employ an agent to take care of his money,
his property, or his liberty, when he is equally capable to take
care of them himself.
"But, if the plan of the constitution had not failed--if we
were now deriving from electors all the advantages expected
from their institution--I, for one, said Mr. B., would still
be in favor of getting rid of them. I should esteem the
incorruptibility of the people, their disinterested desire to
get the best man for President, to be more than a counterpoise
to all the advantages which might be derived from the superior
intelligence of a more enlightened, but smaller, and therefore,
more corruptible body. I should be opposed to the intervention
of electors, because the double process of electing a man
to elect a man, would paralyze the spirit of the people,
and destroy the life of the election itself. Doubtless this
machinery was introduced into our constitution for the purpose
of softening the action of the democratic element; but it also
softens the interest of the people in the result of the election
itself. It places them at too great a distance from their first
servant. It interposes a body of men between the people and
the object of their choice, and gives a false direction to the
gratitude of the President elected. He feels himself indebted to
the electors who collected the votes of the people, and not to
the people, who gave their votes to the electors. It enables a
few men to govern many, and, in time, it will transfer the whole
power of the election into the hands of a few, leaving to the
people the humble occupation of confirming what has been done by
superior authority.
"Mr Benton referred to historical examples to prove the
correctness of his opinion.
"He mentioned the constitution of the French Republic, of the
year III. of French liberty. The people to choose electors;
these to choose the Councils of Five Hundred, and of Ancients;
and these, by a further process of filtration, to choose the
Five Directors. The effect was, that the people had no concern
in the election of their Chief Magistrates, and felt no interest
in their fate. They saw them enter and expel each other from the
political theatre, with the same indifference with which they
would see the entrance and the exit of so many players on the
stage. It was the same thing in all the subaltern Republics of
which the French armies were delivered, while overturning the
thrones of Europe. The constitutions of the Ligurian, Cisalpine,
and Parthenopian Republics, were all duplicates of the mother
institution, at Paris; and all shared the same fate. The French
consular constitution of the year VIII. (the last year of French
liberty) preserved all the vices of the electoral system; and
from this fact, alone, that profound observer, NECKAR, from the
bosom of his retreat, in the midst of the Alps, predicted and
proclaimed the death of Liberty in France. He wrote a book to
prove that 'LIBERTY WOULD BE RUINED BY PROVIDING ANY KIND OF
SUBSTITUTE FOR POPULAR ELECTIONS:' and the result verified his
prediction in four years."
CHAPTER XVI.
INTERNAL TRADE WITH NEW MEXICO.
The name of Mexico, the synonyme of gold and silver mines, possessed
always an invincible charm for the people of the western States.
Guarded from intrusion by Spanish jealousy and despotic power, and
imprisonment for life, or labor in the mines, the inexorable penalty
for every attempt to penetrate the forbidden country, still the
dazzled imaginations and daring spirits of the Great West adventured
upon the enterprise; and failure and misfortune, chains and labor,
were not sufficient to intimidate others. The journal of (the then
lieutenant, afterwards) General Pike inflamed this spirit, and
induced new adventurers to hazard the enterprise, only to meet
the fate of their predecessors. It was not until the Independence
of Mexico, in the year 1821, that the frontiers of this vast and
hitherto sealed up country, were thrown open to foreign ingress,
and trade and intercourse allowed to take their course. The State
of Missouri, from her geographical position, and the adventurous
spirit of her inhabitants, was among the first to engage in it; and
the "Western Internal Provinces"--the vast region comprehending
New Mexico, El Paso del Norte, New Biscay, Chihuahua, Sonora,
Sinaloa, and all the wide slope spreading down towards the Gulf of
California, the ancient "Sea of Cortez"--was the remote theatre of
their courageous enterprise--the further off and the less known, so
much the more attractive to their daring spirits. It was the work
of individual enterprise, without the protection or countenance of
the government--without even its knowledge--and exposed to constant
danger of life and property from the untamed and predatory savages,
Arabs of the New World, which roamed over the intermediate country
of a thousand miles, and considered the merchant and his goods
their lawful prey. In three years it had grown up to be a new and
regular branch of interior commerce, profitable to those engaged in
it, valuable to the country from the articles it carried out, and
for the silver, the furs, and the mules which it brought back; and
well entitled to the protection and care of the government. That
protection was sought, and in the form which the character of the
trade required--a right of way through the countries of the tribes
between Missouri and New Mexico, a road marked out and security in
travelling it, stipulations for good behavior from the Indians,
and a consular establishment in the provinces to be traded with.
The consuls could be appointed by the order of the government; but
the road, the treaty stipulations, and the substantial protection
against savages, required the aid of the federal legislative power,
and for that purpose a Bill was brought into the Senate by me in
the session of 1824-25; and being a novel and strange subject, and
asking for extraordinary legislation, it became necessary to lay a
foundation of facts, and to furnish a reason and an argument for
every thing that was asked. I produced a statement from those
engaged in the trade, among others from Mr. Augustus Storrs, late
of New Hampshire, then of Missouri--a gentleman of character and
intelligence, very capable of relating things as they were, and
incapable of relating them otherwise; and who had been personally
engaged in the trade. In presenting his statement, and moving to
have it printed for the use of the Senate, I said:
"This gentleman had been one of a caravan of eighty persons,
one hundred and fifty-six horses, and twenty-three wagons
and carriages, which had made the expedition from Missouri
to Santa Fé (of New Mexico), in the months of May and June
last. His account was full of interest and novelty. It sounded
like romance to hear of caravans of men, horses, and wagons,
traversing with their merchandise the vast plain which lies
between the Mississippi and the _Rio del Norte_. The story
seemed better adapted to Asia than to North America. But,
romantic as it might seem, the reality had already exceeded the
visions of the wildest imagination. The journey to New Mexico,
but lately deemed a chimerical project, had become an affair of
ordinary occurrence. Santa Fé, but lately the _Ultima Thule_ of
American enterprise, was now considered as a stage only in the
progress, or rather, a new point of departure to our invincible
citizens. Instead of turning back from that point, the caravans
broke up there, and the subdivisions branched off in different
directions in search of new theatres for their enterprise.
Some proceeded down the river to the _Paso del Norte_; some
to the mines of Chihuahua and Durango, in the province of New
Biscay; some to Sonora and Sinaloa, on the Gulf of California;
and some, seeking new lines of communication with the Pacific,
had undertaken to descend the western slope of our continent,
through the unexplored regions of the Colorado. The fruit of
these enterprises, for the present year, amounted to $190,000
in gold and silver bullion, and coin, and precious furs; a sum
considerable, in itself, in the commerce of an infant State,
but chiefly deserving a statesman's notice, as an earnest of
what might be expected from a regulated and protected trade. The
principal article given in exchange, is that of which we have
the greatest abundance, and which has the peculiar advantage
of making the circuit of the Union before it departs from the
territories of the republic--cotton--which grows in the South,
is manufactured in the North, and exported from the West.
"That the trade will be beneficial to the inhabitants of the
Internal Provinces, is a proposition too plain to be argued.
They are a people among whom all the arts are lost--the ample
catalogue of whose wants may be inferred from the lamentable
details of Mr. Storrs. No books! no newspapers! iron a dollar
a pound! cultivating the earth with wooden tools! and spinning
upon a stick! Such is the picture of a people whose fathers wore
the proud title of "_Conquerors_;" whose ancestors, in the time
of Charles the Fifth, were the pride, the terror, and the model
of Europe; and such has been the power of civil and religious
despotism in accomplishing the degradation of the human species!
To a people thus abased, and so lately arrived at the possession
of their liberties, a supply of merchandise, upon the cheapest
terms, is the least of the benefits to be derived from a
commerce with the people of the United States. The consolidation
of their republican institutions, the improvement of their moral
and social condition, the restoration of their lost arts, and
the development of their national resources, are among the grand
results which philanthropy anticipates from such a commerce.
"To the Indians themselves, the opening of a road through their
country is an object of vital importance. It is connected with
the preservation and improvement of their race. For two hundred
years the problem of Indian civilization has been successively
presented to each generation of the Americans, and solved
by each in the same way. Schools have been set up, colleges
founded, and missions established; a wonderful success has
attended the commencement of every undertaking; and, after some
time, the schools, the colleges, the missions, and the Indians,
have all disappeared together. In the south alone have we seen
an exception. There the nations have preserved themselves, and
have made a cheering progress in the arts of civilization. Their
advance is the work of twenty years. It dates its commencement
from the opening of roads through their country. Roads induced
separate families to settle at the crossing of rivers, to
establish themselves at the best springs and tracts of land, and
to begin to sell grain and provisions to the travellers, whom,
a few years before, they would kill and plunder. This imparted
the idea of exclusive property in the soil, and created an
attachment for a fixed residence. Gradually, fields were opened,
houses built, orchards planted, flocks and herds acquired, and
slaves bought. The acquisition of these comforts, relieving
the body from the torturing wants of cold and hunger, placed
the mind in a condition to pursue its improvement.--This, Mr.
President, is the true secret of the happy advance which the
southern tribes have made in acquiring the arts of civilization;
this has fitted them for the reception of schools and missions;
and doubtless, the same cause will produce the same effects
among the tribes beyond, which it has produced among the tribes
on this side of the Mississippi.
"The right of way is indispensable, and the committee have
begun with directing a bill to be reported for that purpose.
Happily, there are no constitutional objections to it. State
rights are in no danger! The road which is contemplated will
trespass upon the soil, or infringe upon the jurisdiction of
no State whatsoever. It runs a course and a distance to avoid
all that; for it begins upon the outside line of the outside
State, and runs directly off towards the setting sun--far away
from all the States. The Congress and the Indians are alone
to be consulted, and the statute book is full of precedents.
Protesting against the necessity of producing precedents for an
act in itself pregnant with propriety, I will yet name a few in
order to illustrate the policy of the government, and show its
readiness to make roads through Indian countries to facilitate
the intercourse of its citizens, and even upon foreign territory
to promote commerce and national communications."
Precedents were then shown. 1, A road from Nashville, Tennessee,
through the Chicasaw and Choctaw tribes, to Natchez, 1806; 2, a
road through the Creek nations, from Athens, in Georgia, to the
31st degree of north latitude, in the direction to New Orleans,
1806, and continued by act of 1807, with the consent of the Spanish
government, through the then Spanish territory of West Florida to
New Orleans; 3, three roads through the Cherokee nation, to open an
intercourse between Georgia, Tennessee, and the lower Mississippi;
and more than twenty others upon the territory of the United States.
But the precedent chiefly relied upon was that from Athens through
the Creek Indian territory and the Spanish dominions to New Orleans.
It was up to the exigency of the occasion in every particular--being
both upon Indian territory within our dominions, and upon foreign
territory beyond them. The road I wanted fell within the terms of
both these qualifications. It was to pass through tribes within our
own territory, until it reached the Arkansas River: there it met
the foreign boundary established by the treaty of 1819, which gave
away, not only Texas, but half the Arkansas besides; and the bill
which I brought in provided for continuing the road, with the assent
of Mexico, from this boundary to Santa Fé, on the Upper del Norte.
I deemed it fair to give additional emphasis to this precedent, by
showing that I had it from Mr. Jefferson, and said:
"For a knowledge of this precedent, I am indebted to a
conversation with Mr. Jefferson himself. In a late excursion
to Virginia, I availed myself of a broken day to call and pay
my respects to that patriarchal statesman. The individual
must manage badly, Mr. President, who can find himself in
the presence of that great man, and retire from it without
bringing off some fact, or some maxim, of eminent utility to the
human race. I trust that I did not so manage. I trust that, in
bringing off a fact which led to the discovery of the precedent,
which is to remove the only serious objection to the road in
question, I have done a service, if not to the human family,
at least to the citizens of the two greatest Republics in the
world. It was on the evening of Christmas day that I called upon
Mr. Jefferson. The conversation, among other things, turned upon
roads. He spoke of one from Georgia to New Orleans, made during
the last term of his own administration. He said there was a
manuscript map of it in the library of Congress (formerly his
own), bound up in a certain volume of maps, which he described
to me. On my return to Washington, I searched the statute book,
and I found the acts which authorized the road to be made: they
are the same which I have just read to the Senate. I searched
the Congress Library, and I found the volume of maps which he
had described; and here it is (presenting a huge folio), and
there is the map of the road from Georgia to New Orleans, more
than two hundred miles of which, marked in blue ink, is traced
through the then dominions of the King of Spain!"
The foreign part of the road was the difficulty and was not entirely
covered by the precedent. That was a road to our own city, and no
other direct territorial way from the Southern States than through
the Spanish province of West Florida: this was a road to be, not
only on foreign territory, but to go to a foreign country. Some
Senators, favorable to the bill, were startled at it, and Mr. Lloyd,
of Massachusetts, moved to strike out the part of the section which
provided for this ex-territorial national highway; but not in a
spirit of hostility to the bill itself providing for protection to
a branch of commerce. Mr. Lowrie, of Pennsylvania, could not admit
the force of the objection, and held it to be only a modification of
what was now done for the protection of commerce--the substitution
of land for water; and instanced the sums annually spent in
maintaining a fleet in the Mediterranean Sea, and in the most
remote oceans for the same purpose. Mr. Van Buren, thought the
government was bound to extend the same protection to this branch
of trade as to any other; and the road upon the foreign territory
was only to be marked out, not made. Mr. Macon thought the question
no great matter. Formerly Indian traders followed "_traces"_ now
they must have roads. He did not care for precedents: they are
generally good or bad as they suit or cross our purposes. The case
of the road made by Mr. Jefferson was different. That road was made
among Indians comparatively civilized, and who had some notions of
property. But the proposed road now to be marked out would pass
through wild tribes who think of nothing but killing and robbing a
white man the moment they see him, and would not be restrained by
treaty obligations even if they entered into them. Col. Johnson, of
Kentucky, had never hesitated to vote the money which was necessary
to protect the lives or property of our sea-faring men, or for
Atlantic fortifications, or to suppress piracies. We had, at this
session voted $500,000 to suppress piracy in the West Indies. We
build ships of war, erect light-houses, spend annual millions for
the protection of ocean commerce; and he could not suppose that the
sum proposed in this bill for the protection of an inland branch
of trade so valuable to the West could be denied. Mr. Kelly, of
Alabama, said the great object of the bill was to cherish and foster
a branch of commerce already in existence. It is carried on by land
through several Indian tribes. To be safe, a road must be had--a
right of way--"_a trace_," if you please. To answer its purpose,
this road, or "_trace_," must pass the boundary of the United
States, and extend several hundred miles through the wilderness
country, in the Mexican Republic to the settlements with which the
traffic must be carried on. It may be well to remember that the
Mexican government is in the germ of its existence, struggling with
difficulties that we have long since surmounted, and may not feel
it convenient to make the road, and that it is enough to permit us
to mark it out upon her soil; which is all that this bill proposes
to do within her limits. Mr. Smith, of Maryland, would vote for the
bill. The only question with him was, whether commerce could be
carried on to advantage on the proposed route; and, being satisfied
that it could be, he should vote for the bill. Mr. Brown, of Ohio
(Ethan A.), was very glad to hear such sentiments from the Senator
from Maryland, and hoped that a reciprocal good feeling would
always prevail between different sections of the Union. He thought
there could be no objection to the bill, and approved the policy of
getting the road upon Mexican territory with the consent of the
Mexican government. The bill passed the Senate by a large vote--30
to 12; and these are the names of the Senators voting for and
against it:
YEAS.--Messrs. Barton, Benton, Bouligny, Brown, D'Wolf, Eaton,
Edwards, Elliott, Holmes of Miss., Jackson (the General), Johnson of
Kentucky, Johnston of Lou., Kelly, Knight, Lanman, Lloyd of Mass.,
Lowrie, McIlvaine, McLean, Noble, Palmer, Parrott, Ruggles, Seymour,
Smith, Talbot, Taylor, Thomas, Van Buren, Van Dyke--30.
NAYS.--Messrs. Branch, Chandler, Clayton, Cobb, Gaillard, Hayne,
Holmes of Maine, King of Ala., King of N. Y., Macon, Tazewell,
Williams--12.
It passed the House of Representatives by a majority of
thirty--received the approving signature of Mr. Monroe, among
the last acts of his public life--was carried into effect by his
successor, Mr. John Quincy Adams--and this road has remained a
thoroughfare of commerce between Missouri and New Mexico, and all
the western internal provinces ever since.
CHAPTER XVII.
PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE-PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN THE ELECTORAL
COLLEGES.
Four candidates were before the people for the office of
President--General Jackson, Mr. John Quincy Adams, Mr. William H.
Crawford, and Mr. Henry Clay. Mr. Crawford had been nominated in
a caucus of democratic members of Congress; but being a minority
of the members, and the nomination not in accordance with public
opinion, it carried no authority along with it, and was of no
service to the object of its choice. General Jackson was the
candidate of the people, brought forward by the masses. Mr. Adams
and Mr. Clay were brought forward by bodies of their friends in
different States. The whole number of electoral votes was 261 of
which it required 131 to make an election. No one had that number.
General Jackson was the highest on the list, and had 99 votes; Mr.
Adams 84; Mr. Crawford 41; Mr. Clay 37. No one having a majority
of the whole of electors, the election devolved upon the House of
Representatives; of which an account will be given in a separate
chapter.
In the vice-presidential election it was different. Mr. John C.
Calhoun (who in the beginning of the canvass had been a candidate
for the Presidency, but had been withdrawn by his friends in
Pennsylvania, and put forward for Vice-President), received 182
votes in the electoral college, and was elected. Mr. Nathan
Sandford, Senator in Congress from New-York, had been placed on
the ticket with Mr. Clay, and received 30 votes. The 24 votes of
Virginia were given to Mr. Macon, as a compliment, he not being
a candidate, and having refused to become one. The nine votes of
Georgia were given to Mr. Van Buren, also as a compliment, he not
being on the list of candidates. Mr. Albert Gallatin had been
nominated in the Congress caucus with Mr. Crawford, but finding
the proceedings of that caucus unacceptable to the people he had
withdrawn from the canvass. Mr. Calhoun was the only substantive
vice-presidential candidate before the people, and his election was
an evidence of good feeling in the North towards southern men--he
receiving the main part of his votes from that quarter--114 votes
from the non-slaveholding States, and only 68 from the slaveholding.
A southern man, and a slaveholder, Mr. Calhoun was indebted to
northern men and non-slaveholders, for the honorable distinction of
an election in the electoral colleges--the only one in the electoral
colleges--the only one on all the lists of presidential and
vice-presidential candidates who had that honor. Surely there was no
disposition in the free States at that time to be unjust, or unkind
to the South.
CHAPTER XVIII.
DEATH OF JOHN TAYLOR, OF CAROLINE.
For by that designation was discriminated, in his own State, the
eminent republican statesman of Virginia, who was a Senator in
Congress in the first term of General Washington's administration,
and in the last term of Mr. Monroe--and who, having voluntarily
withdrawn himself from that high station during the intermediate
thirty years, devoted himself to the noble pursuits of agriculture,
literature, the study of political economy, and the service of his
State or county when called by his fellow-citizens. Personally I
knew him but slightly, our meeting in the Senate being our first
acquaintance, and our senatorial association limited to the single
session of which he was a member--1823-24;--at the end of which he
died. But all my observation of him, and his whole appearance and
deportment, went to confirm the reputation of his individuality
of character, and high qualities of the head and the heart. I
can hardly figure to myself the ideal of a republican statesman
more perfect and complete than he was in reality:--plain and
solid, a wise counsellor, a ready and vigorous debater, acute and
comprehensive, ripe in all historical and political knowledge,
innately republican--modest, courteous, benevolent, hospitable--a
skilful, practical farmer, giving his time to his farm and his
books, when not called by an emergency to the public service--and
returning to his books and his farm when the emergency was over.
His whole character was announced in his looks and deportment,
and in his uniform (senatorial) dress--the coat, waistcoat, and
pantaloons of the same "London brown," and in the cut of a former
fashion--beaver hat with ample brim--fine white linen--and a
gold-headed cane, carried not for show, but for use and support
when walking and bending under the heaviness of years. He seemed
to have been cast in the same mould with Mr. Macon, and it was
pleasant to see them together, looking like two Grecian sages, and
showing that regard for each other which every one felt for them
both. He belonged to that constellation of great men which shone
so brightly in Virginia in his day, and the light of which was
not limited to Virginia, or our America, but spread through the
bounds of the civilized world. He was the author of several works,
political and agricultural, of which his _Arator_ in one class, and
his _Construction Construed_ in another, were the principal--one
adorning and exalting the plough with the attributes of science;
the other exploring the confines of the federal and the State
governments, and presenting a mine of constitutional law very
profitably to be examined by the political student who will not be
repulsed from a banquet of rich ideas, by the quaint Sir Edward
Coke style--(the only point of resemblance between the republican
statesman, and the crown officer of Elizabeth and James)--in which
it is dressed. Devotion to State rights was the ruling feature
of his policy; and to keep both governments, State and federal,
within their respective constitutional orbits, was the labor of his
political life.
In the years 1798 and '99, Mr. Taylor was a member of the General
Assembly of his State, called into service by the circumstances
of the times; and was selected on account of the dignity and
gravity of his character, his power and readiness in debate, and
his signal devotion to the rights of the States, to bring forward
those celebrated resolutions which Mr. Jefferson conceived, which
his friends sanctioned, which Mr. Madison drew up, and which "John
Taylor, of Caroline," presented;--which are a perfect exposition
of the principles of our duplicate form of government, and of the
limitations upon the power of the federal government;--and which,
in their declaration of the unconstitutionality of the alien and
sedition laws, and appeal to other States for their co-operation,
had nothing in view but to initiate a State movement by two-thirds
of the States (the number required by the fifth article of the
federal constitution), to amend, or authoritatively expound the
constitution;--the idea of forcible resistance to the execution of
any act of Congress being expressly disclaimed at the time.
CHAPTER XIX.
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
It has already been shown that the theory of the constitution,
and its practical working, was entirely different in the election
of President and Vice-President--that by the theory, the people
were only to choose electors, to whose superior intelligence
the choice of fit persons for these high stations was entirely
committed--and that, in practice, this theory had entirely failed
from the beginning. From the very first election the electors were
made subordinate to the people, having no choice of their own, and
pledged to deliver their votes for a particular person, according
to the will of those who elected them. Thus the theory had failed
in its application to the electoral college; but there might be a
second or contingent election, and has been; and here the theory of
the constitution has failed again. In the event of no choice being
made by the electors, either for want of a majority of electoral
votes being given to any one, or on account of an equal majority for
two, the House of Representatives became an electoral college for
the occasion, limited to a choice out of the five highest (before
the constitution was amended), or the two highest having an equal
majority. The President and Vice-President were not then voted for
separately, or with any designation of their office. All appeared
upon the record as presidential nominees--the highest on the list
having a majority, to be President; the next highest, also having a
majority, to be Vice-President; but the people, from the beginning,
had discriminated between the persons for these respective places,
always meaning one on their ticket for President, the other for
Vice-President. But, by the theory of the constitution and its
words, those intended Vice-Presidents might be elected President
in the House of Representatives, either by being among the five
highest when there was no majority, or being one of two in an
equal majority. This theory failed in the House of Representatives
from the first election, the _demos krateo_ principle--the people
to govern--prevailing there as in the electoral colleges, and
overruling the constitutional design in each.
The first election in the House of Representatives was that of Mr.
Jefferson and Mr. Burr, in the session of 1800-1801. These gentlemen
had each a majority of the whole number of electoral votes, and an
equal majority--73 each--Mr. Burr being intended for Vice-President.
One of the contingencies had then occurred in which the election
went to the House of Representatives. The federalists had acted
more wisely, one of their State electoral colleges (that of Rhode
Island), having withheld a vote from the intended Vice-President
on their side, Mr. Charles Colesworth Pinckney, of South Carolina;
and so prevented an equality of votes between him and Mr. John
Adams. It would have been entirely constitutional in the House of
Representatives to have elected Mr. Burr President, but at the same
time, a gross violation of the democratic principle, which requires
the will of the majority to be complied with. The federal States
undertook to elect Mr. Burr, and kept up the struggle for seven
days and nights, and until the thirty-sixth ballot. There were
sixteen States, and it required the concurrence of nine to effect an
election. Until the thirty-sixth Mr. Jefferson had eight, Mr. Burr
six, and two were divided. On the thirty-sixth ballot Mr. Jefferson
had ten States and was elected. General Hamilton, though not then in
public life, took a decided part in this election, rising above all
personal and all party considerations, and urging the federalists
from the beginning to vote for Mr. Jefferson. Thus the democratic
principle prevailed. The choice of the people was elected by the
House of Representatives; and the struggle was fatal to those who
had opposed that principle. The federal party was broken down, and
at the ensuing Congress elections, was left in a small minority.
Its candidate at the ensuing presidential election received but
fourteen votes out of one hundred and seventy-six. Burr, in whose
favor, and with whose connivance the struggle had been made, was
ruined--fell under the ban of the republican party, disappeared from
public life, and was only seen afterwards in criminal enterprises,
and ending his life in want and misery. The constitution itself,
in that particular (the mode of election), was broken down, and
had to be amended so as to separate the presidential from the
vice-presidential ticket, giving each a separate vote; and in the
event of no election by the electoral colleges, sending each to
separate houses--the three highest on the presidential lists to the
House of Representatives,--the two highest on the vice-presidential,
to the Senate. And thus ended the first struggle in the House of
Representatives (in relation to the election of President), between
the theory of the constitution and the democratic principle--triumph
to the principle, ruin to its opposers, and destruction to the
clause in the constitution, which permitted such a struggle.
The second presidential election in the House of Representatives was
after the lapse of a quarter of a century, and under the amended
constitution, which carried the three highest on the list to the
House when no one had a majority of the electoral votes. General
Jackson, Mr. John Quincy Adams, and Mr. William H. Crawford, were
the three, their respective votes being 99, 84, 41; and in this
case a second struggle took place between the theory of the
constitution and the democratic principle; and with eventual defeat
to the opposers of that principle, though temporarily successful.
Mr. Adams was elected, though General Jackson was the choice of the
people, having received the greatest number of votes, and being
undoubtedly the second choice of several States whose votes had been
given to Mr. Crawford and Mr. Clay (at the general election). The
representatives from some of these States gave the vote of the State
to Mr. Adams, upon the argument that he was best qualified for the
station, and that it was dangerous to our institutions to elect a
military chieftain--an argument which assumed a guardianship over
the people, and implied the necessity of a superior intelligence
to guide them for their own good. The election of Mr. Adams was
perfectly constitutional, and as such fully submitted to by the
people; but it was also a violation of the _demos krateo_ principle;
and that violation was signally rebuked. All the representatives who
voted against the will of their constituents, lost their favor, and
disappeared from public life. The representation in the House of
Representatives was largely changed at the first general election,
and presented a full opposition to the new President. Mr. Adams
himself was injured by it, and at the ensuing presidential election
was beaten by General Jackson more than two to one--178 to 83. Mr.
Clay, who took the lead in the House for Mr. Adams, and afterwards
took upon himself the mission of reconciling the people to his
election in a series of public speeches, was himself crippled in
the effort, lost his place in the democratic party, joined the
whigs (then called national republicans), and has since presented
the disheartening spectacle of a former great leader figuring at
the head of his ancient foes in all their defeats, and lingering on
their rear in their victories. The democratic principle was again
victor over the theory of the constitution, and great and good were
the results that ensued. It vindicated the _demos_ in their right
and their power, and showed that the prefix to the constitution,
"We, the people, do ordain and establish," &c., may also be added
to its administration, showing them to be as able to administer as
to make that instrument. It re-established parties upon the basis
of principle, and drew anew party lines, then almost obliterated
under the fusion of parties during the "era of good feeling," and
the efforts of leading men to make personal parties for themselves.
It showed the conservative power of our government to lie in the
people, more than in its constituted authorities. It showed that
they were capable of exercising the function of self-government.
It assured the supremacy of the democracy for a long time, and
until temporarily lost by causes to be shown in their proper place.
Finally, it was a caution to all public men against future attempts
to govern presidential elections in the House of Representatives.
It is no part of the object of this "Thirty Years' View" to dwell
upon the conduct of individuals, except as showing the causes and
the consequences of events; and, under this aspect, it becomes the
gravity of history to tell that, in these two struggles for the
election of President, those who struggled against the democratic
principle lost their places on the political theatre,--the mere
voting members being put down in their States and districts, and the
eminent actors for ever ostracised from the high object of their
ambition. A subordinate cause may have had its effect, and unjustly,
in prejudicing the public mind against Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay. They
had been political adversaries, had co-operated in the election, and
went into the administration together. Mr. Clay received the office
of Secretary of State from Mr. Adams, and this gave rise to the
imputation of a bargain between them.
It came within my knowledge (for I was then intimate with Mr.
Clay), long before the election, and probably before Mr. Adams
knew it himself, that Mr. Clay intended to support him against
General Jackson; and for the reasons afterward averred in his public
speeches. I made this known when occasions required me to speak of
it, and in the presence of the friends of the impugned parties. It
went into the newspapers upon the information of these friends, and
Mr. Clay made me acknowledgments for it in a letter, of which this
is the exact copy:
"_I have received a paper published on the 20th ultimo, at
Lemington, in Virginia, in which is contained an article stating
that you had, to a gentleman of that place, expressed your disbelief
of a charge injurious to me, touching the late presidential
election, and that I had communicated to you unequivocally, before
the 15th of December, 1824, my determination to vote for Mr.
Adams and not for General Jackson. Presuming that the publication
was with your authority, I cannot deny the expression of proper
acknowledgments for the sense of justice which has prompted you to
render this voluntary and faithful testimony._"
This letter, of which I now have the original, was dated at
Washington City, December 6th, 1827--that is to say, in the very
heat and middle of the canvass in which Mr. Adams was beaten by
General Jackson, and when the testimony could be of most service
to him. It went the rounds of the papers, and was quoted and
relied upon in debates in Congress, greatly to the dissatisfaction
of many of my own party. There was no mistake in the date, or
the fact. I left Washington the 15th of December, on a visit to
my father-in-law, Colonel James McDowell, of Rockbridge county,
Virginia, where Mrs. Benton then was; and it was before I left
Washington that I learned from Mr. Clay himself that his intention
was to support Mr. Adams. I told this at _that_ time to Colonel
McDowell, and any friends that chanced to be present, and gave it
to the public in a letter which was copied into many newspapers,
and is preserved in Niles' Register. I told it as my _belief_
to Mr. Jefferson on Christmas evening of the same year, when
returning to Washington and making a call on that illustrious man
at his seat, Monticello; and believing then that Mr. Adams would
be elected, and, from the necessity of the case, would have to
make up a mixed cabinet, I expressed that belief to Mr. Jefferson,
using the term, familiar in English history, of "_broad bottomed_;"
and asked him how it would do? He answered, "Not at all--would
never succeed--would ruin all engaged in it." Mr. Clay told his
intentions to others of his friends from an early period, but as
they remained his friends, their testimony was but little heeded.
Even my own, in the violence of party, and from my relationship
to Mrs. Clay, seemed to have but little effect. The imputation of
"bargain" stuck, and doubtless had an influence in the election. In
fact, the circumstances of the whole affair--previous antagonism
between the parties, actual support in the election, and acceptance
of high office, made up a case against Messrs. Adams and Clay which
it was hardly safe for public men to create and to brave, however
strong in their own consciousness of integrity. Still, the great
objection to the election of Mr. Adams was in the violation of the
principle _demos krateo_; and in the question which it raised of the
capacity of the _demos_ to choose a safe President for themselves.
A letter which I wrote to the representative from Missouri, before
he gave the vote of the State to Mr. Adams, and which was published
immediately afterwards, placed the objection upon this high ground;
and upon it the battle was mainly fought, and won. It was a victory
of principle, and should not be disparaged by the admission of an
unfounded and subordinate cause.
This presidential election of 1824 is remarkable under another
aspect--as having put an end to the practice of caucus nominations
for the Presidency by members of Congress. This mode of
concentrating public opinion began to be practised as the eminent
men of the Revolution, to whom public opinion awarded a preference,
were passing away, and when new men, of more equal pretensions,
were coming upon the stage. It was tried several times with success
and general approbation, public sentiment having been followed,
and not led, by the caucus. It was attempted in 1824, and failed,
the friends of Mr. Crawford only attending--others not attending,
not from any repugnance to the practice, as their previous conduct
had shown, but because it was known that Mr. Crawford had the
largest number of friends in Congress, and would assuredly receive
the nomination. All the rest, therefore, refused to go into it:
all joined in opposing the "caucus candidate," as Mr. Crawford
was called; all united in painting the intrigue and corruption of
these caucus nominations, and the anomaly of members of Congress
joining in them. By their joint efforts they succeeded, and justly
in the fact though not in the motive, in rendering these Congress
caucus nominations odious to the people, and broke them down. They
were dropped, and a different mode of concentrating public opinion
was adopted--that of party nominations by conventions of delegates
from the States. This worked well at first, the will of the people
being strictly obeyed by the delegates, and the majority making
the nomination. But it quickly degenerated, and became obnoxious
to all the objections to Congress caucus nominations, and many
others besides. Members of Congress still attended them, either as
delegates or as lobby managers. Persons attended as delegates who
had no constituency. Delegates attended upon equivocal appointments.
Double sets of delegates sometimes came from the State, and either
were admitted or repulsed, as suited the views of the majority.
Proxies were invented. Many delegates attended with the sole view
of establishing a claim for office, and voted accordingly. The
two-thirds rule was invented, to enable the minority to control
the majority; and the whole proceeding became anomalous and
irresponsible, and subversive of the will of the people, leaving
them no more control over the nomination than the subjects of kings
have over the birth of the child which is born to rule over them.
King Caucus is as potent as any other king in this respect; for
whoever gets the nomination--no matter how effected--becomes the
candidate of the party, from the necessity of union against the
opposite party, and from the indisposition of the great States to go
into the House of Representatives to be balanced by the small ones.
This is the mode of making Presidents, practised by both parties
now. It is the virtual election! and thus the election of the
President and Vice-President of the United States has passed--not
only from the college of electors to which the constitution
confided it, and from the people to whom the practice under the
constitution gave it, and from the House of Representatives which
the constitution provided as ultimate arbiter--but has gone to an
anomalous, irresponsible body, unknown to law or constitution,
unknown to the early ages of our government, and of which a large
proportion of the members composing it, and a much larger proportion
of interlopers attending it, have no other view either in attending
or in promoting the nomination of any particular man, than to get
one elected who will enable them to eat out of the public crib--who
will give them a key to the public crib.
The evil is destructive to the rights and sovereignty of the people,
and to the purity of elections. The remedy is in the application of
the democratic principle--the people to vote direct for President
and Vice-President; and a second election to be held immediately
between the two highest, if no one has a majority of the whole
number on the first trial. But this would require an amendment of
the constitution, not to be effected but by a concurrence of two
thirds of each house of Congress, and the sanction of three fourths
of the States--a consummation to which the strength of the people
has not yet been equal, but of which there is no reason to despair.
The great parliamentary reform in Great Britain was only carried
after forty years of continued, annual, persevering exertion. Our
constitutional reform, in this point of the presidential election,
may require but a few years; in the meanwhile I am for the people to
_select_, as well as _elect_, their candidates, and for a reference
to the House to choose one out of three presented by the people,
instead of a caucus nomination of whom it pleased. The House of
Representatives is no longer the small and dangerous electoral
college that it once was. Instead of thirteen States we now have
thirty-one; instead of sixty-five representatives, we have now above
two hundred. Responsibility in the House is now well established,
and political ruin, and personal humiliation, attend the violation
of the will of the State. No man could be elected now, or endeavor
to be elected (after the experience of 1800 and 1824), who is not
at the head of the list, and the choice of a majority of the Union.
The lesson of those times would deter imitation, and the democratic
principle would again crush all that were instrumental in thwarting
the public will. There is no longer the former danger from the House
of Representatives, nor any thing in it to justify a previous resort
to such assemblages as our national conventions have got to be. The
House is legal and responsible, which the convention is not, with
a better chance for integrity, as having been actually elected by
the people; and more restrained by position, by public opinion, and
a clause in the constitution from the acceptance of office from
the man they elect. It is the constitutional umpire; and until the
constitution is amended, I am for acting upon it as it is.
CHAPTER XX.
THE OCCUPATION OF THE COLUMBIA.
This subject had begun to make a lodgment in the public mind,
and I brought a bill into the Senate to enable the President to
possess and retain the country. The joint occupation treaty of
1818 was drawing to a close, and it was my policy to terminate
such occupation, and hold the Columbia (or Oregon) exclusively, as
we had the admitted right to do while the question of title was
depending. The British had no title, and were simply working for
a division--for the right bank of the river, and the harbor at
its mouth--and waiting on _time_ to ripen their joint occupation
into a claim for half. I knew this, and wished to terminate a
joint tenancy which could only be injurious to ourselves while it
lasted, and jeopard our rights when it terminated. The bill which I
brought in proposed an appropriation to enable the President to act
efficiently, with a detatchment of the army and navy; and in the
discussion of this bill the whole question of title and of policy
came up; and, in a reply to Mr. Dickerson, of New Jersey, I found
it to be my duty to defend both. I now give some extracts from that
reply, as a careful examination of the British pretension, founded
upon her own exhibition of title, and showing that she had none
south of forty-nine degrees, and that we were only giving her a
claim, by putting her possession on an equality with our own. These
extracts will show the history of the case as it then stood--as it
remained invalidated in all subsequent discussion--and according to
which, and after twenty years, and when the question had assumed
a war aspect, it was finally settled. The bill did not pass, but
received an encouraging vote--fourteen senators voting favorably to
it. They were:
Messrs. Barbour, Benton, Bouligny, Cobb, Hayne, Jackson (the
General), Johnson of Kentucky, Johnston of Louisiana, Lloyd of
Massachusetts, Mills, Noble, Ruggles, Talbot, Thomas.
"Mr. Benton, in reply to Mr. Dickerson, said that he had not
intended to speak to this bill. Always unwilling to trespass
upon the time and patience of the Senate, he was particularly so
at this moment, when the session was drawing to a close, and a
hundred bills upon the table were each demanding attention. The
occupation of the Columbia River was a subject which had engaged
the deliberations of Congress for four years past, and the minds
of gentlemen might be supposed to be made up upon it. Resting
upon this belief, Mr. B., as reporter of the bill, had limited
himself to the duty of watching its progress, and of holding
himself in readiness to answer any inquiries which might be
put. Inquiries he certainly expected; but a general assault, at
this late stage of the session, upon the principle, the policy,
and the details of the bill, had not been anticipated. Such an
assault had, however, been made by the senator from New Jersey
(Mr. D.), and Mr. B. would be unfaithful to his duty if he did
not repel it. In discharging this duty, he would lose no time
in going over the gentleman's calculations about the expense of
getting a member of Congress from the Oregon to the Potomac;
nor would he solve his difficulties about the shortest and best
route--whether Cape Horn should be doubled, a new route explored
under the north pole, or mountains climbed, whose aspiring
summits present twelve feet of defying snow to the burning
rays of a July sun. Mr. B. looked upon these calculations and
problems as so many dashes of the gentleman's wit, and admitted
that wit was an excellent article in debate, equally convenient
for embellishing an argument, and concealing the want of one.
For which of these purposes the senator from New Jersey had
amused the Senate with the wit in question, it was not for Mr.
B. to say, nor should he undertake to disturb him in the quiet
enjoyment of the honor which he had won thereby, and would
proceed directly to speak to the merits of the bill.
"It is now, Mr. President, continued Mr. B., precisely two and
twenty years since a contest for the Columbia has been going
on between the United States and Great Britain. The contest
originated with the discovery of the river itself. The moment
that we discovered it she claimed it; and without a color of
title in her hand, she has labored ever since to overreach us in
the arts of negotiation, or to bully us out of our discovery by
menaces of war.
"In the year 1790, a citizen of the United States, Capt. Gray,
of Boston, discovered the Columbia at its entrance into the sea;
and in 1803, Lewis and Clarke were sent by the government of
the United States to complete the discovery of the whole river,
from its source downwards, and to take formal possession in the
name of their government. In 1793 Sir Alexander McKenzie had
been sent from Canada by the British Government to effect the
same object; but he missed the sources of the river, fell upon
the _Tacoutche Tesse_, and struck the Pacific about five hundred
miles to the north of the mouth of the Columbia.
"In 1803, the United States acquired Louisiana, and with it an
open question of boundaries for that vast province. On the side
of Mexico and Florida this question was to be settled with the
King of Spain; on the north and northwest, with the King of
Great Britain. It happened in the very time that we were signing
a treaty in Paris for the acquisition of Louisiana, that we were
signing another in London for the adjustment of the boundary
line between the northwest possessions of the United States and
the King of Great Britain. The negotiators of each were ignorant
of what the others had done; and on remitting the two treaties
to the Senate of the United States for ratification, that for
the purchase of Louisiana was ratified without restriction;
the other, with the exception of the fifth article. It was this
article which adjusted the boundary line between the United
States and Great Britain, from the Lake of the Woods to the
head of the Mississippi; and the Senate refused to ratify it,
because, by possibility, it might jeopard the northern boundary
of Louisiana. The treaty was sent back to London, the fifth
article expunged; and the British Government, acting then as
upon a late occasion, rejected the whole treaty, when it failed
in securing the precise advantage of which it was in search.
"In the year 1807, another treaty was negotiated between the
United States and Great Britain. The negotiators on both sides
were then possessed of the fact that Louisiana belonged to the
United States, and that her boundaries to the north and west
were undefined. The settlement of this boundary was a point
in the negotiation, and continued efforts were made by the
British plenipotentiaries to overreach the Americans, with
respect to the country west of the Rocky Mountains. Without
presenting any claim, they endeavored to '_leave a nest egg
for future pretensions in that quarter_.' (_State Papers_,
1822-3.) Finally, an article was agreed to. The forty-ninth
degree of north latitude was to be followed west, as far as the
territories of the two countries extended in that direction,
with a proviso against its application to the country west of
the Rocky Mountains. This treaty shared the fate of that of
1803. It was never ratified. For causes unconnected with the
questions of boundary, it was rejected by Mr. Jefferson without
a reference to the Senate.
"At Ghent, in 1814, the attempts of 1803 and 1807 were renewed.
The British plenipotentiaries offered articles upon the subject
of the boundary, and of the northwest coast, of the same
character with those previously offered; but nothing could be
agreed upon, and nothing upon the subject was inserted in the
treaty signed at that place.
"At London, in 1818, the negotiations upon this point were
renewed; and the British Government, for the first time,
uncovered the ground upon which its pretensions rested. Its
plenipotentiaries, Mr. Robinson and Mr. Goulbourn, asserted
(to give them the benefit of their own words, as reported by
Messrs. Gallatin and Rush) 'That former voyages, and principally
that of Captain Cook, gave to Great Britain the rights derived
from discovery; and they alluded to purchases from the natives
south of the river Columbia, which they alleged to have been
made prior to the American Revolution. They did not make any
formal proposition for a boundary, but intimated that the
_river_ itself was the most convenient that could be adopted,
and that they would not agree to any which did not give them the
_harbor_ at the _mouth_ of the _river_ in common with the United
States.'"--_Letter from Messrs. Gallatin and Rush_, _October_
20th, 1820.
To this the American plenipotentiaries answered, in a way
better calculated to encourage than to repulse the groundless
pretensions of Great Britain. 'We did not assert (continue these
gentlemen in the same letter), we did not assert that the United
States had a perfect right to that country, but insisted that
their claim was at least good against Great Britain. We did not
know with precision what value our government set on the country
to the westward of these mountains; but we were not authorized
to enter into any agreement which should be tantamount to an
abandonment of the claim to it. It was at last agreed, but, as
we thought, with some _reluctance_ on the part of the _British_
plenipotentiaries, that the country on the northwest coast,
claimed by either party, should, without prejudice to the claims
of either, and for a _limited_ time, be opened for the purposes
of trade to the inhabitants of both countries.'
"The substance of this agreement was inserted in the convention
of October, 1818. It constitutes the third article of that
treaty, and is the same upon which the senator from New Jersey
(Mr. Dickerson) relies for excluding the United States from the
occupation of the Columbia.
"In subsequent negotiations, the British agents further rested
their claim upon the discoveries of McKenzie, in 1793, the
seizure of Astoria during the late war, and the Nootka Sound
Treaty, of 1790.
"Such an exhibition of title, said Mr. B., is ridiculous, and
would be contemptible in the hands of any other power than
that of Great Britain. Of the five grounds of claim which she
has set up, not one of them is tenable against the slightest
examination. Cook never saw, much less took possession of
any part of the northwest coast of America, in the latitude
of the Columbia River. All his discoveries were far north of
that point, and not one of them was followed up by possession,
without which the fact of discovery would confer no title. The
Indians were not even named from whom the purchases are stated
to have been made anterior to the Revolutionary War. Not a
single particular is given which could identify a transaction
of the kind. The only circumstance mentioned applies to the
locality of the Indians supposed to have made the sale; and that
circumstance invalidates the whole claim. They are said to have
resided to the '_south_' of the Columbia; by consequence they
did not reside _upon it_, and could have no right to sell a
country of which they were not the possessors.
"McKenzie was sent out from Canada, in the year 1793, to
discover, at its head, the river which Captain Gray had
discovered at its mouth, three years before. But McKenzie missed
the object of his search, and struck the Pacific five hundred
miles to the north, as I have already stated. The seizure of
Astoria, during the war, was an operation of arms, conferring
no more title upon Great Britain to the Columbia, than the
capture of Castine and Detroit gave her to Maine and Michigan.
This new ground of claim was set up by Mr. Bagot, his Britannic
Majesty's minister to this republic, in 1817, and set up in
a way to contradict and relinquish all their other pretended
titles. Mr. Bagot was remonstrating against the occupation, by
the United States, of the Columbia River, and reciting that it
had been taken possession of, in his Majesty's name, during
the late war, '_and had_ SINCE _been_ CONSIDERED _as forming
a part of his Majesty's dominions_.' The word '_since_,' is
exclusive of all previous pretension, and the Ghent Treaty,
which stipulates for the restoration of all the captured posts,
is a complete extinguisher to this idle pretension. Finally,
the British negotiators have been driven to take shelter under
the Nootka Sound Treaty of 1790. The character of that treaty
was well understood at the time that it was made, and its terms
will speak for themselves at the present day. It was a treaty
of concession, and not of acquisition of rights, on the part of
Great Britain. It was so characterized by the opposition, and so
admitted to be by the ministry, at the time of its communication
to the British Parliament.
[Here Mr. B. read passages from the speeches of Mr. Fox and Mr.
Pitt, to prove the character of this Treaty.]
"Mr. Fox said, 'What, then, was the extent of our rights before
the convention--(whether admitted or denied by Spain was of
no consequence)--and to what extent were they now secured to
us? We possessed and exercised the free navigation of the
Pacific Ocean, without restraint or limitation. We possessed
and exercised the right of carrying on fisheries in the South
Seas equally unlimited. This was no barren right, but a right
of which we had availed ourselves, as appeared by the papers on
the table, which showed that the produce of it had increased,
in five years, from twelve to ninety-seven thousand pounds
sterling. This estate we had, and were daily improving; it
was not to be disgraced by the name of an acquisition. The
admission of part of these rights by Spain, was all we had
obtained. Our right, before, was to settle in any part of the
South or Northwest Coast of America, not fortified against us
by previous occupancy; and we were now restricted to settle in
certain places only, and under certain restrictions. This was an
important concession on our part. Our rights of fishing extended
to the whole ocean, and now it, too, was limited, and to be
carried on within certain distances of the Spanish settlements.
Our right of making settlements was not, as now, a right to
build huts, but to plant colonies, if we thought proper. Surely
these were not acquisitions, or rather conquests, as they must
be considered, if we were to judge by the triumphant language
respecting them, but great and important concessions. By the
third article, we are authorized to navigate the Pacific Ocean
and South Seas, unmolested, for the purpose of carrying on our
fisheries, and to land on the unsettled coasts, for the purpose
of trading with the natives; but, after this pompous recognition
of right to navigation, fishery, and commerce, comes another
article, the sixth, which takes away the right of landing,
and erecting even temporary huts, for any purpose but that of
carrying on the fishery, and amounts to a complete dereliction
of all right to settle in any way for the purpose of commerce
with the natives.'--_British Parliamentary History_, Vol. 28, p.
990.
"Mr. Pitt, in reply. 'Having finished that part of Mr. Fox's
speech which referred to the reparation, Mr. Pitt proceeded to
the next point, namely, that gentleman's argument to prove, that
the other articles of the convention were mere concessions, and
not acquisitions. In answer to this, Mr. Pitt maintained, that,
though what this country had gained consisted not of new rights,
it certainly did of new advantages. We had, before, a right to
the Southern whale fishery, and a right to navigate and carry on
fisheries in the Pacific Ocean, and to trade on the coasts of
any part of Northwest America; but that right not only had not
been acknowledged, but disputed and resisted: whereas, by the
convention, it was secured to us--a circumstance which, though
no new right, was a new advantage.'--_Same_--p. 1002.
"But, continued Mr. Benton, we need not take the character of
the treaty even from the high authority of these rival leaders
in the British Parliament. The treaty will speak for itself. I
have it in my hand, and will read the article relied upon to
sustain the British claim to the Columbia River.
"'ARTICLE THIRD OF THE NOOTKA SOUND TREATY.
"'In order to strengthen the bonds of friendship, and to
preserve, in future, a perfect harmony and good understanding
between the two contracting parties, it is agreed that their
respective subjects shall not be disturbed or molested, either
in navigating or carrying on their fisheries in the Pacific
Ocean, or in the South Seas, or in landing on the coasts of
those seas in places not already occupied, for the purpose of
carrying on their commerce with the natives of the country, or
of making settlements there; the whole subject, nevertheless, to
the restrictions and provisions specified in the three following
articles.'
"The particular clause of this article, relied upon by the
advocates for the British claim, is that which gives the right
of _landing_ on parts of the Northwest Coast, not already
_occupied_, for the purpose of carrying on _commerce_ and making
_settlements_. The first inquiry arising upon this clause is,
whether the coast, in the latitude of the Columbia River, was
unoccupied at the date of the Nootka Sound Treaty? The answer is
in the affirmative. The second is, whether the English landed
upon this coast while it was so unoccupied? The answer is in
the negative; and this answer puts an end to all pretension of
British claim founded upon this treaty, without leaving us
under the necessity of recurring to the fact that the permission
to _land_, and to _make settlements_, so far from contemplating
an acquisition of territory, was limited by subsequent
restrictions, to the erection of temporary huts for the personal
accommodation of fishermen and traders only.
"Mr. B. adverted to the inconsistency, on the part of Great
Britain, of following the 49th parallel to the Rocky Mountains,
and refusing to follow it any further. He affirmed that the
principle which would make that parallel a boundary to the
top of the mountain, would carry it out to the Pacific Ocean.
He proved this assertion by recurring to the origin of that
line. It grew out of the treaty of Utrecht, that treaty which,
in 1704, put an end to the wars of Queen Anne and Louis the
XIVth and fixed the boundaries of their respective dominions in
North America. The tenth article of that treaty was applicable
to Louisiana and to Canada. It provided that commissioners
should be appointed by the two powers to adjust the boundary
between them. The commissioners were appointed, and did fix
it. The parallel of 49 degrees was fixed upon as the common
boundary from the Lake of the Woods, "_indefinitely to the
West_." This boundary was acquiesced in for a hundred years.
By proposing to follow it to the Rocky Mountains, the British
Government admits its validity; by refusing to follow it out,
they become obnoxious to the charge of inconsistency, and betray
a determination to encroach upon the territory of the United
States, for the undisguised purpose of selfish aggrandizement.
"The truth is, Mr. President, continued Mr. B., Great Britain
has no color of title to the country in question. She sets up
none. There is not a paper upon the face of the earth in which
a British minister has stated a claim. I speak of the king's
ministers, and not of the agents employed by them. The claims
we have been examining are thrown out in the conversations and
notes of diplomatic agents. No English minister has ever put
his name to them, and no one will ever risk his character as a
statesman by venturing to do so. The claim of Great Britain is
nothing but a naked pretension, founded on the double prospect
of benefiting herself and injuring the United States. The
fur trader, Sir Alexander McKenzie, is at the bottom of this
policy. Failing in his attempt to explore the Columbia River,
in 1793, he, nevertheless, urged upon the British Government
the advantages of taking it to herself, and of expelling the
Americans from the whole region west of the Rocky Mountains. The
advice accorded too well with the passions and policy of that
government, to be disregarded. It is a government which has lost
no opportunity, since the peace of '83, of aggrandizing itself
at the expense of the United States. It is a government which
listens to the suggestions of its experienced subjects, and
thus an individual, in the humble station of a fur trader, has
pointed out the policy which has been pursued by every Minister
of Great Britain, from Pitt to Canning, and for the maintenance
of which a war is now menaced.
"For a boundary line between the United States and Great
Britain, west of the Mississippi, McKenzie proposes the latitude
of 45 degrees, because that latitude is necessary to give the
Columbia River to Great Britain. His words are: 'Let the line
begin where it may on the Mississippi, it must be continued
west, till it terminates in the Pacific Ocean, _to the south of
the Columbia_.'
"Mr. B. said it was curious to observe with what closeness every
suggestion of McKenzie had been followed up by the British
Government. He recommended that the Hudson Bay and Northwest
Company should be united; and they have been united. He proposed
to extend the fur trade of Canada to the shore of the Pacific
Ocean; and it has been so extended. He proposed that a chain of
trading posts should be formed through the continent, from sea
to sea; and it has been formed. He recommended that no boundary
line should be agreed upon with the United States, which did not
give the Columbia River to the British; and the British ministry
declare that none other shall be formed. He proposed to obtain
the command of the fur trade from latitude 45 degrees north; and
they have it even to the Mandan villages, and the neighborhood
of the Council Bluffs. He recommended the expulsion of American
traders from the whole region west of the Rocky Mountains, and
they are expelled from it. He proposed to command the commerce
of the Pacific Ocean; and it will be commanded the moment a
British fleet takes position in the mouth of the Columbia.
Besides these specified advantages, McKenzie alludes to other
'_political considerations_,' which it was not necessary for him
to particularize. Doubtless it was not. They were sufficiently
understood. They are the same which induced the retention of the
northwestern posts, in violation of the treaty of 1783; the same
which induced the acquisition of Gibraltar, Malta, the Cape of
Good Hope, the Islands of Ceylon and Madagascar; the same which
makes Great Britain covet the possession of every commanding
position in the four quarters of the globe."
I do not argue the question of title on the part of the United
States, but only state it as founded upon--1. Discovery of the
Columbia River by Capt. Gray, in 1790; 2. Purchase of Louisiana in
1803; 3. Discovery of the Columbia from its head to its mouth, by
Lewis and Clarke, in 1803; 4. Settlement of Astoria, in 1811; 5.
Treaty with Spain, 1819; 6. Contiguity and continuity of settlement
and possession. Nor do I argue the question of the advantages of
retaining the Columbia, and refusing to divide or alienate our
territory upon it. I merely state them, and leave their value to
result from the enumeration. 1. To keep out a foreign power; 2. To
gain a seaport with a military and naval station, on the coast of
the Pacific; 3. To save the fur trade in that region, and prevent
our Indians from being tampered with by British traders; 4. To open
a communication for commercial purposes between the Mississippi and
the Pacific; 5. To send the lights of science and of religion into
eastern Asia.
CHAPTER XXI.
COMMENCEMENT OF MR. ADAMS'S ADMINISTRATION.
On the 4th of March he delivered his inaugural address, and took the
oath of office. That address--the main feature of the inauguration
of every President, as giving the outline of the policy of his
administration--furnished a topic against Mr. Adams, and went
to the reconstruction of parties on the old line of strict, or
latitudinous, construction of the constitution. It was the topic of
internal national improvement by the federal government. The address
extolled the value of such works, considered the constitutional
objection as yielding to the force of argument, expressed the hope
that every speculative (constitutional) scruple would be solved in a
practical blessing; and declared the belief that, in the execution
of such works posterity would derive a fervent gratitude to the
founders of our Union, and most deeply feel and acknowledge the
beneficent action of our government. The declaration of principles
which would give so much power to the government; and the danger of
which had just been so fully set forth by Mr. Monroe in his veto
message on the Cumberland road bill, alarmed the old republicans,
and gave a new ground of opposition to Mr. Adams's administration,
in addition to the strong one growing out of the election in the
House of Representatives, in which the fundamental principle of
representative government had been disregarded. This new ground of
opposition was greatly strengthened at the delivery of the first
annual message, in which the topic of internal improvement was again
largely enforced, other subjects recommended which would require
a liberal use of constructive powers, and Congress informed that
the President had accepted an invitation from the American States
of Spanish origin, to send ministers to their proposed Congress on
the Isthmus of Panama. It was, therefore, clear from the beginning
that the new administration was to have a settled and strong
opposition, and that founded in principles of government--the same
principles, under different forms, which had discriminated parties
at the commencement of the federal government. Men of the old
school--survivors of the contest of the Adams and Jefferson times,
with some exceptions, divided accordingly--the federalists going for
Mr. Adams, the republicans against him, with the mass of the younger
generation.
In the Senate a decided majority was against him, comprehending (not
to speak of younger men afterwards become eminent,) Mr. Macon of
North Carolina, Mr. Tazewell of Virginia, Mr. Van Buren of New-York,
General Samuel Smith of Maryland, Mr. Gaillard of South Carolina
(the long-continued temporary President of the Senate), Dickerson of
New Jersey, Governor Edward Lloyd of Maryland, Rowan of Kentucky,
and Findlay of Pennsylvania. In the House of Representatives there
was a strong minority opposed to the new President, destined to
be increased at the first election to a decided majority: so that
no President could have commenced his administration under more
unfavorable auspices, or with less expectation of a popular career.
The cabinet was composed of able and experienced men--Mr. Clay,
Secretary of State; Mr. Richard Rush, of Pennsylvania, Secretary of
the Treasury, recalled from the London mission for that purpose;
Mr. James Barbour, of Virginia, Secretary at War; Mr. Samuel L.
Southard, of New Jersey, Secretary of the Navy under Mr. Monroe,
continued in that place; the same of Mr. John McLean, of Ohio,
Postmaster General, and of Mr. Wirt, Attorney General--both
occupying the same places respectively under Mr. Monroe, and
continued by his successor. The place of Secretary of the Treasury
was offered by Mr. Adams to Mr. William H. Crawford, and declined by
him--an offer which deserves to be commemorated to show how little
there was of personal feeling between these two eminent citizens,
who had just been rival candidates for the Presidency of the United
States. If Mr. Crawford had accepted the Treasury department, the
administration of Mr. John Quincy Adams would have been entirely
composed of the same individuals which composed that of Mr. Monroe,
with the exception of the two (himself and Mr. Calhoun) elected
President and Vice-President;--a fact which ought to have been known
to Mons. de Tocqueville, when he wrote, that "Mr. Quincy Adams, on
his entry into office, discharged the majority of the individuals
who had been appointed by his predecessor."
There was opposition in the Senate to the confirmation of Mr. Clay's
nomination to the State department, growing out of his support of
Mr. Adams in the election of the House of Representatives, and
acceptance of office from him; but overruled by a majority of two
to one. The affirmative votes were Messrs. Barton and Benton of
Missouri; Mr. Bell of New Hampshire; Messrs. Bouligny and Josiah F.
Johnston of Louisiana; Messrs. Chandler and Holmes of Maine; Messrs.
Chase and Seymour of Vermont; Messrs. Thomas Clayton and Van Dyke
of Delaware; Messrs. DeWolf and Knight of Rhode Island; Mr. Mahlon
Dickerson of New Jersey; Mr. Henry W. Edwards of Connecticut; Mr.
Gaillard of South Carolina; Messrs. Harrison (the General) and
Ruggles of Ohio; Mr. Hendrics of Indiana; Mr. Elias Kent Kane of
Illinois; Mr. William R. King of Alabama; Messrs. Edward Lloyd and
General Samuel Smith from Maryland; Messrs. James Lloyd and Elijah
H. Mills from Massachusetts; Mr. John Rowan of Kentucky; Mr. Van
Buren of New-York--27. The negatives were: Messrs. Berrien and Thos.
W. Cobb of Georgia; Messrs. Branch and Macon of North Carolina;
Messrs. Jackson (the General) and Eaton of Tennessee; Messrs.
Findlay and Marks of Pennsylvania; Mr. Hayne of South Carolina;
Messrs. David Holmes and Thomas A. Williams of Mississippi; Mr.
McIlvaine of New Jersey; Messrs. Littleton W. Tazewell and John
Randolph of Virginia; Mr. Jesse B. Thomas of Illinois. Seven
senators were absent, one of whom (Mr. Noble of Indiana) declared he
should have voted for the confirmation of Mr. Clay, if he had been
present; and of those voting for him about the one half were his
political opponents.
CHAPTER XXII.
CASE OF MR. LANMAN--TEMPORARY SENATORIAL APPOINTMENT FROM
CONNECTICUT.
Mr. Lanman had served a regular term as senator from Connecticut.
His term of service expired on the 3d of March of this year, and
the General Assembly of the State having failed to make an election
of senator in his place, he received a temporary appointment from
the governor. On presenting himself to take the oath of office, on
the 4th day of March, being the first day of the special senatorial
session convoked by the retiring President (Mr. Monroe), according
to usage, for the inauguration of his successor; his appointment
was objected to, as not having been made in a case in which a
governor of a State could fill a vacancy by making a temporary
appointment. Mr. Tazewell was the principal speaker against the
validity of the appointment, arguing against it both on the words
of the constitution, and the reason for the provision. The words
of the constitution are: "If vacancies happen (in the Senate) by
resignation or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of
any State, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments,
until the next meeting of the legislature." "Happen" was held by
Mr. Tazewell to be the governing word in this provision, and it
always implied a contingency, and an unexpected one. It could not
apply to a foreseen event, bound to occur at a fixed period. Here
the vacancy was foreseen; there was no contingency in it. It was
regular and certain. It was the right of the legislature to fill
it, and if they failed, no matter from what cause, there was no
right in the governor to supply their omission. The reason of the
phraseology was evident. The Assembly was the appointing body. It
was the regular authority to elect senators. It was a body of more
or less members, but always representing the whole body of the
State, and every county in the State, and on that account vested
by the constitution with the power of choosing senators. The terms
choose and elect are the words applied to the legislative election
of senators. The term appoint is the word applied to a gubernatorial
appointment. The election was the regular mode of the constitution,
and was not to be superseded by an appointment in any case in which
the legislature could act, whether they acted or not. Some debate
took place, and precedents were called for. On motion of Mr. Eaton,
a committee was appointed to search for them and found several.
The committee consisted of Mr. Eaton, of Tennessee; Mr. Edwards,
of Connecticut; and Mr. Tazewell, of Virginia. They reported the
cases of William Cooke, of Tennessee, appointed by the governor of
the State, in April, 1797, to fill the vacancy occasioned by the
expiration of his own term, the 3d of March preceding; of Uriah
Tracy, of Connecticut, appointed by the governor of the State, in
February, 1801, to fill the vacancy to occur upon the expiration
of his own term, on the 3d of March following; of Joseph Anderson,
of Tennessee, appointed by the governor of the State, in February,
1809, to fill the vacancy which the expiration of his own term would
make on the 4th of March following; of John Williams, of Tennessee,
appointed by the governor of the State, in January, 1817, to fill
the vacancy to occur from the expiration of his term, on the ensuing
3d of March; and in all these cases the persons so appointed had
been admitted to their seats, and all of them, except in the case
of Mr. Tracy, without any question being raised; and in his case by
a vote of 13 to 10. These precedents were not satisfactory to the
Senate; and after considering Mr. Lanman's case, from the 4th to the
7th of March, the motion to admit him to a seat was rejected by a
vote of 23 to 18. The senators voting in favor of the motion were
Messrs. Bell, Bouligny, Chase, Clayton, DeWolf, Edwards, Harrison
(General), Hendricks, Johnston of Louisiana, Kane, Knight, Lloyd of
Massachusetts, McIlvaine, Mills, Noble, Rowan, Seymour, Thomas--10.
Those voting against it were Messrs. Barton, Benton, Berrien,
Branch, Chandler, Dickerson, Eaton, Findlay, Gaillard, Hayne, Holmes
of Maine, Holmes of Mississippi, Jackson (General), King of Alabama,
Lloyd of Maryland, Marks, Macon, Ruggles, Smith of Maryland,
Tazewell, Van Buren, Vandyke, Williams, of Mississippi--23; and
with this decision, the subsequent practice of the Senate has
conformed, leaving States in part or in whole unrepresented, when
the legislature failed to fill a regular vacancy.
CHAPTER XXIII.
RETIRING OF MR. RUFUS KING.
In the summer of this year, this gentleman terminated a long and
high career in the legislative department of the federal government,
but not entirely to quit its service. He was appointed by the
new President, Mr. John Quincy Adams, to the place of Minister
Plenipotentiary and Envoy Extraordinary to the Court of St. James,
the same place to which he had been appointed thirty years before,
and from the same place (the Senate) by President Washington; and
from which he had _not_ been removed by President Jefferson, at
the revolution of parties, which took place in 1800. He had been
connected with the government forty years, having served in the
Congress of the Confederation, and in the convention which framed
the federal constitution (in both places from his native State of
Massachusetts), in the Senate from the State of New-York, being
one of the first senators from that State, elected in 1789, with
General Philip Schuyler, the father-in-law of General Hamilton.
He was afterwards minister to Great Britain,--again senator, and
again minister--having, in the mean time, declined the invitation
of President Washington to be his Secretary of State. He was a
federalist of the old school, and the head of that party after
the death of General Hamilton; and when the name discriminated a
party, with whose views on government and systems of policy, General
Washington greatly coincided. As chief of that party, he was voted
for as Vice-President in 1808, and as President in 1816. He was
one of the federalists who supported the government in the war of
1812 against Great Britain. Opposed to its declaration, he went
into its support as soon as it was declared, and in his place in
the Senate voted the measures and supplies required; and (what was
most essential) exerted himself in providing for the defence of
his adopted State, New-York (on the strength and conduct of which
so much then depended); assisting to raise and equip her volunteer
regiments and militia quotas, and co-operating with the republican
leaders (Gov. Tompkins and Mr. Van Buren), to maintain the great
State of New-York in the strong and united position which the
war in Canada and repugnance to the war in New England, rendered
essential to the welfare of the Union. History should remember this
patriotic conduct of Mr. King, and record it for the beautiful and
instructive lesson which it teaches.
Like Mr. Macon and John Taylor of Carolina, Mr. King had his
individuality of character, manners and dress, but of different
type; they, of plain country gentlemen; and he, a high model of
courtly refinement. He always appeared in the Senate in full dress;
short small-clothes, silk stockings, and shoes, and was habitually
observant of all the courtesies of life. His colleague in the
Senate, during the chief time that I saw him there, was Mr. Van
Buren: and it was singular to see a great State represented in
the Senate, at the same time, by the chiefs of opposite political
parties; Mr. Van Buren was much the younger, and it was delightful
to behold the deferential regard which he paid to his elder
colleague, always returned with marked kindness and respect.
I felt it to be a privilege to serve in the Senate with three such
senators as Mr. King, Mr. Macon, and John Taylor of Carolina, and
was anxious to improve such an opportunity into a means of benefit
to myself. With Mr. Macon it came easily, as he was the cotemporary
and friend of my father and grandfather; with the venerable John
Taylor there was no time for any intimacy to grow up, as we only
served together for one session; with Mr. King it required a little
system of advances on my part, which I had time to make, and which
the urbanity of his manners rendered easy. He became kind to me;
readily supplied me with information from his own vast stores,
allowed me to consult him, and assisted me in the business of the
State (of whose admission he had been the great opponent), whenever
I could satisfy him that I was right,--even down to the small bills
which were entirely local, or merely individual. More, he gave me
proofs of real regard, and in that most difficult of all friendly
offices,--admonition, counselling against a fault; one instance of
which was so marked and so agreeable to me (reproof as it was), that
I immediately wrote down the very words of it in a letter to Mrs.
Benton (who was then absent from the city), and now copy it, both to
do honor to an aged senator, who could thus act a "_father's_" part
towards a young one, and because I am proud of the words he used to
me. The letter says:
"Yesterday (May 20th, 1824), we carried $75,000 for improving
the navigation of the Mississippi and the Ohio. I made a good
speech, but no part of it will be published. I spoke in _reply_,
and with force and animation. When it was over, Mr. King, of
N. Y., came and sat down in a chair by me, and took hold of
my hand and said he would speak to me as a father--that I had
great powers, and that he felt a sincere pleasure in seeing
me advance and rise in the world, and that he would take the
liberty of warning me against an effect of my temperament when
heated by opposition; that under these circumstances I took an
authoritative manner, and a look and tone of defiance, which
sat ill upon the older members; and advised me to moderate my
manner."
This was real friendship, enhanced by the kindness of manner, and
had its effect. I suppressed that speech, through compliment to him,
and have studied moderation and forbearance ever since. Twenty-five
years later I served in Congress with two of Mr. King's sons (Mr.
James Gore King, representative from New-York, and Mr. John Alsop
King, a representative from New Jersey); and was glad to let them
both see the sincere respect which I had for the memory of their
father.
In one of our conversations, and upon the formation of the
constitution in the federal convention of 1787, he said some things
to me which, I think ought to be remembered by future generations,
to enable them to appreciate justly those founders of our government
who were in favor of a stronger organization than was adopted. He
said: "You young men who have been born since the Revolution, look
with horror upon the name of a King, and upon all propositions for a
strong government. It was not so with us. We were born the subjects
of a King, and were accustomed to subscribe ourselves 'His Majesty's
most faithful subjects;' and we began the quarrel which ended in the
Revolution, not against the King, but against his parliament; and
in making the new government many propositions were submitted which
would not bear discussion; and ought not to be quoted against their
authors, being offered for consideration, and to bring out opinions,
and which, though behind the opinions of this day, were in advance
of those of that day."--These things were said chiefly in relation
to General Hamilton, who had submitted propositions stronger than
those adopted, but nothing like those which party spirit attributed
to him. I heard these words, I hope, with profit; and commit them,
in the same hope, to after generations.
CHAPTER XXIV.
REMOVAL OF THE CREEK INDIANS FROM GEORGIA.
By an agreement with the State of Georgia in the year 1802, the
United States became bound, in consideration of the cession of
the western territory, now constituting the States of Alabama
and Mississippi, to extinguish the remainder of the Indian title
within her limits, and to remove the Indians from the State; of
which large and valuable portions were then occupied by the Creeks
and Cherokees. No time was limited for the fulfilment of this
obligation, and near a quarter of a century had passed away without
seeing its full execution. At length Georgia, seeing no end to
this delay, became impatient, and justly so, the long delay being
equivalent to a breach of the agreement; for, although no time was
limited for its execution, yet a reasonable time was naturally
understood, and that incessant and faithful endeavors should be
made by the United States to comply with her undertaking. In the
years 1824-'25 this had become a serious question between the United
States and Georgia--the compact being but partly complied with--and
Mr. Monroe, in the last year of his Administration, and among its
last acts, had the satisfaction to conclude a treaty with the
Creek Indians for a cession of all their claims in the State, and
their removal from it. This was the treaty of the Indian Springs,
negotiated the 12th of February, 1825, the famous chief, Gen. Wm.
McIntosh, and some fifty other chiefs signing it in the presence
of Mr. Crowell, the United States Indian agent. It ceded all the
Creek country in Georgia, and also several millions of acres in the
State of Alabama. Complaints followed it to Washington as having
been concluded by McIntosh without the authority of the nation. The
ratification of the treaty was opposed, but finally carried, and by
the strong vote of 34 to 4. Disappointed in their opposition to the
treaty at Washington, the discontented party became violent at home,
killed McIntosh and another chief, declared forcible resistance to
the execution of the treaty, and prepared to resist. Georgia, on her
part, determined to execute it by taking possession of the ceded
territory. The Government of the United States felt itself bound
to interfere. The new President, Mr. Adams, became impressed with
the conviction that the treaty had been made without due authority,
and that its execution ought not to be enforced; and sent Gen.
Gaines with federal troops to the confines of Georgia. All Georgia
was in a flame at this view of force, and the neighboring States
sympathized with her. In the mean time the President, anxious to
avoid violence, and to obtain justice for Georgia, treated further;
and assembling the head men and chiefs of the Creeks at Washington
City, concluded a new treaty with them (January, 1826); by which
the treaty of Indian Springs was annulled, and a substitute for
it negotiated, ceding all the Creek lands in Georgia, but none in
Alabama. This treaty, with a message detailing all the difficulties
of the question, was immediately communicated by the President to
the Senate, and by it referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs,
of which I was chairman. The committee reported against the
ratification of the treaty, earnestly deprecated a collision of arms
between the federal government and a State, and recommended further
negotiations--a thing the more easy as the Creek chiefs were still
at Washington. The objections to the new treaty were:
1. That it annulled the McIntosh treaty; thereby implying its
illegality, and apparently justifying the fate of its authors.
2. Because it did not cede the whole of the Creek lands in Georgia.
3. Because it ceded none in Alabama.
Further negotiations according to the recommendation of the Senate,
were had by the President; and on the 31st of March of the same
year, a supplemental article was concluded, by which all the Creek
lands in Georgia were ceded to her; and the Creeks within her
borders bound to emigrate to a new home beyond the Mississippi.
The vote in the Senate on ratifying this new treaty, and its
supplemental article, was full and emphatic--thirty to seven: and
the seven negatives all Southern senators favorable to the object,
but dissatisfied with the clause which annulled the McIntosh treaty
and implied a censure upon its authors. Northern senators voted in
a body to do this great act of justice to Georgia, restrained by
no unworthy feeling against the growth and prosperity of a slave
State. And thus was carried into effect, after a delay of a quarter
of a century, and after great and just complaint on the part of
Georgia, the compact between that State and the United States of
1802. Georgia was paid at last for her great cession of territory,
and obtained the removal of an Indian community out of her limits,
and the use and dominion of all her soil for settlement and
jurisdiction. It was an incalculable advantage to her, and sought
in vain under three successive Southern Presidents--Jefferson,
Madison, Monroe--(who could only obtain part concessions from the
Indians)--and now accomplished under a Northern President, with
the full concurrence and support of the Northern delegations in
Congress: for the Northern representatives in the House voted the
appropriations to carry the treaty into effect as readily as the
senators had voted the ratification of the treaty itself. Candid
men, friends to the harmony and stability of this Union, should
remember these things when they hear the Northern States, on account
of the conduct of some societies and individuals, charged with
unjust and criminal designs towards the South.
An incident which attended the negotiation of the supplemental
article to the treaty of January deserves to be commemorated, as
an instance of the frauds which may attend Indian negotiations,
and for which there is so little chance of detection by either of
the injured parties,--by the Indians themselves, or by the federal
government. When the President sent in the treaty of January, and
after its rejection by the Senate became certain, thereby leaving
the federal government and Georgia upon the point of collision,
I urged upon Mr. James Barbour, the Secretary at War (of whose
department the Indian Office was then a branch) the necessity of
a supplemental article ceding all the Creek lands in Georgia; and
assured him that, with that additional article, the treaty would be
ratified, and the question settled. The Secretary was very willing
to do all this, but said it was impossible,--that the chiefs would
not agree to it. I recommended to him to make them some presents, so
as to overcome their opposition; which he most innocently declined,
because it would savor of bribery. In the mean time it had been
communicated, to me, that the treaty already made was itself the
work of great bribery; the sum of $160,000 out of $247,000, which
it stipulated to the Creek nation, as a first payment, being a
fund for private distribution among the chiefs who negotiated it.
Having received this information, I felt quite sure that the fear
of the rejection of the treaty, and the consequent loss of these
$160,000, to the negotiating chiefs, would insure their assent to
the supplemental article without the inducement of further presents.
I had an interview with the leading chiefs, and made known to them
the inevitable fact that the Senate would reject the treaty as it
stood, but would ratify it with a supplemental article ceding all
their lands in Georgia. With this information they agreed to the
additional article: and then the whole was ratified, as I have
already stated. But a further work remained behind. It was to balk
the fraud of the corrupt distribution of $160,000 among a few
chiefs; and that was to be done in the appropriation bill, and by
a clause directing the whole treaty money to be paid to the nation
instead of the chiefs. The case was communicated to the Senate in
secret session, and a committee of conference appointed (Messrs.
Benton, Van Buren, and Berrien) to agree with the House committee
upon the proper clause to be put into the appropriation bill. It was
also communicated to the Secretary at War. He sent in a report from
Mr. McKinney, the Indian bureau clerk, and actual negotiator of the
treaty, admitting the fact of the intended private distribution;
which, in fact, could not be denied, as I held an original paper
showing the names of all the intended recipients, with the sum
allowed to each, beginning at $20,000 and ranging down to $5000: and
that it was done with his cognizance.
Some extracts from speeches delivered on that occasion will well
finish this view of a transaction which at one time threatened
violence between a State and the federal government, and in which a
great fraud in an Indian treaty Was detected and frustrated.
EXTRACTS FROM THE SPEECHES IN THE SENATE AND IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
"Mr. Van Buren said he should state the circumstances of this
case, and the views of the committee of conference. A treaty
was made in this city, in which it was stipulated on the part
of the United States, that $247,000, together with an annuity
of $20,000 a year, and other considerations, should be paid to
the Creeks, as a consideration for the extinguishment of their
title to lands in the State of Georgia, which the United States,
under the cession of 1802, were under obligations to extinguish.
The bill from the other House to carry this treaty into effect,
directed that the money should be paid and distributed among
the chiefs and warriors. That bill came to the Senate, and a
confidential communication was made to the Senate, from which
it appeared that strong suspicions were entertained that a
design existed on the part of the chiefs who made the treaty,
to practise a fraud on the Creek nation, by dividing the money
amongst themselves and associates. An amendment was proposed by
the Senate, which provided for the payment of those moneys in
the usual way, and the distribution of them in the usual manner,
and in the usual proportion to which the Indians were entitled.
That amendment was sent to the other House, who, unadvised as to
the facts which were known to the Senate, refused to concur in
it, and asked a conference. The conferees, on the part of the
Senate, communicated their suspicions to the conferees on the
part of the House, and asked them to unite in an application
to the Department of War, for information on the subject. This
was accordingly done, and the documents sent, in answer, were a
letter from the Secretary of War, and a report by Mr. McKenney.
From that report it appeared clear and satisfactory, that a
design thus existed on the part of the Indians, by whom the
treaty was negotiated, to distribute of the $247,000 to be paid
for the cession by the United States, $159,750 among themselves,
and a few favorite chiefs at home, and three Cherokee chiefs
who had no interest in the property. Ridge and Vann were to
receive by the original treaty $5000 each. By this agreement
of the distribution of the money each was to receive $15,000
more, making $20,000 for each. Ridge, the father of Ridge who
is here, was to receive $10,000. The other $100,000 was to be
distributed, $5000, and, in some instances, $10,000 to the
chiefs who negotiated the treaty here, varying from one to ten
thousand dollars each.
"Mr. V. B. said, in his judgment, the character of the
government was involved in this subject, and it would require,
under the circumstances of this case, that they should take
every step they could rightfully take to exculpate themselves
from having, in any degree or form, concurred in this fraud. The
sentiment of the American people where he resided was, and had
been, highly excited on this subject; they had applauded, in the
most ardent manner, the zeal manifested by the government to
preserve themselves pure in their negotiations with the Indians;
and though he was satisfied--though he deemed it impossible to
suppose for a moment that government could have countenanced
the practice of this fraud, yet there were circumstances in the
case which required exculpation. Between the negotiation of the
treaty and the negotiation of the supplementary article on which
the treaty was finally adopted, all these circumstances were
communicated to the Department of War by the two Cherokees. Mr.
V. B. said it was not his purpose, because the necessity of the
case did not require it, to say what the Secretary of War ought
to have done, or to censure what he did do, when the information
was given to him. He had known him many years, and there was not
an honester man, or a man more devoted to his country, than that
gentleman was. Mr. V. B. said it was not for him to have said
what should have been the course of the President of the United
States, if the information had been given to him on the subject.
It could not fail to make a mortifying and most injurious
impression on the minds of the people of this country, to find
that no means whatever were taken for the suppression of this
fraud. There was, and there ought to be, an excitement on the
subject in the public mind."
"Mr. Benton said, that after the explanation of the views of the
committee of conference which had been given by the senator from
New-York (Mr. Van Buren), he would limit himself to a statement
of facts on two or three points, on which references had been
made to his personal knowledge.
"The Secretary of War had referred to him, in his letter to the
committee, as knowing the fact that the Secretary had refused
to give private gratuities to the Creek chiefs to promote the
success of the negotiation. The reference was correct. Mr. B.
had himself recommended the Secretary to do so; it was, however,
about forty days after the treaty had been signed. He referred
to a paper which fixed the date to the 9th or 10th of March, and
the treaty had been signed in the month of January preceding.
It was done at the time that Mr. B. had offered his services to
procure the supplemental article to be adopted. The Secretary
entirely condemned the practice of giving these gratuities.
Mr. B. said he had recommended it as the only way of treating
with barbarians; that, if not gratified in this way, the chiefs
would prolong the negotiation, at a great daily expense to the
government, until they got their gratuity in one way or other,
or defeated the treaty altogether. He considered the practice
to be sanctioned by the usage of the United States: he believed
it to be common in all barbarous nations, and in many that
were civilized; and referred to the article in the federal
constitution against receiving "_presents_" from foreign powers,
as a proof that the convention thought such a restriction to be
necessary, even among ourselves.
"The _time_ at which Mr. B. had offered his services to aid
this negotiation, had appeared to him to be eminently critical,
and big with consequences which he was anxious to avert. It
was after this committee had resolved to report against the
new treaty, and before they had made the report to the Senate.
The decision, whatsoever it might be, and the consequent
discussions, criminations, and recriminations, were calculated
to bring on a violent struggle in the Senate itself; between the
Senate and the Executive; perhaps between the two Houses (for a
reference of the subject to both would have taken place); and
between one or more States and the federal government. Mr. B.
had concurred in the report against the new treaty, because it
divested Georgia of vested rights; and, though objectionable
in many other respects, he was willing, for the sake of peace,
to ratify it, provided the vested rights of Georgia were not
invaded. The supplemental article had relieved him upon this
point. He thought that _Georgia_ had no further cause of
dissatisfaction with the treaty; it was _Alabama_ that was
injured by the loss of some millions of acres, which she had
acquired under the treaty of 1825, and lost under that of 1826.
Her case commanded his regrets and sympathy. She had lost the
right of jurisdiction over a considerable extent of territory;
and the advantages of settling, cultivating, and taxing the
same, were postponed; but, he hoped, not indefinitely. But these
were _consequential_ advantages, resulting from an act which
the government was not _bound_ to do; and, though the loss of
them was an injury, yet this injury could not be considered as
a violation of vested rights; but the circumstance certainly
increased the strength of her claim to the total extinction of
the Indian titles within her limits and, he trusted, would have
its due effect upon the Government of the United States.
"The third and last point on which Mr. B. thought references to
his name had made it proper for him to give a statement, related
to the circumstance which had induced the Senate to make the
amendment which had become the subject of the conference between
the two Houses. He had himself come to the knowledge of that
circumstance in the last days of April, some weeks after the
supplemental article had been ratified. He had deemed it to be
his duty to communicate it to the Senate, and do it in a way
that would avoid a groundless agitation of the public feeling,
or unjust reflections upon any individual, white or red, if,
peradventure, his information should turn out to have been
untrue. He therefore communicated it to the Senate in secret
session; and the effect of the information was immediately
manifested in the unanimous determination of the Senate to adopt
the amendment which was now under consideration. He deemed the
amendment, or one that would effect the same object, to be
called for by the circumstances of the case, and the relative
state of the parties. It was apparent that a few chiefs were
to have an undue proportion of the money--they had realized
what he had foretold to the Secretary; and it was certain
that the knowledge of this, whenever it should be found out
by the nation, would occasion disturbances, and, perhaps,
bloodshed. He thought that the United States should prevent
these consequences, by preventing the cause of them, and, for
this purpose, he would concur in any amendment that would effect
a fair distribution of the money, or any distribution that was
agreeable to the nation in open counsel."
Mr. Berrien: "You have arrived at the last scene in the present
act of the great political drama of the Creek controversy.
In its progress, you have seen two of the sovereign States
of the American Confederation--especially, you have seen one
of those States, which has always been faithful and forward
in the discharge of her duties to this Union, driven to the
wall, by the combined force of the administration and its
allies consisting of a portion of the Creek nation, and certain
Cherokee diplomatists. Hitherto, in the discussions before the
Senate on this subject, I have imposed a restraint upon my own
feelings under the influence of motives which have now ceased
to operate. It was my first duty to obtain an acknowledgment,
on this floor, of the rights of Georgia, repressing, for that
purpose, even the story of her wrongs. It was my first duty,
sir, and I have sacrificed to it every other consideration. As a
motive to forbearance it no longer exists. The rights of Georgia
have been prostrated.
"Sir, in the progress of that controversy, which has grown out
of the treaty of the Indian Springs, the people of Georgia
have been grossly and wantonly calumniated, and the acts of
the administration have assisted to give currency to these
calumnies. Her chief magistrate has been traduced. The solemn
act of her legislature has been set at naught by a rescript of
the federal Executive. A military force has been quartered on
her borders to coerce her to submission; and without a trial,
without the privilege of being heard, without the semblance of
evidence, she has been deprived of rights secured to her by the
solemn stipulations of treaty.
"When, in obedience to the will of the legislature of Georgia,
her chief magistrate had communicated to the President his
determination to survey the ceded territory, his right to do
so was admitted. It was declared by the President that the act
would be 'wholly' on the responsibility of the government of
Georgia, and that 'the Government of the United States would not
be in any manner responsible for any consequences which might
result from the measure.' When his willingness to encounter this
responsibility was announced, it was met by the declaration that
the President would 'not permit the survey to be made,' and
he was referred to a major-general of the army of the United
States, and one thousand regulars.
"The murder of McIntosh--the defamation of the chief magistrate
of Georgia--the menace of military force to coerce her to
submission--were followed by the traduction of two of her
cherished citizens, employed as the agents of the General
Government in negotiating the treaty--gentlemen whose integrity
will not shrink from a comparison with that of the proudest
and loftiest of their accusers. Then the sympathies of the
people of the Union were excited in behalf of 'the children of
the forest,' who were represented as indignantly spurning the
gold, which was offered to entice them from the graves of their
fathers, and resolutely determined never to abandon them. The
incidents of the plot being thus prepared, the affair hastens
to its consummation. A new treaty is negotiated here--_a pure
and spotless treaty_. The rights of Georgia and of Alabama are
sacrificed; the United States obtain a part of the lands, and
pay double the amount stipulated by the old treaty; and those
poor and noble, and unsophisticated sons of the forest, having
succeeded in imposing on the simplicity of this government, next
concert, under its eye, and with its knowledge, the means of
defrauding their own constituents, the chiefs and warriors of
the Creek nation.
"For their agency in exciting the Creeks to resist the former
treaty, and in deluding this government to annul it, _three
Cherokees--Ridge, Vann, and the father of the former_--are to
receive FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS of the money stipulated to be
paid by the United States to the chiefs of the _Creek_ nation;
and the government, when informed of the projected fraud,
deems itself powerless to avert it. Nay, when apprised by your
amendment, that you had also detected it, that government does
not hesitate to interpose, by one of its high functionaries, to
resist your proceeding, by a singular fatuity, thus giving its
countenance and support to the commission of the fraud. Sir, I
speak of what has passed before your eyes even in this hall.
"One fifth of the whole purchase money is to be given to _three
Cherokees_. TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS reward one of the heroes of
Fort Mims--a boon which it so well becomes us to bestow. A few
chosen favorites divide among themselves upwards of ONE HUNDRED
AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS, leaving a pittance for distribution
among the great body of the chiefs and warriors of the nation.
"But the administration, though it condemns the fraud, thinks
that we have no power to prevent its consummation. What, sir,
have we no power to see that our own treaty is carried into
effect? Have we no interest in doing so? Have we no power? We
have stipulated for the payment of two hundred and forty-seven
thousand dollars to the chiefs of the Creek nation, _to be
distributed among the chiefs and warriors of that nation_. Is
not the _distribution_ part of the contract as well as the
_payment_? We know that a few of those chiefs, in fraudulent
violation of the rights secured by that treaty, are about to
appropriate this money to themselves. Are we powerless to
prevent it? Nay, must we, too, suffer ourselves to be made
the conscious instruments of its consummation? We have made
a bargain with a savage tribe which you choose to dignify
with the name of a treaty concerning whom we legislate with
their consent, or without it, as it seems good in our eyes. We
know that some ten or twenty of them are about to cheat the
remainder. We have the means in our hands, without which their
corrupt purpose cannot be effected. Have we not the right to
see that our own bargain is honestly fulfilled? Consistently
with common honesty, can we put the consideration money of
the contract into the hands of those who we know are about to
defraud the people who trusted them? Sir, the proposition is
absurd.
"Mr. Forsyth (of the House of Representatives) said: A
stupendous fraud, it seems, was intended by the delegation who
had formed, with the Secretary of War, the new contract. The
chiefs composing the Creek diplomatic train, assisted by their
Cherokee secretaries of legation, had combined to put into their
own pockets, and those of a few select friends, somewhere about
three fourths of the first payment to be made for the second
cession of the lands lying in Georgia. The facts connected
with this transaction, although concealed from the Senate when
the second contract was before them for ratification, and from
the House when the appropriation bill to carry it into effect
was under consideration, were perfectly understood at the War
Department by the Secretary, and by his clerk, who is called the
head of the Indian Bureau (Mr. Thomas L. McKinney). The Senate
having, by some strange fortune, discovered the intended fraud,
after the ratification of the contract, and before they acted
on the appropriation bill, wished, by an amendment to the bill,
to prevent the success of the profitable scheme of villany.
The House, entirely ignorant of the facts, and not suspecting
the motive of the amendment, had rejected it, insisted upon
their disagreement to it, and a committee of the two Houses, as
usual, had conferred on the subject. Now, that the facts are
ascertained by the separate reports of the Committees, there
can be no difference of opinion on the great point of defeating
the intended treachery of the delegation and secretaries to the
Creek tribe. The only matter which can bear discussion, is, how
shall the treachery be punished?--how shall the Creek tribe
be protected from the abominable designs of their worthless
and unprincipled agents? Will the amendment proposed by the
committee reach their object? The plan is, to pay the money to
the chiefs, to be divided among the chiefs and warriors, under
the direction of the Secretary of War, in a full council of the
nation, convened for the purpose. Suppose the council in solemn
session, the money before them, and the division about to be
made, under the direction of the Secretary of War--may not the
chiefs and their secretaries claim the money, as promised to
them under the treaty, and how will the Secretary or his agent
resist the claim? They assented--the House will perceive that
the only difficulty was the amount of the bribe. The Secretary
was willing to go as high as five thousand dollars, but could
not stretch to ten thousand dollars. Notwithstanding the
assent of the Cherokees, and the declaration of the Secretary,
that five thousand dollars each was the extent that they could
be allowed, Ridge and Vann, after the treaty was signed, and
before it was acted on by the Senate, or submitted to that
body, brought a paper, the precious list of the price of each
traitor, for the inspection and information of the head of the
bureau and the head of the department; and what answer did they
receive from both? The head of the bureau said it was their own
affair. The Secretary said he presumed it was their own affair.
But I ask this House, if the engagement for the five thousand
dollars, and the list of the sums to be distributed, may not
be claimed as part of this new contract? If these persons have
not a right to claim, in the face of the tribe, these sums,
as promised to them by their Great Father? Ay, sir; and, if
they are powerful enough in the tribe, they will enforce their
claim. Under what pretext will your Secretary of War direct a
different disposition or division of the money, after his often
repeated declaration, 'it is their own affair'--the affair of
the delegation? Yes, sir, so happily has this business been
managed at the seat of government, under the Executive eye,
that this division which the negotiators proposed to make of
the spoil, may be termed a part of the consideration of the
contract. It must be confessed that these exquisite ambassadors
were quite liberal to themselves, their secretaries, and
particular friends: one hundred and fifty-nine thousand seven
hundred dollars, to be divided among some twenty persons, is
pretty well! What name shall we give to this division of money
among them? To call it a bribe, would shock the delicacy of
the War Department, and possibly offend those gentle spirited
politicians, who resemble Cowper's preachers, 'who could not
mention hell to ears polite.' The transcendent criminality of
this design cannot be well understood, without recalling to
recollection the dark and bloody scenes of the year past. The
chief McIntosh, distinguished at all times by his courage and
devotion to the whites, deriving his name of the White Warrior,
from his mixed parentage, had formed, with his party, the treaty
of the Indian Springs. He was denounced for it. His midnight
sleep was broken by the crackling flames of his dwelling burning
over his head. Escaping from the flames, he was shot down by a
party acting under the orders of the persons who accused him
of betraying, for his own selfish purposes, the interest of
the tribe. Those who condemned that chief, the incendiaries
and the murderers, are the negotiators of this new contract;
the one hundred and fifty-nine thousand dollars, is to be
the fruit of their victory over the assassinated chief. What
evidence of fraud, and selfishness, and treachery, has red or
white malice been able to exhibit against the dead warrior? A
reservation of land for him, in the contract of 1821, was sold
by him to the United States, for twenty-five thousand dollars;
a price he could have obtained from individuals, if his title
had been deemed secure. This sale of property given to him by
the tribe, was the foundation of the calumnies that have been
heaped upon his memory, and the cause which, in the eyes of our
administration newspaper editors, scribblers, and reviewers,
justified his execution. Now, sir, the executioners are to be
rewarded by pillaging the public Treasury. I look with some
curiosity for the indignant denunciations of this accidentally
discovered treachery. Perhaps it will be discovered that all
this new business of the Creeks is 'their own affair,' with
which the white editors and reviewers have nothing to do.
Fortunately, Mr. F. said, Congress had something to do with
this affair. We owe a justice to the tribe. This amendment, he
feared, would not do justice. The power of Congress should be
exerted, not only to keep the money out of the hands of these
wretches, but to secure a faithful and equal distribution of it
among the whole Creek nation. The whole tribe hold the land;
their title by occupancy resides in all; all are rightfully
claimants to equal portions of the price of their removal from
it. The country is not aware how the Indian annuities are
distributed, or the moneys paid to the tribes disposed of.
They are divided according to the discretion of the Indian
government, completely aristocratical--all the powers vested in
a few chiefs. Mr. F. had it from authority he could not doubt,
that the Creek annuities had, for years past, been divided in
very unequal proportions, not among the twenty thousand souls of
which the tribe was believed to be composed, but among about one
thousand five hundred chiefs and warriors.
"Mr. Forsyth expressed his hope that the House would reject
the report of the committee. Before taking his seat, he asked
the indulgence of the House, while he made a few comments on
this list of worthies, and the prices to be paid to each.
At the head of the list stands Mr. Ridge, with the sum of
$15,000 opposite to his elevated name. This man is no Creek,
but a Cherokee, educated among the whites, allied to them by
marriage--has received lessons in Christianity, morality,
and sentiment--perfectly civilized, according to the rules
and customs of Cornwall. This negotiation, of which he has
been, either as actor or instrument, the principal manager is
an admirable proof of the benefits he has derived from his
residence among a moral and religious people. Vann, another
Cherokee, half savage and half civilized, succeeds him with
$15,000 bounty. A few inches below comes another Ridge, the
major, father to the secretary--a gallant old fellow, who did
some service against the hostile Creeks, during the late war,
for which he deserved and received acknowledgments--but what
claims he had to this Creek money, Mr. F. could not comprehend.
Probably his name was used merely to cover another gratuity
for the son, whose modesty would not permit him to take more
than $15,000 in his own name. These Cherokees were together to
receive $40,000 of Creek money, and the Secretary of War is of
opinion it is quite consistent with the contract, which provides
for the distribution of it among the chiefs and warriors of
the Creeks. Look, sir, at the distinction made for these
exquisites. Yopothle Yoholo, whose word General Gaines would
take against the congregated world, is set down for but $10,000.
The Little Prince but $10,000. Even Menawee, distinguished as
he is as the leader of the party who murdered McIntosh and
Etome Tustunnuggee--as one of the accursed band who butchered
three hundred men, women, and children, at Fort Mims--has but
$10,000. A distinguished Red Stick, in these days, when kindness
to Indians is shown in proportion to their opposition to the
policy of the General Government, might have expected better
treatment--only ten thousand dollars to our enemy in war and in
peace! But, sir, I will not detain the House longer. I should
hold myself criminal if I had exposed these things unnecessarily
or uselessly. That patriotism only is lovely which, imitating
the filial piety of the sons of the Patriarch, seeks, with
averted face, to cover the nakedness of the country from the eye
of a vulgar and invidious curiosity. But the commands of public
duty must be obeyed; let those who have imposed this duty upon
us answer for it to the people."
"Mr. Tatnall, of Geo. (H. R.) He was as confident as his
colleagues could be, that the foulest fraud had been projected
by some of the individuals calling themselves a part of the
Creek delegation, and that it was known to the department of war
before the ratification of the treaty, and was not communicated
by that department to the Senate, either before or during the
pendency of the consideration of the treaty by that body. Mr.
T. said he would not, however, for the reasons just mentioned,
dwell on this ground, but would proceed to state, that he was in
favor of the amendment offered by the committee of conference,
(and therein he differed from his colleague), which, whilst it
would effectually prevent the commission of the fraud intended,
would, also, avoid a violation of the terms of 'the new treaty,'
as it was styled. He stated, that the list which he held in his
hand was, itself, conclusive evidence of a corrupt intention
to divide the greater part of the money among the few persons
named in it. In this list, different sums were written opposite
the names of different individuals, such, for instance, as the
following: 'John Ridge, $15,000--Joseph Vann, 15,000' (both
Cherokees, and not Creeks, and, therefore, not entitled to one
cent). The next, a long and barbarous Indian name, which I
shall not attempt to pronounce. '$10,000'--next, John Stedham,
'$10,000,' &c. This list, as it appears in the documents
received from the Secretary of War, was presented to the war
department by Ridge and Vann."
CHAPTER XXV.
THE PANAMA MISSION.
The history of this mission, or attempted mission (for it never
took effect, though eventually sanctioned by both Houses of
Congress), deserves a place in this inside view of the working
of our government. Though long since sunk into oblivion, and its
name almost forgotten, it was a master subject on the political
theatre during its day; and gave rise to questions of national, and
of constitutional law, and of national policy, the importance of
which survive the occasion from which they sprung; and the solution
of which (as then solved), may be some guide to future action, if
similar questions again occur. Besides the grave questions to which
the subject gave rise, the subject itself became one of unusual and
painful excitement. It agitated the people, made a violent debate
in the two Houses of Congress, inflamed the passions of parties
and individuals, raised a tempest before which Congress bent, made
bad feeling between the President and the Senate; and led to the
duel between Mr. Randolph and Mr. Clay. It was an administration
measure, and pressed by all the means known to an administration. It
was evidently relied upon as a means of acting upon the people--as
a popular movement, which might have the effect of turning the
tide which was then running high against Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay on
account of the election in the House of Representatives, and the
broad doctrines of the inaugural address, and of the first annual
message; and it was doubtless well imagined for that purpose. It
was an American movement, and republican. It was the assembly of
the American states of Spanish origin, counselling for their mutual
safety and independence; and presenting the natural wish for the
United States to place herself at their head, as the eldest sister
of the new republics, and the one whose example and institutions the
others had followed. The monarchies of Europe had formed a "Holy
Alliance," to check the progress of liberty: it seemed just that the
republics of the New World should confederate against the dangers of
despotism. The subject had a charm in it; and the name and place of
meeting recalled classic and cherished recollections. It was on an
isthmus--the Isthmus of Panama--which connected the two Americas,
the Grecian republics had their isthmus--that of Corinth--where
their deputies assembled. All the advantages in the presentation of
the question were on the side of the administration. It addressed
itself to the imagination--to the passions--to the prejudices;--and
could only be met by the cold and sober suggestions of reason and
judgment. It had the prestige of name and subject, and was half
victor before the contest began; and it required bold men to make
head against it.
The debate began in the Senate, upon the nomination of ministers;
and as the Senate sat with closed doors, their objections were not
heard, while numerous presses, and popular speakers, excited the
public mind in favor of the measure, and inflamed it against the
Senate for delaying its sanction. It was a plan conceived by the new
Spanish American republics, and prepared as a sort of amphictyonic
council for the settlement of questions among themselves; and,
to which, in a manner which had much the appearance of our own
procuring, we had received an invitation to send deputies. The
invitation was most seductively exhibited in all the administration
presses; and captivated all young and ardent imaginations. The
people were roused: the majority in both Houses of Congress gave way
(many against their convictions, as they frankly told me), while the
project itself--our participation in it--was utterly condemned by
the principles of our constitution, and by the policy which forbade
"entangling alliances," and the proposed congress itself was not
even a diplomatic body to which ministers could be sent under the
law of nations. To counteract the effect of this outside current,
the Senate, on the motion of Mr. Van Buren, adopted a resolve to
debate the question with open doors, "unless, in the opinion of the
President, the publication of documents necessary to be referred
to in debate should be prejudicial to existing negotiations:" and
a copy of the resolve was sent to Mr. Adams for his opinion on
that point. He declined to give it, and left it to the Senate to
decide for itself, "_the question of an unexampled departure from
its own usages, and upon the motives of which not being himself
informed, he did not feel himself competent to decide_." This
reference to the motives of the members, and the usages of the
Senate, with its clear implication of the badness of one, and the
violation of the other, gave great offence in the Senate, and even
led to a proposition (made by Mr. Rowan of Kentucky), not to act on
the nominations until the information requested should be given.
In the end the Senate relinquished the idea of a public debate,
and contented itself with its publication after it was over. Mr.
John Sergeant of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Richard Clark Anderson of
Kentucky, were the ministers nominated; and, the question turning
wholly upon the mission itself, and not upon the persons nominated
(to whose fitness there was no objection), they were confirmed
by a close vote--24 to 20. The negatives were: _Messrs._ Benton,
Berrien, Branch, Chandler, Cobb (Thomas W. of Georgia), Dickerson,
Eaton, Findlay, Hayne, Holmes of Maine, Kane, King of Alabama,
Macon, Randolph, Tazewell, Rowan, Van Buren, White of Tennessee,
Williams of Mississippi, Woodbury. The Vice-President, Mr. Calhoun,
presiding in the Senate, had no vote, the constitutional contingency
to authorize it not having occurred: but he was full and free in the
expression of his opinion against the mission.
It was very nearly a party vote, the democracy as a party,
being against it: but of those of the party who voted for it,
the design of this history (which is to show the working of the
government) requires it to be told that there was afterwards,
either to themselves or relatives, some large dispensations of
executive patronage. Their votes may have been conscientious; but
in that case, it would have been better to have vindicated the
disinterestedness of the act, by the total refusal of executive
favor. Mr. Adams commenced right, by asking the advice of the
Senate, before he instituted the mission; but the manner in which
the object was pursued, made it a matter of opposition to the
administration to refuse it, and greatly impaired the harmony which
ought to exist between the President and the Senate. After all, the
whole conception of the Panama congress was an abortion. It died
out of itself, without ever having been once held--not even by the
states which had conceived it. It was incongruous and impracticable,
even for them,--more apt to engender disputes among themselves
than to harmonize action against Spain,--and utterly foreign to
us, and dangerous to our peace and institutions. The basis of the
agreement for the congress, was the existing state of war between
all the new states and the mother country--Spanish pride and policy
being slow to acknowledge the independence of revolted colonies,
no matter how independent in fact;--and the wish to establish
concert among themselves, in the mode of treating her commerce, and
that of such of her American possessions (Cuba, Porto Rico), as
had not thrown off their subjection. We were at peace with Spain,
and could not go into any such council without compromising our
neutrality, and impairing the integrity of our national character.
Besides the difficulties it would involve with Spain, there was one
subject specified in the treaties for discussion and settlement
in that congress, namely, the considerations of future relations
with the government of Haiti, which would have been a firebrand in
the southern half of our Union,--not to be handled or touched by
our government any where. The publication of the secret debates
in the Senate on the nomination of the ministers, and the public
discussion in the House of Representatives on the appropriation
clauses, to carry the mission into effect, succeeded, after some
time, in dissipating all the illusions which had fascinated the
public mind--turned the current against the administration--made
the project a new head of objection to its authors; and in a short
time it would have been impossible to obtain any consideration for
it, either in Congress or before the people. It is now entirely
forgotten, but deserves to be remembered in this View of the working
of the government, to show the questions of policy, of national and
constitutional law which were discussed--the excitement which can be
got up without foundation, and against reason--how public men can
bend before a storm--how all the departments of the government can
go wrong:--and how the true conservative power in our country is in
the people, in their judgment and reason, and in steady appeals to
their intelligence and patriotism.
Mr. Adams communicated the objects of the proposed congress, so far
as the United States could engage in them, in a special message to
the Senate; in which, disclaiming all part in any deliberations
of a belligerent character, or design to contract alliances,
or to engage in any project importing hostility to any other
nation, he enumerated, as the measures in which we could well take
part, 1. The establishment of liberal principles of commercial
intercourse, which he supposed could be best done in an assembly
of all the American states together. 2. The consentaneous adoption
of principles of maritime neutrality. 3. The doctrine that free
ships make free goods. 4. An agreement that the "Monroe doctrine,"
as it is called, should be adopted by the congress, each state to
guard, by its own means, its own territory from future European
colonization. The enunciation of this doctrine, so different from
what it has of late been supposed to be, as binding the United
States to guard all the territory of the New World from European
colonization, makes it proper to give this passage from Mr. Adams's
message in his own words. They are these: "An agreement between
all the parties represented at the meeting, that each will guard,
by its own means, against the establishment of any future European
colony within its borders, may be found advisable. This was, more
than two years since, announced by my predecessor to the world, as
a principle resulting from the emancipation of both the American
continents. It may be so developed to the new southern nations, that
they may feel it as an essential appendage to their independence."
These were the words of Mr. Adams, who had been a member of Mr.
Monroe's cabinet, and filling the department from which the doctrine
would emanate; written at a time when the enunciation of it was
still fresh, and when he himself, in a communication to the American
Senate, was laying it down for the adoption of all the American
nations in a general congress of their deputies. The circumstances
of the communication render it incredible that Mr. Adams could be
deceived in his understanding; and, according to him, this "Monroe
doctrine" (according to which it has been of late believed that the
United States were to stand guard over the two Americas, and repulse
all intrusive colonists from their shores), was entirely confined to
our own borders: that it was only proposed to get the other states
of the New World to agree that, each for itself, and by its own
means, should guard its own territories: and, consequently, that
the United States, so far from extending gratuitous protection to
the territories of other states, would neither give, nor receive,
aid in any such enterprise, but that each should use its own
means, within its own borders, for its own exemption from European
colonial intrusion. 5. A fifth object proposed by Mr. Adams, in
which he supposed our participation in the business of the Panama
congress might be rightfully and beneficially admitted, related to
the advancement of religious liberty: and as this was a point at
which the message encountered much censure, I will give it in its
own words. They are these "There is yet another subject upon which,
with out entering into any treaty, the moral influence of the United
States may, perhaps, be exerted with beneficial influence at such
meeting--the advancement of religious liberty. Some of the southern
nations are, even yet, so far under the dominion of prejudice, that
they have incorporated, with their political constitutions, an
exclusive Church, without toleration of any other than the dominant
sect. The abandonment of this last badge of religious bigotry and
oppression, may be pressed more effectually by the united exertions
of those who concur in the principles of freedom of conscience, upon
those who are yet to be convinced of their justice and wisdom, than
by the solitary efforts of a minister to any one of their separate
governments." 6. The sixth and last object named by Mr. Adams was,
to give proofs of our good will to all the new southern republics,
by accepting their invitation to join them in the congress which
they proposed of American nations. The President enumerated no
others of the objects to which the discussions of the congress
might be directed; but in the papers which he communicated with the
invitations he had received, many others were mentioned, one of
which was, "the basis on which the relations with Haiti should be
placed;" and the other, "to consider and settle the future relations
with Cuba and Porto Rico."
The message was referred to the Senate's Committee on Foreign
Affairs, consisting of Mr. Macon, Mr. Tazewell, and Mr. Gaillard
of South Carolina, Mr. Mills of Massachusetts, and Mr. Hugh L.
White of Tennessee. The committee reported adversely to the
President's recommendation, and replied to the message, point by
point. It is an elaborate document, of great ability and research,
and well expressed the democratic doctrines of that day. It was
presented by Mr. Macon, the chairman of the committee, and was
drawn, by Mr. Tazewell, and was the report of which Mr. Macon, when
complimented upon it, was accustomed to answer, "Yes: it is a
good report. Tazewell wrote it." But it was his also; for no power
could have made him present it, without declaring the fact, if he
had not approved it. The general principle of the report was that
of good will and friendship to all the young republics, and the
cultivation of social, commercial and political relations with each
one individually; but no entangling connection, and no internal
interference with any one. On the suggestion of advancing religious
freedom, the committee remark:
"In the opinion of this committee, there is no proposition,
concerning which the people of the United States are now and
ever have been more unanimous, than that which denies, not
merely the expediency, but the right of intermeddling with the
internal affairs of other states; and especially of seeking to
alter any provision they may have thought proper to adopt as a
fundamental law, or may have incorporated with their political
constitutions. And if there be any such subject more sacred
and delicate than another, as to which the United States ought
never to intermeddle, even by obtrusive advice, it is that which
concerns religious liberty. The most cruel and devastating
wars have been produced by such interferences; the blood of
man has been poured out in torrents; and, from the days of the
crusades to the present hour, no benefit has resulted to the
human family, from discussions carried on by nations upon such
subjects. Among the variety even of Christian nations which now
inhabit the earth, rare indeed are the examples to be found
of states who have not established an exclusive church; and
to far the greater number of these toleration is yet unknown.
In none of the communications which have taken place, is the
most distant allusion made to this delicate subject, by any
of the ministers who have given this invitation; and the
committee feel very confident in the opinion, that, if ever an
intimation shall be made to the sovereignties they represent,
that it was the purpose of the United States to discuss at the
proposed congress, their plans of internal civil polity, or
any thing touching the supposed interests of their religious
establishments, the invitation given would soon be withdrawn."
On the subject of the "Monroe doctrine," the report shows that,
one of the new republics (Colombia) proposed that this doctrine
should be enforced "by the joint and united efforts of all the
states to be represented in the congress, who should be bound by
a solemn convention to secure this end. It was in answer to this
proposition that the President in his message showed the extent
of that doctrine to be limited to our own territories, and that
all that we could do, would be to enter into agreement that each
should guard, by its own means, against the establishment of any
foreign colony within its borders. Even such an agreement the
committee deemed unadvisable, and that there was no more reason
for making it a treaty stipulation than there was for reducing to
such stipulations any other of the "high, just, and universally
admitted rights of all nations." The favorable commercial treaties
which the President expected to obtain, the committee believed
would be more readily obtained from each nation separately (in
which opinion their foresight has been justified by the event);
and that each treaty would be the more easily kept in proportion
to the smaller number of parties to it. The ameliorations of the
laws of nations which the President proposed, in the adoption of
principles of maritime neutrality, and that free ships should make
free goods, and the restriction of paper blockades, were deemed by
the committee objects beyond the enforcement of the American states
alone; and the enforcement of which, if agreed to, might bring
the chief burthen of enforcement upon the United States; and the
committee doubted the policy of undertaking, by negotiation with
these nations, to settle abstract propositions, as parts of public
law. On the subject of Cuba and Porto Rico, the report declared that
the United States could never regard with indifference their actual
condition, or future destiny;--but deprecated any joint action in
relation to them, or any action to which they themselves were not
parties; and it totally discountenanced any joint discussion or
action in relation to the future of Haïti. To the whole of the new
republics, the report expressed the belief that, the retention of
our present unconnected and friendly position towards them, would be
most for their own benefit, and enable the United States to act most
effectually for them in the case of needing our good offices. It
said:
"While the United States retain the position which they have
hitherto occupied, and manifest a constant determination not
to mingle their interests with those of the other states of
America, they may continue to employ the influence which they
possess, and have already happily exerted, with the nations of
Europe, in favor of these new republics. But, if ever the United
States permit themselves to be associated with these nations in
any general congress, assembled for the discussion of common
plans, in the way affecting European interests, they will,
by such an act, not only deprive themselves of the ability
they now possess, of rendering useful assistance to the other
American states, but also produce other effects, prejudicial
to their own interests. Then, the powers of Europe, who have
hitherto confided in the sagacity, vigilance, and impartiality
of the United States, to watch, detect, announce, and restrain
any disposition that the heat of the existing contest might
excite in the new states of America, to extend their empires
beyond their own limits, and who have, therefore, considered
their possessions and commerce in America safe, while so
guarded, would no longer feel this confidence."
The advantage of pursuing our old policy, and maintaining friendly
relations with all powers, "entangling alliances with none," was
forcibly presented in a brief and striking paragraph:
"And the United States, who have grown up in happiness, to
their present prosperity, by a strict observance of their old
well-known course of policy, and by manifesting entire good
will and most profound respect for all other nations, must
prepare to embark their future destinies upon an unknown and
turbulent ocean, directed by little experience, and destined for
no certain haven. In such a voyage the dissimilitude existing
between themselves and their associates, in interest, character,
language, religion, manners, customs, habits, laws, and almost
every other particular: and the rivalship these discrepancies
must surely produce amongst them, would generate discords,
which, if they did not destroy all hope of its successful
termination, would make even success itself the ultimate cause
of new and direful conflicts between themselves. Such has been
the issue of all such enterprises in past time; and we have
therefore strong reasons to expect in the future, similar
results from similar causes."
The committee dissented from the President on the point of his right
to institute the mission without the previous advice and consent of
the Senate. The President averred his right to do so: but deemed it
advisable, under all the circumstances, to waive the right, and ask
the advice. The committee averred the right of the Senate to decide
directly upon the expedience of this _new mission_; grounding the
right upon its originality, and holding that when a _new mission_ is
to be instituted it is the creation of an office, not the filling
of a vacancy; and that the Senate have a right to decide upon the
expediency of the _office itself_.
I spoke myself on this question, and to all the points which it
presented, and on the subject of relations with Haiti (on which a
uniform rule was to be determined on, or a rule with modifications,
according to the proposition of Colombia) I held that our policy was
fixed, and could be neither altered, nor discussed in any foreign
assembly; and especially in the one proposed; all the other parties
to which had already placed the two races (black and white) on the
basis of political equality. I said:
"Our policy towards Haïti, the old San Domingo, has been fixed
for three and thirty years. We trade with her, but no diplomatic
relations have been established between us. We purchase coffee
from her, and pay her for it; but we interchange no consuls or
ministers. We receive no mulatto consuls, or black ambassadors
from her. And why? Because the peace of eleven States in
this Union will not permit the fruits of a successful negro
insurrection to be exhibited among them. It will not permit
black consuls and ambassadors to establish themselves in our
cities, and to parade through our country, and give to their
fellow blacks in the United States, proof in hand of the
honors which await them, for a like successful effort on their
part. It will not permit the fact to be seen, and told, that
for the murder of their masters and mistresses, they are to
find _friends_ among the white people of these United States.
No, this is a question which has been _determined_ HERE for
three and thirty years; one which has never been open for
discussion, at home or abroad, neither under the Presidency of
Gen. Washington, of the first Mr. Adams, of Mr. Jefferson, Mr.
Madison, or Mr. Monroe. It is one which cannot be discussed
in _this_ chamber on _this_ day; and shall we go to Panama to
discuss it? I take it in the mildest supposed character of this
Congress--shall we go there to _advise_ and _consult_ in council
about it? Who are to advise and sit in judgment upon it? Five
nations who have already put the black man upon an equality with
the white, not only in their constitutions but in real life:
five nations who have at this moment (at least some of them)
black generals in their armies and mulatto senators in their
congresses!"
No question, in its day, excited more heat and intemperate
discussion, or more feeling between a President and Senate, than
this proposed mission to the congress of American nations at Panama;
and no heated question ever cooled off, and died out so suddenly
and completely. And now the chief benefit to be derived from its
retrospect--and that indeed is a real one--is a view of the firmness
with which was then maintained by a minority, the old policy of the
United States, to avoid entangling alliances and interference with
the affairs of other nations;--and the exposition of the Monroe
doctrine, from one so competent to give it as Mr. Adams.
CHAPTER XXVI.
DUEL BETWEEN MR. CLAY AND MR. RANDOLPH.
It was Saturday, the first day of April, towards noon, the Senate
not being that day in session, that Mr. Randolph came to my room at
Brown's Hotel, and (without explaining the reason of the question)
asked me if I was a blood-relation of Mrs. Clay? I answered that I
was, and he immediately replied that that put an end to a request
which he had wished to make of me; and then went on to tell me that
he had just received a challenge from Mr. Clay, had accepted it, was
ready to go out, and would apply to Col. Tatnall to be his second.
Before leaving, he told me he would make my bosom the depository of
a secret which he should commit to no other person: it was, that
he did not intend to fire at Mr. Clay. He told it to me because he
wanted a witness of his intention, and did not mean to tell it to
his second or any body else; and enjoined inviolable secrecy until
the duel was over. This was the first notice I had of the affair.
The circumstances of the delivery of the challenge I had from Gen.
Jesup, Mr. Clay's second, and they were so perfectly characteristic
of Mr. Randolph that I give them in detail, and in the General's own
words:
"I was unable to see Mr. Randolph until the morning of the 1st
of April, when I called on him for the purpose of delivering the
note. Previous to presenting it however, I thought it proper
to ascertain from Mr. Randolph himself whether the information
which Mr. Clay had received--that he considered himself
personally accountable for the attack on him--was correct. I
accordingly informed Mr. Randolph that I was the bearer of a
message from Mr. Clay, in consequence of an attack which he
had made upon his private as well as public character in the
Senate; that I was aware no one had the right to question him
out of the Senate for any thing said in debate, unless he chose
voluntarily to waive his privileges as a member of that body.
Mr. Randolph replied, that the constitution did protect him,
but he would never shield himself under such a subterfuge as
the pleading of his privilege as a senator from Virginia; that
he did hold himself accountable to Mr. Clay; but he said that
gentleman had first two pledges to redeem: one that he had bound
himself to fight any member of the House of Representatives, who
should acknowledge himself the author of a certain publication
in a Philadelphia paper; and the other that he stood pledged
to establish certain facts in regard to a great man, whom he
would not name; but, he added he could receive no verbal message
from Mr. Clay--that any message from him must be in writing.
I replied that I was not authorized by Mr. Clay to enter
into or receive any verbal explanations--that the inquiries
I had made were for my own satisfaction and upon my own
responsibility--that the only message of which I was the bearer
was in writing. I then presented the note, and remarked that I
knew nothing of Mr. Clay's pledges; but that if they existed as
he (Mr. Randolph) understood them, and he was aware of them when
he made the attack complained of, he could not avail himself of
them--that by making the attack I thought he had waived them
himself. He said he had not the remotest intention of taking
advantage of the pledges referred to; that he had mentioned them
merely to remind me that he was waiving his privilege, not only
as a senator from Virginia, but as a private gentleman; that he
was ready to respond to Mr. Clay, and would be obliged to me if
I would bear his note in reply; and that he would in the course
of the day look out for a friend. I declined being the bearer
of his note, but informed him my only reason for declining was,
that I thought he owed it to himself to consult his friends
before taking so important a step. He seized my hand, saying,
'You are right, sir. I thank you for the suggestion: but as you
do not take my note, you must not be impatient if you should not
hear from me to-day. I now think of only two friends, and there
are circumstances connected with one of them which may deprive
me of his services, and the other is in bad health--he was sick
yesterday, and may not be out to-day.' I assured him that any
reasonable time which he might find necessary to take would be
satisfactory. I took leave of him; and it is due to his memory
to say that his bearing was, throughout the interview, that of a
high-toned, chivalrous gentleman of the old school."
These were the circumstances of the delivery of the challenge,
and the only thing necessary to give them their character is to
recollect that, with this prompt acceptance and positive refusal
to explain, and this extra cut about the two pledges, there was a
perfect determination not to fire at Mr. Clay. That determination
rested on two grounds; first, an entire unwillingness to hurt Mr.
Clay; and, next, a conviction that to return the fire would be to
answer, and would be an implied acknowledgment of Mr. Clay's right
to make him answer. This he would not do, neither by implication
nor in words. He denied the right of any person to question him out
of the Senate for words spoken within it. He took a distinction
between man and senator. As senator he had a constitutional
immunity, given for a wise purpose, and which he would neither
surrender nor compromise; as individual he was ready to give
satisfaction for what was deemed an injury. He would receive, but
not return a fire. It was as much as to say: Mr. Clay may fire at
me for what has offended him; I will not, by returning the fire,
admit his right to do so. This was a subtle distinction, and that in
case of life and death, and not very clear to the common intellect;
but to Mr. Randolph both clear and convincing. His allusion to
the "two pledges unredeemed," which he might have plead in bar to
Mr. Clay's challenge, and would not, was another sarcastic cut
at Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay, while rendering satisfaction for cuts
already given. The "member of the House" was Mr. George Kremer,
of Pennsylvania, who, at the time of the presidential election in
the House of Representatives, had avowed himself to be the author
of an anonymous publication, the writer of which Mr. Clay had
threatened to call to account if he would avow himself--and did not.
The "great man" was President Adams, with whom Mr. Clay had had a
newspaper controversy, involving a question of fact,--which had been
postponed. The cause of this sarcastic cut, and of all the keen
personality in the Panama speech, was the belief that the President
and Secretary, the latter especially, encouraged the newspapers in
their interest to attack him, which they did incessantly; and he
chose to overlook the editors and retaliate upon the instigators, as
he believed them to be. This he did to his heart's content in that
speech--and to their great annoyance, as the coming of the challenge
proved. The "two friends" alluded to were Col. Tatnall and myself,
and the circumstances which might disqualify one of the two were
those of my relationship to Mrs. Clay, of which he did not know
the degree, and whether of affinity or consanguinity--considering
the first no obstacle, the other a complete bar to my appearing as
his second--holding, as he did, with the tenacity of an Indian, to
the obligations of blood, and laying but little stress on marriage
connections. His affable reception and courteous demeanor to Gen.
Jesup were according to his own high breeding, and the decorum
which belonged to such occasions. A duel in the circle to which he
belonged was "an affair of honor;" and high honor, according to its
code, must pervade every part of it. General Jesup had come upon
an unpleasant business. Mr. Randolph determined to put him at his
ease; and did it so effectually as to charm him into admiration. The
whole plan of his conduct, down to contingent details, was cast in
his mind instantly, as if by intuition, and never departed from. The
acceptance, the refusal to explain, the determination not to fire,
the first and second choice of a friend, and the circumstances which
might disqualify one and delay the other, the additional cut, and
the resolve to fall, if he fell, on the soil of Virginia--was all,
to his mind, a single emanation, the flash of an instant. He needed
no consultations, no deliberations to arrive at all these important
conclusions. I dwell upon these small circumstances because they are
characteristic, and show the man--a man who belongs to history, and
had his own history, and should be known as he was. That character
can only be shown in his own conduct, his own words and acts: and
this duel with Mr. Clay illustrates it at many points. It is in
that point of view that I dwell upon circumstances which might seem
trivial, but which are not so, being illustrative of character and
significant to their smallest particulars.
The acceptance of the challenge was in keeping with the whole
proceeding--prompt in the agreement to meet, exact in protesting
against the _right_ to call him out, clear in the waiver of his
constitutional privilege, brief and cogent in presenting the case as
one of some reprehension--the case of a member of an administration
challenging a senator for words spoken in debate of that
administration; and all in brief, terse, and superlatively decorous
language. It ran thus:
"Mr. Randolph accepts the challenge of Mr. Clay. At the same
time he protests against the _right_ of any minister of
the Executive Government of the United States to hold him
responsible for words spoken in debate, as a senator from
Virginia, in crimination of such minister, or the administration
under which he shall have taken office. Colonel Tatnall, of
Georgia, the bearer of this letter, is authorized to arrange
with General Jesup (the bearer of Mr. Clay's challenge) the
terms of the meeting to which Mr. Randolph is invited by that
note."
This _protest_ which Mr. Randolph entered against the right of
Mr. Clay to challenge him, led to an explanation between their
mutual friends on that delicate point--a point which concerned the
independence of debate, the privileges of the Senate, the immunity
of a member, and the sanctity of the constitution. It was a point
which Mr. Clay felt; and the explanation which was had between
the mutual friends presented an excuse, if not a justification,
for his proceeding. He had been informed that Mr. Randolph, in
his speech, had avowed his responsibility to Mr. Clay, and waived
his privilege--a thing which, if it had been done, would have
been a defiance, and stood for an invitation to Mr. Clay to send
a challenge. Mr. Randolph, through Col. Tatnall, disavowed that
imputed avowal, and confined his waiver of privilege to the time of
the delivery of the challenge, and in answer to an inquiry before it
was delivered.
The following are the communications between the respective seconds
on this point:
"In regard to the _protest_ with which Mr. Randolph's note
concludes, it is due to Mr. Clay to say that he had been
informed Mr. Randolph did, and would, hold himself responsible
to him for any observations he might make in relation to him;
and that I (Gen. Jesup) distinctly understood from Mr. Randolph,
before I delivered the note of Mr. Clay, that he waived his
privilege as a senator."
To this Col. Tatnall replied:
"As this expression (did and would hold himself responsible,
&c.) may be construed to mean that Mr. Randolph had given this
intimation not only before called upon, but in such a manner as
to throw out to Mr. Clay something like an invitation to make
such a call, I have, on the part of Mr. Randolph, to disavow
any disposition, when expressing his readiness to waive his
privilege as a senator from Virginia, to invite, in any case,
a call upon him for personal satisfaction. The concluding
paragraph of your note, I presume, is intended to show merely
that you did not present a note, such as that of Mr. Clay to Mr.
Randolph, until you had ascertained his willingness to waive
his privilege as a senator. This I infer, as it was in your
recollection that the expression of such a readiness on the part
of Mr. Randolph was in reply to an inquiry on that point made by
yourself."
Thus an irritating circumstance in the affair was virtually
negatived, and its offensive import wholly disavowed. For my part, I
do not believe that Mr. Randolph used such language in his speech.
I have no recollection of having heard it. The published report of
the speech, as taken down by the reporters and not revised by the
speaker, contains nothing of it. Such gasconade was foreign to
Mr. Randolph's character. The occasion was not one in which these
sort of defiances are thrown out, which are either to purchase a
cheap reputation when it is known they will be despised, or to
get an advantage in extracting a challenge when there is a design
to kill. Mr. Randolph had none of these views with respect to Mr.
Clay. He had no desire to fight him, or to hurt him, or gain cheap
character by appearing to bully him. He was above all that, and had
settled accounts with him in his speech, and wanted no more. I do
not believe it was said; but there was a part of the speech which
might have received a wrong application, and led to the erroneous
report: a part which applied to a quoted passage in Mr. Adams's
Panama message, which he condemned and denounced, and dared the
President and his friends to defend. His words were, as reported
unrevised: "Here I plant my foot; here I fling defiance right into
his (the President's) teeth; here I throw the gauntlet to him and
the bravest of his compeers to come forward and defend these lines,"
&c. A very palpable defiance this, but very different from a summons
to personal combat, and from what was related to Mr. Clay. It was an
unfortunate report, doubtless the effect of indistinct apprehension,
and the more to be regretted as, after having been a main cause
inducing the challenge, the disavowal could not stop it.
Thus the agreement for the meeting was absolute; and, according
to the expectation of the principals, the meeting itself would be
immediately; but their seconds, from the most laudable feelings,
determined to delay it, with the hope to prevent it, and did keep
it off a week, admitting me to a participation in the good work,
as being already privy to the affair and friendly to both parties.
The challenge stated no specific ground of offence, specified
no exceptionable words. It was peremptory and general, for an
"unprovoked attack on his (Mr. Clay's) character," and it dispensed
with explanations by alleging that the notoriety and indisputable
existence of the injury superseded the necessity for them. Of
course this demand was bottomed on a report of the words spoken--a
verbal report, the full daily publication of the debates having not
then begun--and that verbal report was of a character greatly to
exasperate Mr. Clay. It stated that in the course of the debate Mr.
Randolph said:
"That a letter from General Salazar, the Mexican Minister at
Washington, submitted by the Executive to the Senate, bore
the ear-mark of having been manufactured or forged by the
Secretary of State, and denounced the administration as a
corrupt coalition between the puritan and blackleg; and added,
at the same time, that he (Mr. Randolph) held himself personally
responsible for all that he had said."
This was the report to Mr. Clay, and upon which he gave the absolute
challenge, and received the absolute acceptance, which shut out all
inquiry between the principals into the causes of the quarrel. The
seconds determined to open it, and to attempt an accommodation, or a
peaceable determination of the difficulty. In consequence, General
Jesup stated the complaint in a note to Col. Tatnall, thus:
"The injury of which Mr. Clay complains consists in this, that
Mr. Randolph has charged him with having forged or manufactured
a paper connected with the Panama mission; also, that he
has applied to him in debate the epithet of blackleg. The
explanation which I consider necessary is, that Mr. Randolph
declare that he had no intention of charging Mr. Clay, either
in his public or private capacity, with forging or falsifying
any paper, or misrepresenting any fact; and also that the term
blackleg was not intended to apply to him."
To this exposition of the grounds of the complaint, Col. Tatnall
answered:
"Mr. Randolph informs me that the words used by him in
debate were as follows: 'That I thought it would be in my
power to show evidence sufficiently presumptive to satisfy a
Charlotte (county) jury that this invitation was manufactured
here--that Salazar's letter struck me as bearing a strong
likeness in point of style to the other papers. I did not
undertake to prove this, but expressed my suspicion that the
fact was so. I applied to the administration the epithet,
puritanic-diplomatic-black-legged administration.' Mr. Randolph,
in giving these words as those uttered by him in debate, is
unwilling to afford any explanation as to their meaning and
application."
In this answer Mr. Randolph remained upon his original ground of
refusing to answer out of the Senate for words spoken within it. In
other respects the statement of the words actually spoken greatly
ameliorated the offensive report, the coarse and insulting words,
"_forging and falsifying_," being disavowed, as in fact they were
not used, and are not to be found in the published report. The
speech was a bitter philippic, and intended to be so, taking for
its point the alleged coalition between Mr. Clay and Mr. Adams with
respect to the election, and their efforts to get up a popular
question contrary to our policy of non-entanglement with foreign
nations, in sending ministers to the congress of the American
states of Spanish origin at the Isthmus of Panama. I heard it all,
and, though sharp and cutting, I think it might have been heard,
had he been present, without any manifestation of resentment by
Mr. Clay. The part which he took so seriously to heart, that of
having the Panama invitations manufactured in his office, was to my
mind nothing more than attributing to him a diplomatic superiority
which enabled him to obtain from the South American ministers the
invitations that he wanted; and not at all that they were spurious
fabrications. As to the expression, "_blackleg and puritan_," it was
merely a sarcasm to strike by antithesis, and which, being without
foundation, might have been disregarded. I presented these views to
the parties, and if they had come from Mr. Randolph they might have
been sufficient; but he was inexorable, and would not authorize a
word to be said beyond what he had written.
All hope of accommodation having vanished, the seconds proceeded
to arrange for the duel. The afternoon of Saturday, the 8th of
April, was fixed upon for the time; the right bank of the Potomac,
within the State of Virginia, above the Little Falls bridge, was
the place,--pistols the weapons,--distance ten paces; each party
to be attended by two seconds and a surgeon, and myself at liberty
to attend as a mutual friend. There was to be no practising with
pistols, and there was none; and the words "one," "two," "three,"
"stop," after the word "fire," were, by agreement between the
seconds, and for the humane purpose of reducing the result as
near as possible to chance, to be given out in quick succession.
The Virginia side of the Potomac was taken at the instance of Mr.
Randolph. He went out as a Virginia senator, refusing to compromise
that character, and, if he fell in defence of its rights, Virginia
soil was to him the chosen ground to receive his blood. There was a
statute of the State against duelling within her limits; but, as he
merely went out to receive a fire without returning it, he deemed
that no fighting, and consequently no breach of her statute. This
reason for choosing Virginia could only be explained to me, as I
alone was the depository of his secret.
The week's delay which the seconds had contrived was about expiring.
It was Friday evening, or rather night, when I went to see Mr. Clay
for the last time before the duel. There had been some alienation
between us since the time of the presidential election in the House
of Representatives, and I wished to give evidence that there was
nothing personal in it. The family were in the parlor--company
present--and some of it staid late. The youngest child, I believe
James, went to sleep on the sofa--a circumstance which availed me
for a purpose the next day. Mrs. Clay was, as always since the death
of her daughters, the picture of desolation, but calm, conversable,
and without the slightest apparent consciousness of the impending
event. When all were gone, and she also had left the parlor, I did
what I came for, and said to Mr. Clay, that, notwithstanding our
late political differences, my personal feelings towards him were
the same as formerly, and that, in whatever concerned his life or
honor my best wishes were with him. He expressed his gratification
at the visit and the declaration, and said it was what he would have
expected of me. We parted at midnight.
Saturday, the 8th of April--the day for the duel--had come, and
almost the hour. It was noon, and the meeting was to take place at
4-1/2 o'clock. I had gone to see Mr. Randolph before the hour, and
for a purpose; and, besides, it was so far on the way, as he lived
half way to Georgetown, and we had to pass through that place to
cross the Potomac into Virginia at the Little Falls bridge. I had
heard nothing from him on the point of not returning the fire since
the first communication to that effect, eight days before. I had
no reason to doubt the steadiness of his determination, but felt
a desire to have fresh assurance of it after so many days' delay,
and so near approach of the trying moment. I knew it would not do
to ask him the question--any question which would imply a doubt of
his word. His sensitive feelings would be hurt and annoyed at it.
So I fell upon a scheme to get at the inquiry without seeming to
make it. I told him of my visit to Mr. Clay the night before--of
the late sitting--the child asleep--the unconscious tranquillity
of Mrs. Clay; and added, I could not help reflecting how different
all that might be the next night. He understood me perfectly,
and immediately said, with a quietude of look and expression
which seemed to rebuke an unworthy doubt, "_I shall do nothing to
disturb the sleep of the child or the repose of the mother_," and
went on with his employment--(his seconds being engaged in their
preparations in a different room)--which was, making codicils to his
will, all in the way of remembrance to friends; the bequests slight
in value, but invaluable in tenderness of feeling and beauty of
expression, and always appropriate to the receiver. To Mr. Macon he
gave some English shillings, to keep the game when he played whist.
His namesake, John Randolph Bryan, then at school in Baltimore, and
since married to his niece, had been sent for to see him, but sent
off before the hour for going out, to save the boy from a possible
shock at seeing him brought back. He wanted some gold--that coin
not being then in circulation, and only to be obtained by favor or
purchase--and sent his faithful man, Johnny, to the United States
Branch Bank to get a few pieces, American being the kind asked for.
Johnny returned without the gold, and delivered the excuse that the
bank had none. Instantly Mr. Randolph's clear silver-toned voice was
heard above its natural pitch, exclaiming, "Their name is legion!
and they are liars from the beginning. Johnny, bring me my horse."
His own saddle-horse was brought him--for he never rode Johnny's,
nor Johnny his, though both, and all his hundred horses, were of the
finest English blood--and rode off to the bank down Pennsylvania
avenue, now Corcoran & Riggs's--Johnny following, as always, forty
paces behind. Arrived at the bank, this scene, according to my
informant, took place:
"Mr. Randolph asked for the state of his account, was shown it,
and found to be some four thousand dollars in his favor. He
asked for it. The teller took up packages of bills, and civilly
asked in what sized notes he would have it. 'I want money,' said
Mr. Randolph, putting emphasis on the word; and at that time it
required a bold man to intimate that United States Bank notes
were not money. The teller, beginning to understand him, and
willing to make sure, said, inquiringly, 'You want silver?' 'I
want my money!' was the reply. Then the teller, lifting boxes to
the counter, said politely: 'Have you a cart, Mr. Randolph, to
put it in?' 'That is my business, sir,' said he. By that time
the attention of the cashier (Mr. Richard Smith) was attracted
to what was going on, who came up, and understanding the
question, and its cause, told Mr. Randolph there was a mistake
in the answer given to his servant; that they had gold, and he
should have what he wanted."
In fact, he had only applied for a few pieces, which he wanted for
a special purpose. This brought about a compromise. The pieces of
gold were received, the cart and the silver dispensed with; but
the account in bank was closed, and a check taken for the amount
on New-York. He returned and delivered me a sealed paper, which I
was to open if he was killed--give back to him if he was not; also
an open slip, which I was to read before I got to the ground. This
slip was a request to feel in his left breeches pocket, if he was
killed, and find so many pieces of gold--I believe nine--take three
for myself, and give the same number to Tatnall and Hamilton each,
to make seals to wear in remembrance of him. We were all three at
Mr. Randolph's lodgings then, and soon set out, Mr. Randolph and his
seconds in a carriage, I following him on horseback.
I have already said that the count was to be quick after giving
the word "fire," and for a reason which could not be told to the
principals. To Mr. Randolph, who did not mean to fire, and who,
though agreeing to be shot at, had no desire to be hit, this
rapidity of counting out the time and quick arrival at the command
"stop" presented no objection. With Mr. Clay it was different. With
him it was all a real transaction, and gave rise to some proposal
for more deliberateness in counting off the time; which being
communicated to Col. Tatnall, and by him to Mr. Randolph, had an ill
effect upon his feelings, and, aided by an untoward accident on the
ground, unsettled for a moment the noble determination which he had
formed not to fire at Mr. Clay. I now give the words of Gen. Jesup:
"When I repeated to Mr. Clay the 'word' in the manner in which
it would be given, he expressed some apprehension that, as he
was not accustomed to the use of the pistol, he might not be
able to fire within the time, and for that reason alone desired
that it might be prolonged. I mentioned to Col. Tatnall the
desire of Mr. Clay. He replied, 'If you insist upon it, the time
must be prolonged, but I should very much regret it.' I informed
him I did not insist upon prolonging the time, and I was sure
Mr. Clay would acquiesce. The original agreement was carried
out."
I knew nothing of this until it was too late to speak with the
seconds or principals. I had crossed the Little Falls bridge just
after them, and come to the place where the servants and carriages
had stopped. I saw none of the gentlemen, and supposed they had
all gone to the spot where the ground was being marked off; but on
speaking to Johnny, Mr. Randolph, who was still in his carriage
and heard my voice, looked out from the window, and said to me:
"Colonel, since I saw you, and since I have been in this carriage,
I have heard something which _may_ make me change my determination.
Col. Hamilton will give you a note which will explain it." Col.
Hamilton was then in the carriage, and gave me the note, in the
course of the evening, of which Mr. Randolph spoke. I readily
comprehended that this possible change of determination related
to his firing; but the emphasis with which he pronounced the word
"_may_" clearly showed that his mind was undecided, and left it
doubtful whether he would fire or not. No further conversation took
place between us; the preparations for the duel were finished; the
parties went to their places; and I went forward to a piece of
rising ground, from which I could see what passed and hear what was
said. The faithful Johnny followed me close, speaking not a word,
but evincing the deepest anxiety for his beloved master. The place
was a thick forest, and the immediate spot a little depression,
or basin, in which the parties stood. The principals saluted each
other courteously as they took their stands. Col. Tatnall had won
the choice of position, which gave to Gen. Jesup the delivery of the
word. They stood on a line east and west--a small stump just behind
Mr. Clay; a low gravelly bank rose just behind Mr. Randolph. This
latter asked Gen. Jesup to repeat the word as he would give it; and
while in the act of doing so, and Mr. Randolph adjusting the butt of
his pistol to his hand, the muzzle pointing downwards, and almost to
the ground, it fired. Instantly Mr. Randolph turned to Col. Tatnall
and said: "I protested against that hair trigger." Col. Tatnall took
blame to himself for having sprung the hair. Mr. Clay had not then
received his pistol. Senator Johnson, of Louisiana (Josiah), one of
his seconds, was carrying it to him, and still several steps from
him. This untimely fire, though clearly an accident, necessarily
gave rise to some remarks, and a species of inquiry, which was
conducted with the utmost delicacy, but which, in itself, was of a
nature to be inexpressibly painful to a gentleman's feelings. Mr.
Clay stopped it with the generous remark that the fire was clearly
an accident: and it was so unanimously declared. Another pistol
was immediately furnished; and exchange of shots took place, and,
happily, without effect upon the persons. Mr. Randolph's bullet
struck the stump behind Mr. Clay, and Mr. Clay's knocked up the
earth and gravel behind Mr. Randolph, and in a line with the level
of his hips, both bullets having gone so true and close that it was
a marvel how they missed. The moment had come for me to interpose.
I went in among the parties and offered my mediation; but nothing
could be done. Mr. Clay said, with that wave of the hand with which
he was accustomed to put away a trifle, "_This is child's play!_"
and required another fire. Mr. Randolph also demanded another
fire. The seconds were directed to reload. While this was doing I
prevailed on Mr. Randolph to walk away from his post, and renewed
to him, more pressingly than ever, my importunities to yield to
some accommodation; but I found him more determined than I had ever
seen him, and for the first time impatient, and seemingly annoyed
and dissatisfied at what I was doing. He was indeed annoyed and
dissatisfied. The accidental fire of his pistol preyed upon his
feelings. He was doubly chagrined at it, both as a circumstance
susceptible in itself of an unfair interpretation, and as having
been the immediate and controlling cause of his firing at Mr. Clay.
He regretted this fire the instant it was over. He felt that it
had subjected him to imputations from which he knew himself to be
free--a desire to kill Mr. Clay, and a contempt for the laws of his
beloved State; and the annoyances which he felt at these vexatious
circumstances revived his original determination, and decided him
irrevocably to carry it out.
It was in this interval that he told me what he had heard since we
parted, and to which he alluded when he spoke to me from the window
of the carriage. It was to this effect: That he had been informed
by Col. Tatnall that it was proposed to give out the words with
more deliberateness, so as to prolong the time for taking aim. This
information grated harshly upon his feelings. It unsettled his
purpose, and brought his mind to the inquiry (as he now told me,
and as I found it expressed in the note which he had immediately
written in pencil to apprise me of his possible change), whether,
under these circumstances, he might not "_disable_" his adversary?
This note is so characteristic, and such an essential part of this
affair, that I here give its very words, so far as relates to this
point. It ran thus:
"Information received from Col. Tatnall since I got into the
carriage _may_ induce me to change my mind, of not returning
Mr. Clay's fire. I seek not his death. I would not have his
blood upon my hands--it will not be upon my soul if shed in
self-defence--for the world. He has determined, by the use of a
long, preparatory caution by words, to get time to kill me. May
I not, then, disable him? Yes, if I please."
It has been seen, by the statement of Gen. Jesup, already given,
that this "_information_" was a misapprehension; that Mr. Clay had
not applied for a prolongation of time for the purpose of getting
sure aim, but only to enable his unused hand, long unfamiliar
with the pistol, to fire within the limited time; that there was
no prolongation, in fact, either granted or insisted upon; but he
was in doubt, and General Jesup having won the word, he was having
him repeat it in the way he was to give it out, when his finger
touched the hair-trigger. How unfortunate that I did not know of
this in time to speak to General Jesup, when one word from him
would have set all right, and saved the imminent risks incurred!
This inquiry, "May I not disable him?" was still on Mr. Randolph's
mind, and dependent for its solution on the rising incidents of the
moment, when the accidental fire of his pistol gave the turn to his
feelings which solved the doubt. But he declared to me that he had
not aimed at the life of Mr. Clay; that he did not level as high as
the knees--not higher than the knee-band; "for it was no mercy to
shoot a man in the knee;" that his only object was to disable him
and spoil his aim. And then added, with a beauty of expression and
a depth of feeling which no studied oratory can ever attain, and
which I shall never forget, these impressive words: "_I would not
have seen him fall mortally, or even doubtfully wounded, for all the
land that is watered by the King of Floods and all his tributary
streams._" He left me to resume his post, utterly refusing to
explain out of the Senate any thing that he had said in it, and with
the positive declaration that he would not return the next fire. I
withdrew a little way into the woods, and kept my eyes fixed on Mr.
Randolph, who I then knew to be the only one in danger. I saw him
receive the fire of Mr. Clay, saw the gravel knocked up in the same
place, saw Mr. Randolph raise his pistol--discharge it in the air;
heard him say, '_I do not fire at you, Mr. Clay_;' and immediately
advancing and offering his hand. He was met in the same spirit. They
met half way, shook hands, Mr. Randolph saying, jocosely, '_You owe
me a coat, Mr. Clay_'--(the bullet had passed through the skirt of
the coat, very near the hip)--to which Mr. Clay promptly and happily
replied, '_I am glad the debt is no greater._' I had come up, and
was prompt to proclaim what I had been obliged to keep secret for
eight days. The joy of all was extreme at this happy termination
of a most critical affair; and we immediately left, with lighter
hearts than we brought. I stopped to sup with Mr. Randolph and his
friends--none of us wanted dinner that day--and had a characteristic
time of it. A runner came in from the bank to say that they had
overpaid him, by mistake, $130 that day. He answered, 'I believe
_it is your rule not to correct mistakes, except at the time, and
at your counter_.' And with that answer the runner had to return.
When gone, Mr. Randolph said, '_I will pay it on Monday: people must
be honest, if banks are not._' He asked for the sealed paper he had
given me, opened it, took out a check for $1,000, drawn in my favor,
and with which I was requested to have him carried, if killed, to
Virginia, and buried under his patrimonial oaks--not let him be
buried at Washington, with an hundred hacks after him. He took
the gold from his left breeches pocket, and said to us (Hamilton,
Tatnall, and I), 'Gentlemen, Clay's bad shooting shan't rob you
of your seals. I am going to London, and will have them made for
you;' which he did, and most characteristically, so far as mine was
concerned. He went to the herald's office in London and inquired for
the Benton family, of which I had often told him there was none, as
we only dated on that side from my grandfather in North Carolina.
But the name was found, and with it a coat of arms--among the
quarterings a lion rampant. That is the family, said he; and had the
arms engraved on the seal, the same which I have since habitually
worn; and added the motto, _Factis non verbis_: of which he was
afterwards accustomed to say the non should be changed into et. But,
enough. I run into these details, not merely to relate an event, but
to show character; and if I have not done it, it is not for want of
material, but of ability to use it.
On Monday the parties exchanged cards, and social relations were
formally and courteously restored. It was about the last high-toned
duel that I have witnessed, and among the highest-toned that I
have ever witnessed, and so happily conducted to a fortunate
issue--a result due to the noble character of the seconds as well
as to the generous and heroic spirit of the principals. Certainly
duelling is bad, and has been put down, but not quite so bad
as its substitute--revolvers, bowie-knives, blackguarding, and
street-assassinations under the pretext of self-defence.
CHAPTER XXVII.
DEATH OF MR. GAILLARD.
He was a senator from South Carolina, and had been continuously,
from the year 1804. He was five times elected to the Senate--the
first time for an unexpired term--and died in the course of a term;
so that the years for which he had been elected were nearly thirty.
He was nine times elected president of the Senate _pro tempore_, and
presided fourteen years over the deliberations of that body,--the
deaths of two Vice-Presidents during his time (Messrs. Clinton and
Gerry), and the much absence of another (Gov. Tompkins), making
long continued vacancies in the President's chair,--which he was
called to fill. So many elections, and such long continued service,
terminated at last only by death, bespeaks an eminent fitness
both for the place of Senator, and that of presiding officer over
the Senate. In the language of Mr. Macon, he seemed born for that
station. Urbane in his manners, amiable in temper, scrupulously
impartial, attentive to his duties, exemplary patience, perfect
knowledge of the rules, quick and clear discernment, uniting
absolute firmness of purpose, with the greatest gentleness of
manners, setting young Senators right with a delicacy and amenity,
which spared the confusion of a mistake--preserving order, not by
authority of rules, but by the graces of deportment: such were the
qualifications which commended him to the presidency of the Senate,
and which facilitated the transaction of business while preserving
the decorum of the body. There was probably not an instance of
disorder, or a disagreeable scene in the chamber, during his long
continued presidency. He classed democratically in politics, but was
as much the favorite of one side of the house as of the other, and
that in the high party times of the war with Great Britain, which so
much exasperated party spirit.
Mr. Gaillard was, as his name would indicate, of French descent,
having issued from one of those Huguenot families, of which the
bigotry of Louis XIV., dominated by an old woman, deprived France,
for the benefit of other countries.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION IN RELATION TO THE ELECTION OF
PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT.
The attempt was renewed at the session of 1825-'26 to procure an
amendment to the constitution, in relation to the election of the
two first magistrates of the republic, so as to do away with all
intermediate agencies, and give the election to the direct vote
of the people. Several specific propositions were offered in the
Senate to that effect, and all substituted by a general proposition
submitted by Mr. Macon--"that a select committee be appointed to
report upon the best and most practicable mode of electing the
President and Vice-President:" and, on the motion of Mr. Van Buren,
the number of the committee was raised to nine--instead of five--the
usual number. The members of it were appointed by Mr. Calhoun, the
Vice-President, and were carefully selected, both geographically
as coming from different sections of the Union, and personally
and politically as being friendly to the object and known to the
country. They were: Mr. Benton, chairman, Mr. Macon, Mr. Van Buren,
Mr. Hugh L. White of Tennessee, Mr. Findlay of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Dickerson of New Jersey, Mr. Holmes of Maine, Mr. Hayne of South
Carolina, and Col. Richard M. Johnson of Kentucky. The committee
agreed upon a proposition of amendment, dispensing with electors,
providing for districts in which the direct vote of the people was
to be taken; and obviating all excuse for caucuses and conventions
to concentrate public opinion by proposing a second election between
the two highest in the event of no one receiving a majority of the
whole number of district votes in the first election. The plan
reported was in these words:
"That, hereafter the President and Vice-President of the United
States shall be chosen by the People of the respective States,
in the manner following: Each State shall be divided by the
legislature thereof, into districts, equal in number to the
whole number of senators and representatives, to which such
State may be entitled in the Congress of the United States;
the said districts to be composed of contiguous territory,
and to contain, as nearly as may be, an equal number of
persons, entitled to be represented, under the constitution,
and to be laid off, for the first time, immediately after
the ratification of this amendment, and afterwards at the
session of the legislature next ensuing the appointment of
representatives, by the Congress of the United States; or
oftener, if deemed necessary by the State; but no alteration,
after the first, or after each decennial formation of
districts, shall take effect, at the next ensuing election,
after such alteration is made. That, on the first Thursday,
and succeeding Friday, in the month of August, of the year one
thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight, and on the same days
in every fourth year thereafter, the citizens of each State,
who possess the qualifications requisite for electors of the
most numerous branch of the State Legislature, shall meet
within their respective districts, and vote for a President and
Vice-President of the United States, one of whom, at least,
shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with himself:
and the person receiving the greatest number of votes for
President, and the one receiving the greatest number of votes
for Vice-President in each district shall be holden to have
received one vote: which fact shall be immediately certified to
the Governor of the State, to each of the senators in Congress
from such State, and to the President of the Senate. The right
of affixing the places in the districts at which the elections
shall be held, the manner of holding the same, and of canvassing
the votes, and certifying the returns, is reserved, exclusively,
to the legislatures of the States. The Congress of the United
States shall be in session on the second Monday of October, in
the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight, and on
the same day in every fourth year thereafter: and the President
of the Senate, in the presence of the Senate and House of
Representatives, shall open all the certificates, and the votes
shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number
of votes for President, shall be President, if such number be
equal to a majority of the whole number of votes given; but if
no person have such majority, then a second election shall be
held, on the first Thursday and succeeding Friday, in the month
of December, then next ensuing, between the persons having the
two highest numbers, for the office of President: which second
election shall be conducted, the result certified, and the votes
counted, in the same manner as in the first; and the person
having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the
President. But, if two or more persons shall have received the
greatest and equal number of votes, at the second election,
the House of Representatives shall choose one of them for
President, as is now prescribed by the constitution. The person
having the greatest number of votes for Vice-President, at the
first election, shall be the Vice-President, if such number
be equal to a majority of the whole number of votes given,
and, if no person have such majority, then a second election
shall take place, between the persons having the two highest
numbers, on the same day that the second election is held for
President, and the person having the highest number of votes
for Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President. But if two or
more persons shall have received the greatest number of votes in
the second election, then the Senate shall choose one of them
for Vice-President, as is now provided in the constitution.
But, when a second election shall be necessary, in the case of
Vice-President, and not necessary in the case of President,
then the Senate shall choose a Vice-President, from the persons
having the two highest numbers in the first election, as is now
prescribed in the constitution."
The prominent features of this plan of election are: 1. The
abolition of electors, and the direct vote of the people; 2.
A second election between the two highest on each list, when
no one has a majority of the whole; 3. Uniformity in the mode
of election.--The advantages of this plan would be to get rid
of all the machinery by which the _selection_ of their two
first magistrates is now taken out of the hands of the people,
and usurped by self-constituted, illegal, and irresponsible
bodies,--and place it in the only safe, proper, and disinterested
hands--those of the people themselves. If adopted, there would be
no pretext for caucuses or conventions, and no resort to the House
of Representatives,--where the largest State is balanced by the
smallest. If any one received a majority of the whole number of
districts in the first election, then the democratic principle--the
_demos krateo_--the majority to govern--is satisfied. If no one
receives such majority, then the first election stands for a
popular nomination of the two highest--a nomination by the people
themselves--out of which two the election is sure to be made on
the second trial. But to provide for a possible contingency--too
improbable almost ever to occur--and to save in that case the
trouble of a third popular election, a resort to the House of
Representatives is allowed; it being _nationally_ unimportant which
is elected where the candidates were exactly equal in the public
estimation.--Such was the plan the committee reported; and it is
the perfect plan of a popular election, and has the advantage of
being applicable to all elections, federal and State, from the
highest to the lowest. The machinery of its operation is easy and
simple, and it is recommended by every consideration of public good,
which requires the abandonment of a defective system, which has
failed--the overthrow of usurping bodies, which have seized upon
the elections--and the preservation to the people of the business
of selecting, as well as electing, their own high officers. The
plan was unanimously recommended by the whole committee, composed
as it was of experienced men taken from every section of the Union.
But it did not receive the requisite support of two-thirds of the
Senate to carry it through that body; and a similar plan proposed in
the House of Representatives received the same fate there--reported
by a committee, and unsustained by two-thirds of the House: and
such, there is too much reason to apprehend, may be the fate of
future similar propositions, originating in Congress, without the
powerful impulsion of the people to urge them through. Select bodies
are not the places for popular reforms. These reforms are for
the benefit of the people, and should begin with the people; and
the constitution itself, sensible of that necessity in this very
case, has very wisely made provision for the popular initiative of
constitutional amendments. The fifth article of that instrument
gives the power of beginning the reform of itself to the States,
in their legislatures, as well as to the federal government in its
Congress: and there is the place to begin, and before the people
themselves in their elections to the general assembly. And there
should be no despair on account of the failures already suffered. No
great reform is carried suddenly. It requires years of persevering
exertion to produce the unanimity of opinion which is necessary to
a great popular reformation: but because it is difficult, it is not
impossible. The greatest reform ever effected by peaceful means in
the history of any government was that of the parliamentary reform
of Great Britain, by which the rotten boroughs were disfranchised,
populous towns admitted to representation, the elective franchise
extended, the House of Commons purified, and made the predominant
branch--the master branch of the British government. And how was
that great reform effected? By a few desultory exertions in the
parliament itself? No, but by forty years of continued exertion,
and by incessant appeals to the people themselves. The society
for parliamentary reform, founded in 1792, by Earl Grey and Major
Cartwright, succeeded in its efforts in 1832; and in their success
there is matter for encouragement, as in their conduct there is an
example for imitation. They carried the question to the people, and
kept it there forty years, and saw it triumph--the two patriotic
founders of the society living to see the consummation of their
labors, and the country in the enjoyment of the inestimable
advantage of a "Reformed Parliament."
CHAPTER XXIX.
REDUCTION OF EXECUTIVE PATRONAGE.
In the session 1825-'26, Mr. Macon moved that the select committee,
to which had been committed the consideration of the propositions
for amending the constitution in relation to the election of
President and Vice-President, should also be charged with an inquiry
into the expediency of reducing Executive patronage, in cases in
which it could be done by law consistently with the constitution,
and without impairing the efficiency of the government. The motion
was adopted, and the committee (Messrs. Benton, Macon, Van Buren,
White of Tennessee, Findlay of Pennsylvania, Dickerson, Holmes,
Hayne, and Johnson of Kentucky) made a report, accompanied by six
bills; which report and bills, though not acted upon at the time,
may still have their use in showing the democratic principles,
on practical points of that day (when some of the fathers of the
democratic church were still among us);--and in recalling the
administration of the government, to the simplicity and economy of
its early days. The six bills reported were. 1. To regulate the
publication of the laws of the United States, and of the public
advertisements. 2. To secure in office the faithful collectors
and disbursers of the revenue, and to displace defaulters. 3.
To regulate the appointment of postmasters. 4. To regulate the
appointment of cadets. 5. To regulate the appointment of midshipmen.
6. To prevent military and naval officers from being dismissed the
service at the pleasure of the President.--In favor of the general
principle, and objects of all the bills, the report accompanying
them, said:
"In coming to the conclusion that Executive patronage ought to
be diminished and regulated, on the plan proposed, the committee
rest their opinion on the ground that the exercise of great
patronage in the hands of one man, has a constant tendency
to sully the purity of our institutions, and to endanger the
liberties of the country. This doctrine is not new. A jealousy
of power, and of the influence of patronage, which must always
accompany its exercise, has ever been a distinguished feature
in the American character. It displayed itself strongly at
the period of the formation, and of the adoption, of the
federal constitution. At that time the feebleness of the old
confederation had excited a much greater dread of anarchy
than of power--'of anarchy among the members than of power in
the head'--and although the impression was nearly universal
that a government of more energetic character had become
indispensably necessary, yet, even under the influence of this
conviction--such was the dread of power and patronage--that
the States, with extreme reluctance, yielded their assent to
the establishment of the federal government. Nor was this the
effect of idle and visionary fears, on the part of an ignorant
multitude, without knowledge of the nature and tendency of
power. On the contrary, it resulted from the most extensive and
profound political knowledge,--from the heads of statesmen,
unsurpassed, in any age, in sagacity and patriotism. Nothing
could reconcile the great men of that day to a constitution
of so much power, but the guards which were put upon it
against the abuse of power. Dread and jealousy of this abuse
displayed itself throughout the instrument. To this spirit
we are indebted for the freedom of the press, trial by jury,
liberty of conscience, freedom of debate, responsibility to
constituents, power of impeachment, the control of the Senate
over appointments to office; and many other provisions of a like
character. But the committee cannot imagine that the jealous
foresight of the time, great as it was, or that any human
sagacity, could have foreseen, and placed a competent guard
upon, every possible avenue to the abuse of power. The nature
of a constitutional act excludes the possibility of combining
minute perfection with general excellence. After the exertion
of all possible vigilance, something of what ought to have been
done, has been omitted; and much of what has been attempted,
has been found insufficient and unavailing in practice. Much
remains for us to do, and much will still remain for posterity
to do--for those unborn generations to do, on whom will devolve
the sacred task of guarding the temple of the constitution, and
of keeping alive the vestal flame of liberty.
"The committee believe that they will be acting in the spirit
of the constitution, in laboring to multiply the guards, and to
strengthen the barriers, against the possible abuse of power. If
a community could be imagined in which the laws should execute
themselves--in which the power of government should consist in
the enactment of laws--in such a state the machine of government
would carry on its operations without jar or friction. Parties
would be unknown, and the movements of the political machine
would but little more disturb the passions of men, than they
are disturbed by the operations of the great laws of the
material world. But this is not the case. The scene shifts from
this imaginary region, where laws execute themselves, to the
theatre of real life, wherein they are executed by civil and
military officers, by armies and navies, by courts of justice,
by the collection and disbursement of revenue, with all its
train of salaries, jobs, and contracts; and in this aspect of
the reality, we behold the working of PATRONAGE, and discover
the reason why so many stand ready, in any country, and in all
ages, to flock to the standard of POWER, wheresoever, and by
whomsoever, it may be raised.
"The patronage of the federal government at the beginning, was
founded upon a revenue of two millions of dollars. It is now
operating upon twenty-two millions; and, within the lifetime
of many now living, must operate upon fifty. The whole revenue
must, in a few years, be wholly applicable to subjects of
patronage. At present about one half, say ten millions of it,
are appropriated to the principal and interest of the public
debt, which, from the nature of the object, involves but little
patronage. In the course of a few years, this debt, without
great mismanagement, must be paid off. A short period of peace,
and a faithful application of the sinking fund, must speedily
accomplish that most desirable object. Unless the revenue be
then reduced, a work as difficult in republics as in monarchies,
the patronage of the federal government, great as it already is,
must, in the lapse of a few years, receive a vast accession of
strength. The revenue itself will be doubled, and instead of one
half being applicable to objects of patronage, the whole will
take that direction. Thus, the reduction of the public debt, and
the increase of revenue, will multiply in a four-fold degree
the number of persons in the service of the federal government,
the quantity of public money in their hands, and the number of
objects to which it is applicable; but as each person employed
will have a circle of greater or less diameter, of which he
is the centre and the soul--a circle composed of friends and
relations, and of individuals employed by himself on public
or on private account--the actual increase of federal power
and patronage by the duplication of the revenue, will be, not
in the arithmetical ratio, but in geometrical progression--an
increase almost beyond the power of the mind to calculate or to
comprehend."
This was written twenty-five years ago. Its anticipations of
increased revenue and patronage are more than realized. Instead of
fifty millions of annual revenue during the lifetime of persons
then living, and then deemed a visionary speculation, I saw it
rise to sixty millions before I ceased to be a senator; and saw
all the objects of patronage expanding and multiplying in the same
degree, extending the circle of its influence, and, in many cases,
reversing the end of its creation. Government was instituted for
the protection of individuals--not for their support. Office was
to be given upon qualifications to fill it--not upon the personal
wants of the recipient. Proper persons were to be sought out and
appointed--(by the President in the higher appointments, and by the
heads of the different branches of service in the lower ones); and
importunate suppliants were not to beg themselves into an office
which belonged to the public, and was only to be administered for
the public good. Such was the theory of the government. Practice has
reversed it. Now office is sought for support, and for the repair
of dilapidated fortunes; applicants obtrude themselves, and prefer
"claims" to office. Their personal condition and party services,
not qualification, are made the basis of the demand: and the crowds
which congregate at Washington, at the change of an administration,
supplicants for office, are humiliating to behold, and threaten to
change the contests of parties from a contest for principle into a
struggle for plunder.
The bills which were reported were intended to control, and
regulate different branches of the public service, and to limit
some exercises of executive power. 1. The publication of the
government advertisements had been found to be subject to great
abuse--large advertisements, and for long periods, having been often
found to be given to papers of little circulation, and sometimes
of no circulation at all, in places where the advertisement was
to operate--the only effect of that favor being to conciliate the
support of the paper, or to sustain an efficient one. For remedy,
the bill for that purpose provided for the selection, and the
limitation of the numbers, of the newspapers which were to publish
the federal laws and advertisements, and for the periodical report
of their names to Congress. 2. The four years' limitation law
was found to operate contrary to its intent, and to have become
the facile means of getting rid of faithful disbursing officers,
instead of retaining them. The object of the law was to pass the
disbursing officers every four years under the supervision of the
appointing power, for the inspection of their accounts, in order
that defaulters might be detected and dropped, while the faithful
should be ascertained and continued. Instead of this wholesome
discrimination, the expiration of the four years' term came to be
considered as the termination and vacation of all the offices on
which it fell, and the creation of vacancies to be filled by new
appointments at the option of the President. The bill to remedy
this evil gave legal effect to the original intention of the law by
confining the vacation of office to actual defaulters. The power
of the President to dismiss civil officers was not attempted to be
curtailed, but the restraints of responsibility were placed upon its
exercise by requiring the cause of dismission to be communicated
to Congress in each case. The section of the bill to that effect
was in these words: "_That in all nominations made by the President
to the Senate, to fill vacancies occasioned by an exercise of the
President's power to remove from office, the fact of the removal
shall be stated to the Senate at the same time that the nomination
is made, with a statement of the reasons for which such officer may
have been removed._" This was intended to operate as a restraint
upon removals without cause, and to make legal and general what the
Senate itself, and the members of the committee individually, had
constantly refused to do in isolated cases. It was the recognition
of a principle essential to the proper exercise of the appointing
power, and entirely consonant to Mr. Jefferson's idea of removals;
but never admitted by any administration, nor enforced by the Senate
against any one--always waiting the legal enactment. The opinion
of nine such senators as composed the committee who proposed to
legalize this principle, all of them democratic, and most of them
aged and experienced, should stand for a persuasive reason why this
principle should be legalized. 3. The appointment of military cadets
was distributed according to the Congressional representation,
and which has been adopted in practice, and perhaps become the
patronage of the member from a district instead of the President.
5. The selection of midshipmen was placed on the same footing, and
has been followed by the same practical consequence. 6. To secure
the independence of the army and navy officers, the bill proposed
to do, what never has been done by law,--define the tenure by which
they held their commissions, and substitute "good behavior" for the
clause which now runs "during the pleasure of the President." The
clause in the existing commission was copied from those then in use,
derived from the British government; and, in making army and navy
officers subject to dismission at the will of the President, departs
from the principle of our republican institutions, and lessens the
independence of the officers.
CHAPTER XXX.
EXCLUSION OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS FROM CIVIL OFFICE APPOINTMENTS
An inquiry into the expediency of amending the constitution so as
to prevent the appointment of any member of Congress to any federal
office of trust or profit, during the period for which he was
elected, was moved at the session 1825-26, by Mr. Senator Thomas W.
Cobb, of Georgia; and his motion was committed to the consideration
of the same select committee to which had been referred the
inquiries into the expediency of reducing executive patronage, and
amending the constitution in relation to the election of President
and Vice-President. The motion as submitted only applied to the
term for which the senator or representative was elected--only
carried the exclusion to the end of his constitutional term; but the
committee were of opinion that such appointments were injurious to
the independence of Congress and to the purity of legislation; and
believed that the limitation on the eligibility of members should
be more comprehensive than the one proposed, and should extend to
the President's term under whom the member served as well as to
his own--so as to cut off the possibility for a member to receive
an appointment from the President to whom he might have lent a
subservient vote: and the committee directed their chairman (Mr.
Benton) to report accordingly. This was done; and a report was made,
chiefly founded upon the proceedings of the federal convention which
framed the constitution, and the proceedings of the conventions
of the States which adopted it--showing that the total exclusion
of members of Congress from all federal appointments was actually
adopted in the convention on a full vote, and struck out in the
absence of some members; and afterwards modified so as to leave an
inadequate, and easily evaded clause in the constitution in place
of the full remedy which had been at first provided. It also showed
that conventions of several of the States, and some of the earlier
Congresses, endeavored to obtain amendments to the constitution to
cut off members of Congress entirely from executive patronage. Some
extracts from that report are here given to show the sense of the
early friends of the constitution on this important point. Thus:
"That, having had recourse to the history of the times in
which the constitution was formed, the committee find that the
proposition now referred to them, had engaged the deliberations
of the federal convention which framed the constitution, and of
several of the State conventions which ratified it.
"In an early stage of the session of the federal convention, it
was resolved, as follows:
"'Article 6, section 9. The members of each House (of Congress)
shall be ineligible to, and incapable of holding, any office
under the authority of the United States, during the time for
which they shall respectively be elected; and the members of the
Senate shall be ineligible to, and incapable of holding any such
office for one year afterwards.'
"It further appears from the journal, that this clause, in
the first draft of the constitution, was adopted with great
unanimity; and that afterwards, in the concluding days of the
session, it was altered, and its intention defeated, by a
majority of a single vote, in the absence of one of the States
by which it had been supported.
"Following the constitution into the State conventions which
ratified it, and the committee find, that, in the New-York
convention, it was recommended, as follows:
"'That no senator or representative shall, during the time for
which he was elected, be appointed to any office under the
authority of the United States.
"By the Virginia convention, as follows:
"'That the members of the Senate and House of Representatives
shall be ineligible to, and incapable of holding, any civil
office under the authority of the United States, during the term
for which they shall respectively be elected.'
"By the North Carolina convention, the same amendment was
recommended, in the same words.
"In the first session of the first Congress, which was held
under the constitution, a member of the House of Representatives
submitted a similar proposition of amendment; and, in the third
session of the eleventh Congress, James Madison being President,
a like proposition was again submitted, and being referred to a
committee of the House, was reported by them in the following
words:
"'No senator or representative shall be appointed to any civil
office, place, or emolument, under the authority of the United
States, untill the expiration of the presidential term in which
such person shall have served as a senator or representative.'
"Upon the question to adopt this resolution, the vote stood 71
yeas, 40 nays.--wanting but three votes of the constitutional
number for referring it to the decision of the States.
"Having thus shown, by a reference to the venerable evidence of
our early history, that the principle of the amendment now under
consideration, has had the support and approbation of the first
friends of the constitution, the committee will now declare
their own opinion in favor of its correctness, and expresses
its belief that the ruling principle in the organization of the
federal government demands its adoption."
It is thus seen that in the formation of the constitution, and
in the early ages of our government, there was great jealousy on
this head--great fear of tampering between the President and the
members--and great efforts made to keep each independent of the
other. For the safety of the President, and that Congress should
not have him in their power, he was made independent of them in
point of salary. By a constitutional provision his compensation
was neither to be diminished nor increased during the term for
which he was elected;--not diminished, lest Congress should
starve him into acquiescence in their views;--not increased,
lest Congress should seduce him by tempting his cupidity with an
augmented compensation. That provision secured the independence
of the President; but the independence of the two Houses was
still to be provided for; and that was imperfectly effected by
two provisions--the first, prohibiting office holders under the
federal government from taking a seat in either House; the second,
by prohibiting their appointment to any civil office that might
have been created, or its emoluments increased, during the term for
which he should have been elected. These provisions were deemed by
the authors of the federalist (No. 55) sufficient to protect the
independence of Congress, and would have been, if still observed
in their spirit, as well as in their letter, as was done by the
earlier Presidents. A very strong instance of this observance
was the case of Mr. Alexander Smythe, of Virginia, during the
administration of President Monroe. Mr. Smythe had been a member
of the House of Representatives, and in that capacity had voted
for the establishment of a judicial district in Western Virginia,
and by which the office of judge was created. His term of service
had expired: he was proposed for the judgeship: the letter of the
constitution permitted the appointment: but its spirit did not.
Mr. Smythe was entirely fit for the place, and Mr. Monroe entirely
willing to bestow it upon him. But he looked to the spirit of
the act, and the mischief it was intended to prevent, as well as
to its letter; and could see no difference between bestowing the
appointment the day after, or the day before, the expiration of Mr.
Smythe's term of service: and he refused to make the appointment.
This was protecting the purity of legislation according to the
intent of the constitution; but it has not always been so. A glaring
case to the contrary occurred in the person of Mr. Thomas Butler
King, under the presidency of Mr. Fillmore. Mr. King was elected a
member of Congress for the term at which the office of collector
of the customs at San Francisco had been created, and had resigned
his place: but the resignation could not work an evasion of the
constitution, nor affect the principle of its provision. He had
been appointed in the recess of Congress, and sent to take the
place before his two years had expired--and did take it; and that
was against the words of the constitution. His nomination was not
sent in until his term expired--the day after it expired--having
been held back during the regular session; and was confirmed by the
Senate. I had then ceased to be a member of the Senate, and know
not whether any question was raised on the nomination; but if I had
been, there should have been a question.
But the constitutional limitation upon the appointment of members
of Congress, even when executed beyond its letter and according to
its spirit, as done by Mr. Monroe, is but a very small restraint
upon their appointment, only applying to the few cases of new
offices created, or of compensation increased, during the period
of their membership. The whole class of regular vacancies remain
open! All the vacancies which the President pleases to create, by an
exercise of the removing power, are opened! and between these two
sources of supply, the fund is ample for as large a commerce between
members and the President--between subservient votes on one side,
and executive appointments on the other--as any President, or any
set of members, might choose to carry on. And here is to be noted
a wide departure from the theory of the government on this point,
and how differently it has worked from what its early friends and
advocates expected. I limit myself now to Hamilton, Madison and
Jay; and it is no narrow limit which includes three such men. Their
names would have lived for ever in American history, among those of
the wise and able founders of our government, without the crowning
work of the "ESSAYS" in behalf of the constitution which have been
embodied under the name of "FEDERALIST"--and which made that name so
respectable before party assumed it. The defects of the constitution
were not hidden from them in the depths of the admiration which
they felt for its perfections; and these defects were noted, and as
far as possible excused, in a work devoted to its just advocation.
This point (of dangerous commerce between the executive and the
legislative body) was obliged to be noticed--forced upon their
notice by the jealous attacks of the "ANTI-FEDERALISTS"--as the
opponents of the constitution were called: and in the number 55 of
their work, they excused, and diminished, this defect in these terms:
"Sometimes we are told, that this fund of corruption (Executive
appointments) is to be exhausted by the President in subduing
the virtue of the Senate. Now, the fidelity of the other House
is to be the victim. The improbability of such a mercenary and
perfidious combination of the several members of the government,
standing on as different foundations as republican principles
will well admit, and at the same time accountable to the
society over which they are placed, ought alone to quiet this
apprehension. But, fortunately, the constitution has provided
a still further safeguard. The members of the Congress are
rendered ineligible to any civil offices that may be created,
or of which the emoluments may be increased, during the term
of their election. No offices, therefore, can be dealt out to
the existing members, but such as may become vacant by _ordinary
casualties_; and to suppose that these would be sufficient to
purchase the guardians of the people, selected by the people
themselves, is to renounce every rule by which events ought to
be calculated, and to substitute an indiscriminate and unbounded
jealousy, with which all reasoning must be vain."
Such was their defence--the best which their great abilities, and
ardent zeal, and patriotic devotion, could furnish. They could
not deny the danger. To diminish its quantum, and to cover with a
brilliant declamation the little that remained, was their resource.
And, certainly if the working of the government had been according
to their supposition, their defence would have been good, I have
taken the liberty to mark in italics the ruling words contained
in the quotation which I have made from their works--"_ordinary
casualties_." And what were they? deaths, resignations, removals
upon impeachment, and dismissions by the President and Senate. This,
in fact, would constitute a very small amount of vacancies during
the presidential term; and as new offices, and those of increased
compensation, were excluded, the answer was undoubtedly good, and
even justified the visible contempt with which the objection was
repulsed. But what has been the fact? what has been the working of
the government at this point? and how stands this narrow limitation
of vacancies to "_ordinary casualties_?" In the first place, the
main stay of the argument in the Federalist was knocked from under
it at the outset of the government; and so knocked by a side-blow
from construction. In the very first year of the constitution a
construction was put on that instrument which enabled the President
to create as many vacancies as he pleased, and at any moment
that he pleased. This was effected by yielding to him the kingly
prerogative of dismissing officers without the formality of a trial,
or the consent of the other part of the appointing power. The
authors of the Federalist had not foreseen this construction: so
far from it they had asserted the contrary: and arguing logically
from the premises, "_that the dismissing power was appurtenant
to the appointing power_," they had maintained in that able and
patriotic work--(No. 77)--that, as the consent of the Senate was
necessary to the appointment of an officer, so the consent of the
same body would be equally necessary to his dismission from office.
But this construction was overruled by the first Congress which
sat under the constitution. The power of dismission from office
was abandoned to the President alone; and, with the acquisition
of this prerogative, the power and patronage of the presidential
office was instantly increased to an indefinite extent; and the
argument of the Federalist against the capacity of the President
to corrupt members of Congress, founded on the small number of
places which he could use for that purpose, was totally overthrown.
This is what has been done by construction. Now for the effects
of legislation: and without going into an enumeration of statutes
so widely extending and increasing executive patronage in the
multiplication of offices, jobs, contracts, agencies, retainers, and
sequiturs of all sorts, holding at the will of the President, it is
enough to point to a single act--the four years' limitation act;
which, by vacating almost the entire civil list--the whole "Blue
Book"--the 40,000 places which it registers--in every period of a
presidential term--puts more offices at the command of the President
than the authors of the Federalist ever dreamed of; and enough to
equip all the members and all their kin if they chose to accept
his favors. But this is not the end. Large as it opens the field
of patronage, it is not the end. There is a practice grown up in
these latter times, which, upon every revolution of parties, makes a
political exodus among the adversary office-holders, marching them
off into the wilderness, and leaving their places for new-comers.
This practice of itself, also unforeseen by the authors of the
Federalist, again over-sets their whole argument, and leaves the
mischief from which they undertook to defend the constitution in a
degree of vigor and universality of which the original opposers of
that mischief had never formed the slightest conception.
Besides the direct commerce which may take place between the
Executive and a member, there are other evils resulting from
their appointment to office, wholly at war with the theory of our
government, and the purity of its action. Responsibility to his
constituents is the corner-stone and sheet-anchor, in the system
of representative government. It is the substance without which
representation is but a shadow. To secure that responsibility the
constitution has provided that the members shall be periodically
returned to their constituents--those of the House at the end of
every two years, those of the Senate at the end of every six--to
pass in review before them--to account for what may have been done
amiss, and to receive the reward or censure of good or bad conduct.
This responsibility is totally destroyed if the President takes a
member out of the hands of his constituents, prevents his return
home, and places him in a situation where he is independent of their
censure. Again: the constitution intended that the three departments
of the government,--the executive, the legislative, and the
judicial--should be independent of each other: and this independence
ceases, between the executive and legislative, the moment the
members become expectants and recipients of presidential favor;--the
more so if the President should have owed his office to their
nomination. Then it becomes a commerce, upon the regular principle
of trade--a commerce of mutual benefit. For this reason Congress
caucuses for the nomination of presidential candidates fell under
the ban of public opinion, and were ostracised above twenty years
ago--only to be followed by the same evil in a worse form, that of
illegal and irresponsible "conventions;" in which the nomination is
an election, so far as party power is concerned; and into which the
member glides who no longer dares to go to a Congress caucus;--whom
the constitution interdicts from being an elector--and of whom some
do not blush to receive office, and even to demand it, from the
President whom they have created. The framers of our government
never foresaw--far-seeing as they were--this state of things,
otherwise the exclusion of members from presidential appointments
could never have failed as part of the constitution, (after having
been first adopted in the original draught of that instrument); nor
repulsed when recommended by so many States at the adoption of the
constitution; nor rejected by a majority of one in the Congress of
1789, when proposed as an amendment, and coming so near to adoption
by the House.
Thus far I have spoken of this abuse as a potentiality--as a
possibility--as a thing which might happen: the inexorable law
of history requires it to be written that it has happened, is
happening, becomes more intense, and is ripening into a chronic
disease of the body politic. When I first came to the Senate
thirty years ago, aged members were accustomed to tell me that
there were always members in the market, waiting to render votes,
and to receive office; and that in any closely contested, or nearly
balanced question, in which the administration took an interest,
they could turn the decision which way they pleased by the help of
these marketable votes. It was a humiliating revelation to a young
senator--but true; and I have seen too much of it in my time--seen
members whose every vote was at the service of government--to
whom a seat in Congress was but the stepping-stone to executive
appointment--to whom federal office was the pabulum for which
their stomachs yearned--and who to obtain it, were ready to forget
that they had either constituents or country. And now, why this
mortifying exhibition of a disgusting depravity? I answer--to
correct it:--if not by law and constitutional amendment (for it
is hard to get lawgivers to work against themselves), at least
by the force of public opinion, and the stern rebuke of popular
condemnation.
I have mentioned Mr. Monroe as a President who would not depart,
even from the spirit of the constitution, in appointing, not a
member, but an ex-member of Congress, to office. Others of the
earlier Presidents were governed by the same principle, of whom I
will only mention (for his example should stand for all) General
Washington, who entirely condemned the practice. In a letter to
General Hamilton (vol. 6, page 53, of Hamilton's Works), he speaks
of his objections to these appointments as a thing well known to
that gentleman, and which he was only driven to think of in a
particular instance, from the difficulty of finding a Secretary of
State, successor to Mr. Edmund Randolph. No less than four persons
had declined the offer of it; and seeing no other suitable person
without going into the Senate, he offered it to Mr. Rufus King of
that body--who did not accept it: and for this offer, thus made
in a case of so much urgency, and to a citizen so eminently fit,
Washington felt that the honor of his administration required him
to show a justification. What would the Father of his country
have thought if members had come to him to solicit office? and
especially, if these members (a thing almost blasphemous to be
imagined in connection with his name) had mixed in caucuses and
conventions to procure his nomination for President? Certainly he
would have given them a look which would have sent such suppliants
for ever from his presence. And I, who was senator for thirty years,
and never had office for myself or any one of my blood, have a right
to condemn a practice which my conduct rebukes, and which the purity
of the government requires to be abolished, and which the early
Presidents carefully avoided.
CHAPTER XXXI.
DEATH OF THE EX-PRESIDENTS JOHN ADAMS AND THOMAS JEFFERSON.
It comes within the scope of this View to notice the deaths and
characters of eminent public men who have died during my time,
although not my contemporaries, and who have been connected with
the founding or early working of the federal government. This gives
me a right to head a chapter with the names of Mr. John Adams
and Mr. Jefferson--two of the most eminent political men of the
revolution, who, entering public life together, died on the same
day,--July 4th, 1826,--exactly fifty years after they had both put
their hands to that Declaration of Independence which placed a new
nation upon the theatre of the world. Doubtless there was enough of
similitude in their lives and deaths to excuse the belief in the
interposition of a direct providence, and to justify the feeling of
mysterious reverence with which the news of their coincident demise
was received throughout the country. The parallel between them was
complete. Born nearly at the same time, Mr. Adams the elder, they
took the same course in life--with the same success--and ended
their earthly career at the same time, and in the same way:--in
the regular course of nature, in the repose and tranquillity of
retirement, in the bosom of their families, and on the soil which
their labors had contributed to make free.
Born, one in Massachusetts, the other in Virginia, they both
received liberal educations, embraced the same profession (that of
the law), mixed literature and science with their legal studies and
pursuits, and entered early into the ripening contest with Great
Britain--first in their counties and States, and then on the broader
field of the General Congress of the Confederated Colonies. They
were both members of the Congress which declared Independence--both
of the committee which reported the Declaration--both signed
it--were both employed in foreign missions--both became Vice
Presidents--and both became Presidents. They were both working
men; and, in the great number of efficient laborers in the cause
of Independence which the Congresses of the Revolution contained,
they were doubtless the two most efficient--and Mr. Adams the more
so of the two. He was, as Mr. Jefferson styled him, "the Colossus"
of the Congress--speaking, writing, counselling--a member of
ninety different committees, and (during his three years' service)
chairman of twenty five--chairman also of the board of war and
board of appeals: his soul on fire with the cause, left no rest to
his head, hands, or tongue. Mr. Jefferson drew the Declaration of
Independence, but Mr. Adams was "the pillar of its support, and its
ablest advocate and defender," during the forty days it was before
the Congress. In the letter which he wrote that night to Mrs. Adams
(for, after all the labors of the day, and such a day, he could
still write to her), he took a glowing view of the future, and used
those expressions, "gloom" and "glory," which his son repeated in
the paragraph of his message to Congress in relation to the deaths
of the two ex-Presidents, which I have heard criticized by those
who did not know their historical allusion, and could not feel the
force and beauty of their application. They were words of hope and
confidence when he wrote them, and of history when he died. "I
am well aware of the toil, and blood, and treasure, that it will
cost to maintain this Declaration, and to support and defend these
States; yet through all the _gloom_, I can see the rays of light
and _glory_!" and he lived to see it--to see the glory--with the
bodily, as well as with the mental eye. And (for the great fact
will bear endless repetition) it was he that conceived the idea of
making Washington commander-in-chief, and prepared the way for his
unanimous nomination.
In the division of parties which ensued the establishment of the
federal government, Mr. Adams and Mr. Jefferson differed in systems
of policy, and became heads of opposite divisions, but without
becoming either unjust or unkind to each other. Mr. Adams sided
with the party discriminated as federal; and in that character
became the subject of political attacks, from which his competitor
generously defended him, declaring that "a more perfectly honest man
never issued from the hands of his Creator;" and, though opposing
candidates for the presidency, neither would have any thing to do
with the election, which they considered a question between the
systems of policy which they represented, and not a question between
themselves. Mr. Jefferson became the head of the party then called
republican--now democratic; and in that character became the founder
of the political school which has since chiefly prevailed in the
United States. He was a statesman: that is to say, a man capable of
conceiving measures useful to the country and to mankind--able to
recommend them to adoption, and to administer them when adopted.
I have seen many politicians--a few statesmen--and, of these few,
he their pre-eminent head. He was a republican by nature and
constitution, and gave proofs of it in the legislation of his State,
as well as in the policy of the United States. He was no speaker,
but a most instructive and fascinating talker; and the Declaration
of Independence, even if it had not been sistered by innumerable
classic productions, would have placed him at the head of political
writers. I never saw him but once, when I went to visit him in his
retirement; and then I felt, for four hours, the charms of his
bewitching talk. I was then a young senator, just coming on the
stage of public life--he a patriarchal statesman just going off the
stage of natural life, and evidently desirous to impress some views
of policy upon me--a design in which he certainly did not fail. I
honor him as a patriot of the Revolution--as one of the Founders
of the Republic--as the founder of the political school to which I
belong; and for the purity of character which he possessed in common
with his compatriots, and which gives to the birth of the United
States a beauty of parentage which the genealogy of no other nation
can show.
CHAPTER XXXII.
BRITISH INDEMNITY FOR DEPORTED SLAVES.
In this year was brought to a conclusion the long-continued
controversy with Great Britain in relation to the non-fulfilment of
the first article of the treaty of Ghent (1814), for the restitution
of slaves carried off by the British troops in the war of 1812. It
was a renewal of the misunderstanding, but with a better issue,
which grew up under the seventh article of the treaty of peace of
1783 upon the same subject. The power of Washington's administration
was not able to procure the execution of that article, either by
restoration of the slaves or indemnity. The slaves then taken away
were carried to Nova Scotia, where, becoming an annoyance, they
were transferred to Sierra Leone; and thus became the foundation
of the British African colony there. The restitution of deported
slaves, stipulated in the first article of the Ghent treaty, could
not be accomplished between the two powers; they disagreed as to
the meaning of words; and, after seven years of vain efforts to
come to an understanding, it was agreed to refer the question
to arbitrament. The Emperor Alexander accepted the office of
arbitrator, executed it, and decided in favor of the United States.
That decision was as unintelligible to Great Britain as all the
previous treaty stipulations on this same subject had been. She
could not understand it. A second misunderstanding grew up, giving
rise to a second negotiation, which was concluded by a final
agreement to pay the value of the slaves carried off. In 1827
payment was made--twelve years after the injury and the stipulation
to repair it, and after continued and most strenuous exertions to
obtain redress.
The case was this: it was a part of the system of warfare adopted
by the British, when operating in the slave States, to encourage
the slaves to desert from their owners, promising them freedom;
and at the end of the war these slaves were carried off. This
carrying off was foreseen by the United States Commissioners at
Ghent, and in the first article of the treaty was provided against
in these words; "all places taken, &c. shall be restored without
delay, &c., or carrying away any of the artillery, or other public
property originally captured in the said posts or places, and
which shall remain therein upon the exchange of the ratifications
of this treaty, or any slaves or other private property." The
British Government undertook to extend the limitation which applied
to public property to that which was private also; and so to
restore only such slaves as were originally captured within the
forts, and which remained therein at the time of the exchange of
ratifications--a construction which would have excluded all that
were induced to run away, being nearly the whole; and all that left
the forts before the exchange of ratifications, which would have
included the rest. She adhered to the construction given to the
parallel article in the treaty of 1783, and by which all slaves
taken during the war were held to be lawful prize of war, and free
under the British proclamation, and not to be compensated for. The
United States, on the contrary, confined this local limitation to
things appurtenant to the forts; and held the slaves to be private
property, subject to restitution, or claim for compensation, if
carried away at all, no matter how acquired.
The point was solemnly carried before the Emperor Alexander, the
United States represented by their minister, Mr. Henry Middleton,
and Great Britain by Sir Charles Bagot--the Counts Nesselrode
and Capo D'Istrias receiving the arguments to be laid before the
Emperor. His Majesty's decision was peremptory; "that the United
States of America are entitled to a just indemnification from
Great Britain for all private property carried away by the British
forces; and, as the question regards slaves more especially, for
all such slaves as were carried away by the British forces from the
places and territories of which the restitution was stipulated by
the treaty, in quitting the said places and territories." This was
explicit; but the British minister undertook to understand it as
not applying to slaves who _voluntarily_ joined the British troops
to free themselves from bondage, and who came from places never
in _possession_ of the British troops; and he submitted a note to
that effect to the Russian minister, Count Nesselrode, to be laid
before the Emperor. To this note Alexander gave an answer which is
a model of categorical reply to unfounded dubitation. He said: "the
Emperor having, by the mutual consent of the two plenipotentiaries,
given an opinion, founded solely upon the sense which results from
the text of the article in dispute, does not think himself called
upon to decide here any question relative to what the laws of war
permit or forbid to the belligerents; but, always faithful to the
grammatical interpretation of the first article of the treaty of
Ghent, his Imperial Majesty declares, a second time, that it appears
to him, according to this interpretation, that, in quitting the
places and territories of which the treaty of Ghent stipulates the
restitution to the United States, his Britannic Majesty's forces
had no right to carry away from the same places and territories,
absolutely, any slave, by whatever means he had fallen or come into
their power." This was the second declaration, the second decision
of the point; and both parties having bound themselves to abide
the decision, be it what it might, a convention was immediately
concluded for the purpose of carrying the Emperor's decision into
effect, by establishing a board to ascertain the number and value
of the deported slaves. It was a convention formally drawn up,
signed by the ministers of the three powers, done in triplicate,
ratified, and ratifications exchanged, and the affair considered
finished. Not so the fact! New misunderstanding, new negotiation,
five years more consumed in diplomatic notes, and finally a new
convention concluded! Certainly it was not the value of the property
in controversy, not the amount of money to be paid, that led Great
Britain to that pertinacious resistance, bordering upon cavilling
and bad faith. It was the loss of an advantage in war--the loss of
the future advantage of operating upon the slave States through
their slave property, and which advantage would be lost if this
compensation was enforced,--which induced her to stand out so long
against her own stipulations, and the decisions of her own accepted
arbitrator.
This new or third treaty, making indemnity for these slaves, was
negotiated at London, November, 1826, between Mr. Gallatin on the
part of the United States, and Messrs. Huskisson and Addington
on the part of Great Britain. It commenced with reciting that
"difficulties having arisen in the execution of the convention
concluded at St. Petersburg, July 12th, 1822, under the mediation
of his majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, between the United
States of America and Great Britain, for the purpose of carrying
into effect the decision of his Imperial Majesty upon the
differences which had arisen between the said United States and
Great Britain as to the true construction and meaning of the first
article of the treaty of Ghent, _therefore_ the said parties agree
to treat again," &c. The result of this third negotiation was to
stipulate for the payment of a gross sum to the government of the
United States, to be by it divided among those whose slaves had
been carried off: and the sum of one million two hundred and four
thousand nine hundred and sixty dollars was the amount agreed upon.
This sum was satisfactory to the claimants, and was paid to the
United States for their benefit in the year 1827--just twelve years
after the conclusion of the war, and after two treaties had been
made, and two arbitrations rendered to explain the meaning of the
first treaty, and which fully explained itself. Twelve years of
persevering exertion to obtain the execution of a treaty stipulation
which solely related to private property, and which good faith and
sheer justice required to have been complied with immediately! At
the commencement of the session of Congress, 1827-28, the President,
Mr. John Quincy Adams, was able to communicate the fact of the
final settling and closing up of this demand upon the British
government for the value of the slaves carried off by its troops.
The sum received was large, and ample to pay the damages; but that
was the smallest part of the advantage gained. The example and the
principle were the main points--the enforcement of such a demand
against a government so powerful, and after so much resistance, and
the condemnation which it carried, and the responsibility which it
implied--this was the grand advantage. Liberation and abduction
of slaves was one of the modes of warfare adopted by the British,
and largely counted on as a means of harassing and injuring one
half of the Union. It had been practised during the Revolution,
and indemnity avoided. If avoided a second time, impunity would
have sanctioned the practice and rendered it inveterate; and in
future wars, not only with Great Britain but with all powers, this
mode of annoyance would have become an ordinary resort, leading to
servile insurrections. The indemnity exacted carried along with
it the condemnation of the practice, as a spoliation of private
property to be atoned for; and was both a compensation for the past
and a warning for the future. It implied a responsibility which no
power, or art, or time could evade, and the principle of which being
established, there will be no need for future arbitrations.
I have said that this article in the treaty of Ghent for
restitution, or compensation, for deported slaves was brought
to a better issue than its parallel in the treaty of peace of
1783. By the seventh article of this treaty it was declared that
the evacuation (by the British troops) should be made "without
carrying away any negroes or other property belonging to the
American inhabitants." Yet three thousand slaves were carried away
(besides ten times that number--27,000 in Virginia alone--perishing
of disease in the British camps); and neither restitution nor
compensation made for any part of them. Both were resisted--the
restitution by Sir Guy Carleton in his letter of reply to
Washington's demand, declaring it to be an impossible infamy in a
British officer to give up those whom they had invited to their
standard; but reserving the point for the consideration of his
government, and, in the mean time, allowing and facilitating the
taking of schedules of all slaves taken away--names, ages, sex,
former owners, and States from which taken. The British government
resisted compensation upon the ground of war captures; that, being
taken in war, no matter how, they became, like other plunder, the
property of the captors, who had a right to dispose of it as they
pleased, and had chosen to set it free; that the slaves, having
become free, belonged to nobody, and consequently it was no breach
of the treaty stipulation to carry them away. This ground was
contested by the Congress of the confederation to the end of its
existence, and afterwards by the new federal government, from its
commencement until the claim for indemnity was waived or abandoned,
at the conclusion of Jay's treaty, in 1796. The very first message
of Washington to Congress when he became President, presented the
inexecution of the treaty of peace in this particular, among others,
as one of the complaints justly existing against Great Britain;
and all the diplomacy of his administration was exerted to obtain
redress--in vain. The treaties of '94 and '96 were both signed
without allusion to the subject; and, being left unprovided for in
these treaties, the claim sunk into the class of obsolete demands;
and the stipulation remained in the treaty a dead letter, although
containing the precise words, and the additional one "negroes,"
on which the Emperor Alexander took the stand which commanded
compensation and dispensed with arguments founded in the laws of
war. Not a shilling had been received for that immense depredation
upon private property; although the Congress of the confederation
adopted the strongest resolves, and even ordered each State to be
furnished with copies of the schedules of the slaves taken from it;
and hopes of indemnity were kept alive until extinguished by the
treaty of '96. It was a bitter complaint against that treaty, as the
Congress debates of the time, and the public press, abundantly show.
Northern men did their duty to the South in getting compensation
(and, what is infinitely more, establishing the principle that there
shall be compensation in such cases) for the slaves carried away
in the war of 1812. A majority of the commissioners at Ghent who
obtained the stipulation for indemnity were Northern men--Adams,
Russell, Gallatin, from the free, and Clay and Bayard from the slave
States. A Northern negotiator (Mr. Gallatin), under a Northern
President (Mr. John Quincy Adams), finally obtained it; and it is a
coincidence worthy of remark that this Northern negotiator, who was
finally successful, was the same debater in Congress, in '96, who
delivered the best argument (in my opinion surpassing even that of
Mr. Madison), against the grounds on which the British Government
resisted the execution of this article of the treaty.
I am no man to stir up old claims against the federal government;
and, I detest the trade which exhumes such claims, and deplore the
facility with which they are considered--too often in the hands of
speculators who gave nothing, or next to nothing, for them. But I
must say that the argument on which the French spoliation claim is
now receiving so much consideration, applies with infinitely more
force to the planters whose slaves were taken during the war of the
Revolution than in behalf of these French spoliation claims. They
were contributing--some in their persons in the camp or council,
all in their voluntary or tax contributions--to the independence
of their country when they were thus despoiled of their property.
They depended upon these slaves to support their families while
they were supporting their country. They were in debt to British
merchants, and relied upon compensation for these slaves to pay
those debts, at the very moment when compensation was abandoned by
the same treaty which enforced the payment of the debts. They had
a treaty obligation for indemnity, express in its terms, and since
shown to be valid, when deprived of this stipulation by another
treaty, in order to obtain general advantages for the whole Union.
This is something like taking private property for public use. Three
thousand slaves, the property of ascertained individuals, protected
by a treaty stipulation, and afterwards abandoned by another treaty,
against the entreaties and remonstrances of the owners, in order to
obtain the British commercial treaty of '94, and its supplement of
'96: such is the case which this revolutionary spoliation of slave
property presents, and which puts it immeasurably ahead of the
French spoliation claims prior to 1800. There is but four years'
difference in their ages--in the dates of the two treaties by which
they were respectively surrendered--and every other difference
between the two cases is an argument of preference in favor of
the losers under the treaty of 1796. Yet I am against both, and
each, separately or together; and put them in contrast to make one
stand as an argument against the other. But the primary reason for
introducing the slave spoliation case of 1783, and comparing its
less fortunate issue with that of 1812, was to show that Northern
men will do justice to the South; that Northern men obtained for
the South an indemnity and security in our day which a Southern
Administration, with Washington at its head, had not been able to
obtain in the days of our fathers.
CHAPTER XXXIII.
MEETING OF THE FIRST CONGRESS ELECTED UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION OF
MR. ADAMS.
The nineteenth Congress, commencing its legal existence, March the
4th, 1825, had been chiefly elected at the time that Mr. Adams'
administration commenced, and the two Houses stood divided with
respect to him--the majority of the Representatives being favorable
to him, while the majority of the Senate was in opposition.
The elections for the twentieth Congress--the first under his
administration--were looked to with great interest, both as showing
whether the new President was supported by the country, and his
election by the House sanctioned, and also as an index to the issue
of the ensuing presidential election. For, simultaneously with the
election in the House of Representatives did the canvass for the
succeeding election begin--General Jackson being the announced
candidate on one side, and Mr. Adams on the other; and the event
involving not only the question of merits between the parties,
but also the question of approved or disapproved conduct on the
part of the representatives who elected Mr. Adams. The elections
took place, and resulted in placing an opposition majority in
the House of Representatives, and increasing the strength of the
opposition majority in the Senate. The state of parties in the House
was immediately tested by the election of speaker, Mr. John W.
Taylor, of New-York, the administration candidate, being defeated
by Mr. Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, in the opposition. The
appointment of the majority of members on all the committees, and
their chairmen, in both Houses adverse to the administration, was
a regular consequence of the inflamed state of parties, although
the proper conducting of the public business would demand for the
administration the chairman of several important committees, as
enabling it to place its measures fairly before the House. The
speaker (Mr. Stevenson) could only yield to this just sense of
propriety in the case of one of the committees, that of foreign
relations, to which Mr. Edward Everett, classing as the political
and personal friend of the President, was appointed chairman. In
other committees, and in both Houses, the stern spirit of the times
prevailed; and the organization of the whole Congress was adverse to
the administration.
The presidential message contained no new recommendations, but
referred to those previously made, and not yet acted upon; among
which internal improvement, and the encouragement of home industry,
were most prominent. It gave an account of the failure of the
proposed congress of Panama; and, consequently, of the inutility
of all our exertions to be represented there. And, as in this
final and valedictory notice by Mr. Adams of that once far-famed
congress, he took occasion to disclaim some views attributed to
him, I deem it just to give him the benefit of his own words, both
in making the disclaimer, and in giving the account of the abortion
of an impracticable scheme which had so lately been prosecuted, and
opposed, with so much heat and violence in our own country. He said
of it:
"Disclaiming alike all right and all intention of interfering in
those concerns which it is the prerogative of their independence
to regulate as to them shall seem fit, we hail with joy every
indication of their prosperity, of their harmony, of their
persevering and inflexible homage to those principles of freedom
and of equal rights, which are alone suited to the genius and
temper of the American nations. It has been therefore with some
concern that we have observed indications of intestine divisions
in some of the republics of the South, and appearances of less
union with one another, than we believe to be the interest of
all. Among the results of this state of things has been that the
treaties concluded at Panama do not appear to have been ratified
by the contracting parties, and that the meeting of the Congress
at Tacubaya has been indefinitely postponed. In accepting
the invitations to be represented at this Congress, while a
manifestation was intended on the part of the United States, of
the most friendly disposition towards the Southern republics by
whom it had been proposed, it was hoped that it would furnish
an opportunity for bringing all the nations of this hemisphere
to the common acknowledgment and adoption of the principles, in
the regulation of their international relations, which would
have secured a lasting peace and harmony between them, and have
promoted the cause of mutual benevolence throughout the globe.
But as obstacles appear to have arisen to the reassembling of
the Congress, one of the two ministers commissioned on the part
of the United States has returned to the bosom of his country,
while the minister charged with the ordinary mission to Mexico
remains authorized to attend at the conferences of the Congress
whenever they may be resumed."
This is the last that was heard of that so much vaunted Congress of
American nations, and in the manner in which it died out of itself,
among those who proposed it, without ever having been reached by a
minister from the United States, we have the highest confirmation
of the soundness of the objections taken to it by the opposition
members of the two Houses of our Congress.
In stating the condition of the finances, the message, without
intending it, gave proof of the paradoxical proposition, first, I
believe, broached by myself, that an annual revenue to the extent
of a fourth or a fifth below the annual expenditure, is sufficient
to meet that annual expenditure; and consequently that there is
no necessity to levy as much as is expended, or to provide by law
for keeping a certain amount in the treasury when the receipts are
equal, or superior to the expenditure. He said:
"The balance in the treasury on the first of January last
was six millions three hundred and fifty-eight thousand six
hundred and eighty-six dollars and eighteen cents. The receipts
from that day to the 30th of September last, as near as the
returns of them yet received can show, amount to sixteen
millions eight hundred and eighty-six thousand five hundred
and eighty-one dollars and thirty-two cents. The receipts of
the present quarter, estimated at four millions five hundred
and fifteen thousand, added to the above, form an aggregate of
twenty-one millions four hundred thousand dollars of receipts.
The expenditures of the year may perhaps amount to twenty-two
millions three hundred thousand dollars, presenting a small
excess over the receipts. But of these twenty-two millions,
upwards of six have been applied to the discharge of the
principal of the public debt; the whole amount of which,
approaching seventy-four millions on the first of January last,
will on the first day of next year fall short of sixty-seven
millions and a half. The balance in the treasury on the first
of January next, it is expected, will exceed five millions four
hundred and fifty thousand dollars; a sum exceeding that of the
first of January, 1825, though falling short of that exhibited
on the first of January last."
In this statement the expenditures of the year are shown to exceed
the income, and yet to leave a balance, about equal to one fourth
of the whole in the treasury at the end of the year; also that the
balance was larger at the end of the preceding year, and nearly
the same at the end of the year before. And the message might
have added, that these balances were about the same at the end of
every quarter of every year, and every day of every quarter--all
resulting from the impossibility of applying money to objects until
there has been time to apply it. Yet in the time of those balances
of which Mr. Adams speaks, there was a law to retain two millions
in the treasury; and now there is a law to retain six millions;
while the current balances, at the rate of a fourth or a fifth
of the income, are many times greater than the sum ordered to be
retained; and cannot be reduced to that sum, by regular payments
from the treasury, until the revenue itself is reduced below the
expenditure. This is a financial paradox, sustainable upon reason,
proved by facts, and visible in the state of the treasury at all
times; yet I have endeavored in vain to establish it; and Congress
is as careful as ever to provide an annual income equal to the
annual expenditure; and to make permanent provision by law to keep
up a reserve in the treasury; which would be there of itself without
such law as long as the revenue comes within a fourth or a fifth of
the expenditure.
The following members composed the two Houses at this, the first
session of the twentieth Congress:
SENATE.
MAINE--John Chandler, Albion K. Parris.
NEW HAMPSHIRE--Samuel Bell, Levi Woodbury.
MASSACHUSETTS--Nathaniel Silsbee, Daniel Webster.
CONNECTICUT--Samuel A. Foot, Calvin Willey.
RHODE ISLAND--Nehemiah R. Knight, Asher Robbins.
VERMONT--Dudley Chase, Horatio Seymour.
NEW-YORK--Martin Van Buren, Nathan Sanford.
NEW JERSEY--Mahlon Dickerson, Ephraim Bateman.
PENNSYLVANIA--William Marks, Isaac D. Barnard.
DELAWARE--Louis M'Lane, Henry M. Ridgeley.
MARYLAND--Ezekiel F. Chambers, Samuel Smith.
VIRGINIA--Littleton W. Tazewell, John Tyler.
NORTH CAROLINA--John Branch, Nathaniel Macon.
SOUTH CAROLINA--William Smith, Robert Y. Hayne.
GEORGIA--John M'Pherson Berrien, Thomas W. Cobb.
KENTUCKY--Richard M. Johnson, John Rowan.
TENNESSEE--John H. Eaton, Hugh L. White.
OHIO--William H. Harrison, Benjamin Ruggles.
LOUISIANA--Dominique Bouligny, Josiah S. Johnston.
INDIANA--William Hendricks, James Noble.
MISSISSIPPI--Powhatan Ellis, Thomas H. Williams.
ILLINOIS--Elias K. Kane, Jesse B. Thomas.
ALABAMA--John McKinley, William R. King.
MISSOURI--David Barton, Thomas H. Benton.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MAINE--John Anderson, Samuel Butman, Rufus M'Intire, Jeremiah
O'Brien, James W. Ripley, Peleg Sprague, Joseph F. Wingate--7.
NEW HAMPSHIRE--Ichabod Bartlett, David Barker, jr., Titus Brown,
Joseph Healey, Jonathan Harvey, Thomas Whipple, jr.--6.
MASSACHUSETTS--Samuel C. Allen, John Bailey, Isaac C. Bates, B. W.
Crowninshield, John Davis, Henry W. Dwight, Edward Everett, Benjamin
Gorham, James L. Hodges, John Locke, John Reed, Joseph Richardson,
John Varnum--15.
RHODE ISLAND--Tristam Burges; Dutee J. Pearce--2.
CONNECTICUT--John Baldwin, Noyes Barber, Ralph J. Ingersoll, Orange
Merwin, Elisha Phelps, David Plant--6.
VERMONT--Daniel A. A. Buck, Jonathan Hunt, Rolin C. Mallary,
Benjamin Swift, George E. Wales--5.
NEW-YORK--Daniel D. Barnard, George O. Belden, Rudolph Bunner, C.
C. Cambreleng, Samuel Chase, John C. Clark, John D. Dickinson,
Jonas Earll, jr., Daniel G. Garnsey, Nathaniel Garrow, John I.
De Graff, John Hallock, jr., Selah R. Hobbie, Michael Hoffman,
Jeromus Johnson, Richard Keese, Henry Markell, H. C. Martindale,
Dudley Marvin, John Magee, John Maynard, Thomas J. Oakley, S. Van
Rensselaer, Henry R. Storrs, James Strong, John G. Stower, Phineas
L. Tracy, John W. Taylor, G. C. Verplanck, Aaron Ward, John J. Wood,
Silas Wood, David Woodcock, Silas Wright, jr.--34.
NEW JERSEY--Lewis Condict, George Holcombe, Isaac Pierson, Samuel
Swan, Edge Thompson, Ebenezer Tucker--6.
PENNSYLVANIA--William Addams, Samuel Anderson, Stephen Barlow, James
Buchanan, Richard Coulter, Chauncey Forward, Joseph Fry, jr., Innes
Green, Samuel D. Ingham, George Kremer, Adam King, Joseph Lawrence,
Daniel H. Miller, Charles Miner, John Mitchell, Samuel M'Kean,
Robert Orr, jr., William Ramsay, John Sergeant, James S. Stevenson,
John B. Sterigere, Andrew Stewart, Joel B. Sutherland, Espy Van
Horn, James Wilson, George Wolf--26.
DELAWARE--Kensy Johns, jr.--1.
MARYLAND--John Barney, Clement Dorsey, Levin Gale, John Leeds Kerr,
Peter Little, Michael C. Sprigg, G. C. Washington, John C. Weems,
Ephraim K. Wilson--9.
VIRGINIA--Mark Alexander, Robert Allen, Wm. S. Archer, Wm.
Armstrong, jr., John S. Barbour, Philip P. Barbour, Burwell Bassett,
N. H. Claiborne, Thomas Davenport, John Floyd, Isaac Leffler,
Lewis Maxwell, Charles F. Mercer, William M'Coy, Thomas Newton,
John Randolph, William C. Rives, John Roane, Alexander Smyth, A.
Stevenson, John Talliaferro, James Trezvant--22.
NORTH CAROLINA--Willis Alston, Daniel L. Barringer, John H. Bryan,
Samuel P. Carson, Henry W. Conner, John Culpeper, Thomas H. Hall,
Gabriel Holmes, John Long, Lemuel Sawyer, A. H. Shepperd, Daniel
Turner, Lewis Williams--13.
SOUTH CAROLINA--John Carter, Warren R. Davis, William Drayton,
James Hamilton, jr., George M'Duffie, William D. Martin, Thomas R.
Mitchell, Wm. T. Nuckolls, Starling Tucker--9.
GEORGIA--John Floyd, Tomlinson Fort, Charles E. Haynes, George R.
Gilmer, Wilson Lumpkin, Wiley Thompson, Richard H. Wilde--7.
KENTUCKY--Richard A. Buckner, James Clark, Henry Daniel, Joseph
Lecompte, Robert P. Letcher, Chittenden Lyon, Thomas Metcalfe,
Robert M'Hatton, Thomas P. Moore, Charles A. Wickliffe, Joel Yancey,
Thomas Chilton--12.
TENNESSEE--John Bell, John Blair, David Crockett, Robert Desha,
Jacob C. Isacks, Pryor Lea, John H. Marable, James C. Mitchell,
James K. Polk--9.
OHIO--Mordecai Bartley, Philemon Beecher, William Creighton, jr.,
John Davenport, James Findlay, Wm. M'Lean, William Russell, John
Sloane, William Stanberry, Joseph Vance, Samuel F. Vinton, Elisha
Whittlesey, John Woods, John C. Wright--14.
LOUISIANA--William L. Brent, Henry H. Gurley, Edward Livingston--3.
INDIANA--Thomas H. Blake, Jonathan Jennings, Oliver H. Smith--3.
MISSISSIPPI--William Haile--1.
ILLINOIS--Joseph Duncan--1.
ALABAMA--Gabriel Moore, John M'Kee, George W. Owen--3.
MISSOURI--Edward Bates--1.
DELEGATES.
ARKANSAS TERRITORY--A. H. Sevier.
MICHIGAN TERRITORY--Austin E. Wing.
FLORIDA TERRITORY--Joseph M. White.
This list of members presents an immense array of talent, and
especially of business talent; and in its long succession of
respectable names, many will be noted as having attained national
reputations--others destined to attain that distinction--while
many more, in the first class of useful and respectable members,
remained without national renown for want of that faculty which
nature seems most capriciously to have scattered among the children
of men--the faculty of fluent and copious speech;--giving it to
some of great judgment--denying it to others of equal, or still
greater judgment--and lavishing it upon some of no judgment at all.
The national eyes are fixed upon the first of these classes--the
men of judgment and copious speech; and even those in the third
class obtain national notoriety; while the men in the second
class--the men of judgment and few words--are extremely valued and
respected in the bodies to which they belong and have great weight
in the conduct of business. They are, in fact, the business men,
often more practical and efficient than the great orators. This
twentieth Congress, as all others that have been, contained a large
proportion of these most useful and respectable members; and it will
be the pleasant task of this work to do them the justice which their
modest merit would not do for themselves.
CHAPTER XXXIV.
REVISION OF THE TARIFF.
The tariff of 1828 is an era in our legislation, being the event
from which the doctrine of "nullification" takes its origin, and
from which a serious division dates between the North and the
South. It was the work of politicians and manufacturers; and was
commenced for the benefit of the woollen interest, and upon a bill
chiefly designed to favor that branch of manufacturing industry.
But, like all other bills of the kind, it required help from other
interests to get itself along; and that help was only to be obtained
by admitting other interests into the benefits of the bill. And
so, what began as a special benefit, intended for the advantage of
a particular interest, became general, and ended with including
all manufacturing interests--or at least as many as were necessary
to make up the strength necessary to carry it. The productions of
different States, chiefly in the West, were favored by additional
duties on their rival imports; as lead in Missouri and Illinois,
and hemp of Kentucky; and thus, though opposed to the object of the
bill, many members were necessitated to vote for it. Mr. Rowan, of
Kentucky, well exposed the condition of others in this respect, in
showing his own in some remarks which he made, and in which he said:
"He was not opposed to the tariff as a system of revenue,
honestly devoted to the objects and purposes of revenue--on
the contrary, he was friendly to a tariff of that character;
but when perverted by the ambition of political aspirants, and
the secret influence of inordinate cupidity, to purposes of
individual, and sectional ascendency, he could not be seduced by
the captivation of names, or terms, however attractive, to lend
it his individual support.
"It is in vain, Mr. President, said he, that it is called
the American System--names do not alter things. There is but
one American System, and that is delineated in the State and
Federal constitutions. It is the system of equal rights and
privileges secured by the representative principle--a system,
which, instead of subjecting the proceeds of the labor of some
to taxation, in the view to enrich others, secures to all the
proceeds of their labor--exempts all from taxation, except
for the support of the protecting power of the government. As
a tax necessary to the support of the government, he would
support it--call it by what name you please;--as a tax for any
other purpose, and especially for the purposes to which he had
alluded--it had his individual reprobation, under whatever name
it might assume.
"It might, he observed, be inferred from what he had said, that
he would vote against the bill. He did not wish any doubts to
be entertained as to the vote he should give upon this measure,
or the reasons which would influence him to give it. He was not
at liberty to substitute his individual opinion for that of his
State. He was one of the organs here, of a State, that had,
by the tariff of 1824, been chained to the car of the Eastern
manufacturers--a State that had been from that time, and was
now groaning under the pressure of that unequal and unjust
measure--a measure from the pressure of which, owing to the
prevailing illusion throughout the United States, she saw no
hope of escape, by a speedy return to correct principles;--and
seeing no hope of escaping from the ills of the system, she is
constrained, on principles of self-defence, to avail herself of
the mitigation which this bill presents, in the duties which
it imposes upon foreign hemp, spirits, iron, and molasses. The
hemp, iron, and distilled spirits of the West, will, like the
woollens of the Eastern States, be encouraged to the extent
of the tax indirectly imposed by this bill, upon those who
shall buy and consume them. Those who may need, and buy those
articles, must pay to the grower, or manufacturer of them, an
increased price to the amount of the duties imposed upon the
like articles of foreign growth or fabric. To this tax upon the
labor of the consumer, his individual opinion was opposed. But,
as the organ of the State of Kentucky, he felt himself bound to
surrender his individual opinion, and express the opinion of his
State."
Thus, this tariff bill, like every one admitting a variety of
items, contains a vicious principle, by which a majority may be
made up to pass a measure which they do not approve. But besides
variety of agricultural and manufacturing items collected into this
bill, there was another of very different import admitted into
it, namely, that of party politics. A presidential election was
approaching: General Jackson and Mr. Adams were the candidates--the
latter in favor of the "American System"--of which Mr. Clay (his
Secretary of State) was the champion, and indissolubly connected
with him in the public mind in the issue of the election. This
tariff was made an administration measure, and became an issue in
the canvass; and to this Mr. Rowan significantly alluded when he
spoke of a tariff as being "perverted by the ambition of political
aspirants." It was in vain that the manufacturers were warned
not to mix their interests with the doubtful game of politics.
They yielded to the temptation--yielded as a class, though with
individual exceptions--for the sake of the temporary benefit,
without seeming to realize the danger of connecting their interests
with the fortunes of a political party. This tariff of '28,
besides being remarkable for giving birth to "nullification," and
heart-burning between the North and the South, was also remarkable
for a change of policy in the New England States, in relation to
the protective system. Being strongly commercial, these States had
hitherto favored free trade; and Mr. Webster was the champion of
that trade up to 1824. At this session a majority of those States,
and especially those which classed politically with Mr. Adams and
Mr. Clay, changed their policy: and Webster became a champion of
the protective system. The cause of this change, as then alleged,
was the fact that the protective system had become the established
policy of the government, and that these States had adapted their
industry to it; though it was insisted, on the other hand, that
political calculation had more to do with the change than federal
legislation: and, in fact, the question of this protection was one
of those which lay at the foundation of parties, and was advocated
by General Hamilton in one of his celebrated reports of fifty years
ago. But on this point it is right that New England should speak for
herself, which she did at the time of the discussion of the tariff
in '28; and through the member, now a senator (Mr. Webster), who
typified in his own person the change which his section of the Union
had undergone. He said:
"New England, sir, has not been a leader in this policy. On the
contrary, she held back, herself, and tried to hold others back
from it, from the adoption of the constitution to 1824. Up to
1824, she was accused of sinister and selfish designs, because
she discountenanced the progress of this policy. It was laid
to her charge, then, that having established her manufactures
herself, she wished that others should not have the power of
rivalling her; and, for that reason, opposed all legislative
encouragement. Under this angry denunciation against her,
the act of 1824 passed. Now the imputation is precisely of
an opposite character. The present measure is pronounced to
be exclusively for the benefit of New England; to be brought
forward by her agency, and designed to gratify the cupidity of
her wealthy establishments.
"Both charges, sir, are equally without the slightest
foundation. The opinion of New England, up to 1824, was founded
in the conviction, that, on the whole, it was wisest and best,
both for herself and others, that manufacturers should make
haste slowly. She felt a reluctance to trust great interests
on the foundation of government patronage; for who could tell
how long such patronage would last, or with what steadiness,
skill, or perseverance, it would continue to be granted? It is
now nearly fifteen years, since, among the first things which
I ever ventured to say here, was the expression of a serious
doubt, whether this government was fitted by its construction,
to administer aid and protection to particular pursuits;
whether, having called such pursuits into being by indications
of its favor, it would not, afterwards, desert them, when
troubles come upon them; and leave them to their fate. Whether
this prediction, the result, certainly, of chance, and not of
sagacity, will so soon be fulfilled, remains to be seen.
"At the same time it is true, that from the very first
commencement of the government, those who have administered
its concerns have held a tone of encouragement and invitation
towards those who should embark in manufactures. All the
Presidents, I believe, without exception, have concurred in
this general sentiment; and the very first act of Congress,
laying duties of impost, adopted the then unusual expedient
of a preamble, apparently for little other purpose than that
of declaring, that the duties, which it imposed, were imposed
for the encouragement and protection of manufactures. When,
at the commencement of the late war, duties were doubled, we
were told that we should find a mitigation of the weight of
taxation in the new aid and succor which would be thus afforded
to our own manufacturing labor. Like arguments were urged, and
prevailed, but not by the aid of New England votes, when the
tariff was afterwards arranged at the close of the war, in 1816.
Finally, after a whole winter's deliberation, the act of 1824
received the sanction of both Houses of Congress, and settled
the policy of the country. What, then, was New England to do?
She was fitted for manufacturing operations, by the amount and
character of her population, by her capital, by the vigor and
energy of her free labor, by the skill, economy, enterprise,
and perseverance of her people. I repeat, what was she, under
these circumstances, to do? A great and prosperous rival in
her near neighborhood, threatening to draw from her a part,
perhaps a great part, of her foreign commerce; was she to use,
or to neglect, those other means of seeking her own prosperity
which belonged to her character and her condition? Was she to
hold out, forever, against the course of the government, and
see herself losing, on one side, and yet making no efforts to
sustain herself on the other? No, sir. Nothing was left to New
England, after the act of 1824, but to conform herself to the
will of others. Nothing was left to her, but to consider that
the government had fixed and determined its own policy; and that
policy was protection."
The question of a protective tariff had now not only become
political, but sectional. In the early years of the federal
government it was not so. The tariff bills, as the first and the
second, that were passed, declared in their preambles that they
were for the encouragement of manufactures, as well as for raising
revenue; but then the duties imposed were all moderate--such as a
revenue system really required; and there were no "_minimums_" to
make a false basis for the calculation of duties, by enacting that
all which cost less than a certain amount should be counted to have
cost that amount; and be rated at the custom-house accordingly. In
this early period the Southern States were as ready as any part
of the Union in extending the protection to home industry which
resulted from the imposition of revenue duties on rival imported
articles, and on articles necessary to ourselves in time of war;
and some of her statesmen were amongst the foremost members of
Congress in promoting that policy. As late as 1816, some of
her statesmen were still in favor of protection, not merely as
an incident to revenue, but as a substantive object: and among
these was Mr. Calhoun, of South Carolina--who even advocated the
minimum provision--then for the first time introduced into a
tariff bill, and upon his motion--and applied to the cotton goods
imported. After that year (1816) the tariff bills took a sectional
aspect--the Southern States, with the exception of Louisiana (led
by her sugar-planting interest), against them: the New England
States also against them: the Middle and Western States for them.
After 1824 the New England States (always meaning the greatest
portion when a section is spoken of) classed with the protective
States--leaving the South alone, as a section, against that policy.
My personal position was that of a great many others in the three
protective sections--opposed to the policy, but going with it, on
account of the interest of the State in the protection of some
of its productions. I moved an additional duty upon lead, equal
to one hundred per centum; and it was carried. I moved a duty
upon indigo, a former staple of the South, but now declined to a
slight production; and I proposed a rate of duty in harmony with
the protective features of the bill. No southern member would move
that duty, because he opposed the principle: I moved it, that the
"American System," as it was called, should work alike in all parts
of our America. I supported the motion with some reasons, and some
views of the former cultivation of that plant in the Southern
States, and its present decline, thus:
"Mr. Benton then proposed an amendment, to impose a duty of 25
cents per pound on imported indigo, with a progressive increase
at the rate of 25 cents per pound per annum, until the whole
duty amounted to $1 per pound. He stated his object to be
two-fold in proposing this duty, first, to place the American
System beyond the reach of its enemies, by procuring a home
supply of an article indispensable to its existence; and next,
to benefit the South by reviving the cultivation of one of its
ancient and valuable staples.
"Indigo was first planted in the Carolinas and Georgia about the
year 1740, and succeeded so well as to command the attention of
the British manufacturers and the British parliament. An act
was passed for the encouragement of its production in these
colonies, in the reign of George the Second; the preamble to
which Mr. B. read, and recommended to the consideration of
the Senate. It recited that a regular, ample, and certain
supply of indigo was indispensable to the success of British
manufacturers; that these manufacturers were then dependent
upon foreigners for a supply of this article; and that it was
the dictate of a wise policy to encourage the production of
it at home. The act then went on to direct that a premium of
sixpence sterling should be paid out of the British treasury
for every pound of indigo imported into Great Britain, from the
Carolinas and Georgia. Under the fostering influence of this
bounty, said Mr. B., the cultivation of indigo became great and
extensive. In six years after the passage of the act, the export
was 217,000 lbs. and at the breaking out of the Revolution it
amounted to 1,100,000 lbs. The Southern colonies became rich
upon it; for the cultivation of cotton was then unknown; rice
and indigo were the staples of the South. After the Revolution,
and especially after the great territorial acquisitions which
the British made in India, the cultivation of American indigo
declined. The premium was no longer paid; and the British
government, actuated by the same wise policy which made them
look for a home supply of this article from the Carolinas,
when they were a part of the British possessions, now looked
to India for the same reason. The export of American indigo
rapidly declined. In 1800 it had fallen to 400,000 lbs.; in 1814
to 40,000 lbs,; and in the last few years to 6 or 8,000 lbs.
In the mean time our manufactories were growing up; and having
no supply of indigo at home, they had to import from abroad.
In 1826 this importation amounted to 1,150,000 lbs., costing a
fraction less than two millions of dollars, and had to be paid
for almost entirely in ready money, as it was chiefly obtained
from places where American produce was in no demand. Upon this
state of facts, Mr. B. conceived it to be the part of a wise and
prudent policy to follow the example of the British parliament
in the reign of George II. and provide a home supply of this
indispensable article. Our manufacturers now paid a high price
for fine indigo, no less than $2 50 per pound, as testified by
one of themselves before the Committee on Manufactures raised
in the House of Representatives. The duty which he proposed was
only 40 per cent. upon that value, and would not even reach that
rate for four years. It was less than one half the duty which
the same bill proposed to lay instanter upon the very cloth
which this indigo was intended to dye. In the end it would make
all indigo come cheaper to the manufacturer, as the home supply
would soon be equal, if not superior to the demand; and in the
mean time, it could not be considered a tax on the manufacturer,
as he would levy the advance which he had to pay, with a good
interest, upon the wearer of the cloth.
"Mr. B. then went into an exposition of the reasons for
encouraging the home production of indigo, and showed that the
life of the American System depended upon it. Neither cotton nor
woollen manufactures could be carried on without indigo. The
consumption of that article was prodigious. Even now, in the
infant state of our manufactories, the importation was worth two
millions of dollars: and must soon be worth double or treble
that sum. For this great supply of an indispensable article,
we were chiefly indebted to the jealous rival, and vigilant
enemy, of these very manufactures, to Great Britain herself. Of
the 1,150,000 lbs. of indigo imported, we bring 620,000 lbs.
from the British East Indies; which one word from the British
government would stop for ever; we bring the further quantity
of 120,000 lbs. from Manilla, a Spanish possession, which
British influence and diplomacy could immediately stop: and the
remainder came from different parts of South America, and might
be taken from us by the arts of diplomacy, or by a monopoly of
the whole on the part of our rival. A stoppage of a supply of
indigo for one year, would prostrate all our manufactories,
and give them a blow from which they would not recover in many
years. Great Britain could effect this stoppage to the amount of
three fourths of the whole quantity by speaking a single word,
and of the remainder by a slight exertion of policy, or the
expenditure of a sum sufficient to monopolize for one year, the
purchase of what South America sent into the market.
"Mr. B. said he expected a unanimous vote in favor of his
amendment. The North should vote for it to secure the life of
the American System; to give a proof of their regard for the
South; to show that the country south of the Potomac is included
in the bill for some other purpose besides that of oppression.
The South itself, although opposed to the further increase of
duties, should vote for this duty; that the bill, if it passes,
may contain one provision favorable to its interests. The West
should vote for it through gratitude for fifty years of guardian
protection, generous defence, and kind assistance, which the
South had given it under all its trials; and for the purpose of
enlarging the market, increasing the demand in the South and
its ability to purchase the horses, mules, and provisions which
the West can sell nowhere else. For himself he had personal
reasons for wishing to do this little justice to the South. He
was a native of one of these States (N. Carolina)--the bones of
his father and his grandfathers rested there. Her Senators and
Representatives were his early and his hereditary friends. The
venerable Senator before him (Mr. Macon) had been the friend
of him and his, through four generations in a straight line;
the other Senator (Mr. Branch) was his schoolfellow: the other
branch of the legislature, the House of Representatives, also
showed him in the North Carolina delegation, the friends of
him and his through successive generations. Nor was this all.
He felt for the sad changes which had taken place in the South
in the last fifty years. Before the Revolution it was the seat
of wealth as well as of hospitality. Money, and all that it
commanded, abounded there. But how now? All this is reversed.
"Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in the regions
north of the Potomac, and this in the midst of the fact that
the South, in four staples alone, in cotton, tobacco, rice and
indigo (while indigo was one of its staples), had exported
produce since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred
million of dollars, and the North had exported comparatively
nothing. This sum was prodigious; it was nearly equal to half
the coinage of the mint of Mexico since the conquest by Cortez.
It was twice or thrice the amount of the product of the three
thousand gold and silver mines of Mexico, for the same period
of fifty years. Such an export would indicate unparalleled
wealth; but what was the fact? In place of wealth, a universal
pressure for money was felt; not enough for current expenses;
the price of all property down; the country drooping and
languishing; towns and cities decaying; and the frugal habits of
the people pushed to the verge of universal self-denial, for the
preservation of their family estates. Such a result is a strange
and wonderful phenomenon. It calls upon statesmen to inquire
into the cause; and if they inquire upon the theatre of this
strange metamorphosis, they will receive one universal answer
from all ranks and all ages, that it is federal legislation
which has worked this ruin. Under this legislation the exports
of the South have been made the basis of the federal revenue.
The twenty odd millions annually levied upon imported goods,
are deducted out of the price of their cotton, rice and tobacco,
either in the diminished price which they receive for these
staples in foreign ports, or in the increased price which they
pay for the articles they have to consume at home. Virginia, the
two Carolinas and Georgia, may be said to defray three fourths
of the annual expense of supporting the federal government;
and of this great sum annually furnished by them, nothing, or
next to nothing, is returned to them in the shape of government
expenditure. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction; it
flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted and perennial
stream; it takes the course of trade and of exchange; and this
is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up
in the North. Federal legislation does all this; it does it by
the simple process of eternally taking away from the South, and
returning nothing to it. If it returned to the South the whole,
or even a good part of what it exacted, the four States south of
the Potomac might stand the action of this system, as the earth
is enabled to stand the exhausting influence of the sun's daily
heat by the refreshing dews which are returned to it at night;
but as the earth is dried up, and all vegetation destroyed in
regions where the heat is great, and no dews returned, so must
the South be exhausted of its money and its property by a course
of legislation which is for ever taking from it, and never
returning any thing to it.
"Every new tariff increases the force of this action. No tariff
has ever yet included Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia,
within its provisions, except to increase the burdens imposed
upon them. This one alone, presents the opportunity to form an
exception, by reviving and restoring the cultivation of one of
its ancient staples,--one of the sources of its wealth before
the Revolution. The tariff of 1828 owes this reparation to the
South, because the tariff of 1816 contributed to destroy the
cultivation of indigo; sunk the duty on the foreign article,
from twenty-five to fifteen cents per pound. These are the
reasons for imposing the duty on indigo, now proposed. What
objections can possibly be raised to it? Not to the quality;
for it is the same which laid the foundation of the British
manufactures, and sustained their reputation for more than
half a century; not to the quantity; for the two Carolinas
and Georgia alone raised as much fifty years ago as we now
import, and we have now the States of Louisiana, Alabama, and
Mississippi, and the Territories of Florida and Arkansas, to
add to the countries which produce it; not to the amount of
the duty; for its maximum will be but forty per cent., only
one half of the duty laid by this bill on the cloth it is to
dye; and that maximum, not immediate, but attained by slow
degrees at the end of four years, in order to give time for the
domestic article to supply the place of the imported. And after
all, it is not a duty on the manufacturer, but on the wearer
of the goods; from whom he levies, with a good interest on
the price of the cloths, all that he expends in the purchase
of materials. For once, said Mr. B., I expect a unanimous vote
on a clause in the tariff. This indigo clause must have the
singular and unprecedented honor of an unanimous voice in its
favor. The South must vote for it, to revive the cultivation
of one of its most ancient and valuable staples; the West must
vote for it through gratitude for past favors--through gratitude
for the vote on hemp this night[2]--and to save, enlarge, and
increase the market for its own productions; the North must
vote for it to show their disinterestedness; to give one proof
of just feeling towards the South; and, above all, to save
their favorite American System from the deadly blow which Great
Britain can at any moment give it by stopping or interrupting
the supplies of foreign indigo; and the whole Union, the entire
legislative body, must vote for it, and vote for it with joy and
enthusiasm, because it is impossible that Americans can deny
to sister States of the Confederacy what a British King and a
British Parliament granted to these same States when they were
colonies and dependencies of the British crown."
[2] "The vote on hemp this night." In rejecting Mr. Webster's
motion to strike out the duty on hemp, and a vote in which the
South went unanimously with the West.--_Note by Mr. B._
Mr. Hayne, of South Carolina, seconded my motion in a speech of
which this is an extract:
"Mr. Hayne said he was opposed to this bill in its principles
as well as in its details. It could assume no shape which would
make it acceptable to him, or which could prevent it from
operating most oppressively and unjustly on his constituents.
With these views, he had determined to make no motion to amend
the bill in any respect whatever; but when such motions were
made by others, and he was compelled to vote on them, he knew
no better rule than to endeavor to make the bill consistent
with itself. On this principle he had acted in all the votes he
had given on this bill. He had endeavored to carry out to its
legitimate consequences what gentlemen are pleased to miscall
the 'American System.' With a fixed resolution to vote against
the bill, he still considered himself at liberty to assist in so
arranging the details as to extend to every great interest, and
to all portions of the country, as far as may be practicable,
equal protection, and to distribute the burdens of the system
equally, in order that its benefits as well as its evils may
be fully tested. On this principle, he should vote for the
amendment of the gentleman from Missouri, because it was in
strict conformity with all the principles of the bill. As a
southern man, he would ask no boon for the South--he should
propose nothing; but he must say that the protection of indigo
rested on the same principles as every other article proposed
to be protected by this bill, and he did not see how gentlemen
could, consistently with their maxims, vote against it. What
was the principle on which this bill was professedly founded?
If there was any principle at all in the bill, it was that,
whenever the country had the capacity to produce an article
with which any imported article could enter into competition,
the domestic product was to be protected by a duty. Now, had
the Southern States the capacity to produce indigo? The soil
and climate of those States were well suited to the culture of
the article. At the commencement of the Revolution our exports
of the article amounted to no less than 1,100,000 lbs. The
whole quantity now imported into the United States is only
1,150,000 lbs.; so that the capacity of the country to produce
a sufficient quantity of indigo to supply the wants of the
manufacturers is unquestionable. It is true that the quantity
now produced in the country is not great.
"In 1818 only 700 lbs. of domestic indigo were exported.
"In 1825 9,955 do.
"In 1826 5,289 do.
"This proves that the attention of the country is now directed
to the subject. The senator from Indiana, in some remarks which
he made on this subject yesterday, stated that, according to the
principles of the American System (so called), protection was
not extended to any article which the country was not in the
habit of exporting. This is entirely a mistake. Of the articles
protected by the tariff of 1824, as well as those included in
this bill, very few are exported at all. Among these are iron,
woollens, hemp, flax, and several others. If indigo is to be
protected at all, the duties proposed must surely be considered
extremely reasonable, the maximum proposed being much below that
imposed by this bill on wool, woollens, and other articles. The
duty on indigo till 1816, was 25 cents per pound. It was then
(in favor of the manufacturers) reduced to 15 cents. The first
increase of duty proposed here, is only to put back the old
duty of 25 cents per pound, equal to an ad valorem duty of from
10 to 15 per cent.--and the maximum is only from 40 to 58 per
cent. ad valorem, and that will not accrue for several years to
come. With this statement of facts, Mr. H. said he would leave
the question in the hands of those gentlemen who were engaged in
giving this bill the form in which it is to be submitted to the
final decision of the Senate."
The proposition for this duty on imported indigo did not prevail.
In lieu of the amount proposed, and which was less than any
protective duty in the bill, the friends of the "American System"
(constituting a majority of the Senate) substituted a nominal duty
of five cents on the pound--to be increased five cents annually for
ten years--and to remain at fifty. This was only about twenty per
centum on the cost of the article, and that only to be attained
after a progression of ten years; while all other duties in the
bill were from four to ten times that amount--and to take effect
immediately. A duty so contemptible, so out of proportion to the
other provisions of the bill, and doled out in such miserable drops,
was a mockery and insult; and so viewed by the southern members. It
increased the odiousness of the bill, by showing that the southern
section of the Union was only included in the "American System" for
its burdens, and not for its benefits. Mr. McDuffie, in the House
of Representatives, inveighed bitterly against it, and spoke the
general feeling of the Southern States when he said:
"Sir, if the union of these States shall ever be severed,
and their liberties subverted, the historian who records
these disasters will have to ascribe them to measures of this
description. I do sincerely believe that neither this government
nor any free government, can exist for a quarter of a century,
under such a system of legislation. Its inevitable tendency
is to corrupt, not only the public functionaries, but all
those portions of the Union and classes of society who have
an interest, real or imaginary, in the bounties it provides,
by taxing other sections and other classes. What, sir, is the
essential characteristic of a freeman? It is that independence
which results from an habitual reliance upon his own resources
and his own labor for his support. He is not in fact a freeman,
who habitually looks to the government for pecuniary bounties.
And I confess that nothing in the conduct of those who are
the prominent advocates of this system, has excited more
apprehension and alarm in my mind, than the constant efforts
made by all of them, from the Secretary of the Treasury down
to the humblest coadjutor, to impress upon the public mind,
the idea that national prosperity and individual wealth are
to be derived, not from individual industry and economy, but
from government bounties. An idea more fatal to liberty could
not be inculcated. I said, on another occasion, that the days
of Roman liberty were numbered when the people consented to
receive bread from the public granaries. From that moment it
was not the patriot who had shown the greatest capacity and
made the greatest sacrifices to serve the republic, but the
demagogue who would promise to distribute most profusely the
spoils of the plundered provinces, that was elevated to office
by a degenerate and mercenary populace. Every thing became
venal, even in the country of Fabricius, until finally the
empire itself was sold at public auction! And what, sir, is
the nature and tendency of the system we are discussing? It
bears an analogy, but too lamentably striking, to that which
corrupted the republican purity of the Roman people. God forbid
that it should consummate its triumph over the public liberty,
by a similar catastrophe, though even that is an event by no
means improbable, if we continue to legislate periodically in
this way, and to connect the election of our Chief Magistrate
with the question of dividing out the spoils of certain
States--degraded into Roman provinces--among the influential
capitalists of the other States of this Union! Sir, when I
consider that, by a single act like the present, from five to
ten millions of dollars may be transferred annually from one
part of the community to another; when I consider the disguise
of disinterested patriotism under which the basest and most
profligate ambition may perpetrate such an act of injustice
and political prostitution, I cannot hesitate, for a moment,
to pronounce this very system of indirect bounties, the most
stupendous instrument of corruption ever placed in the hands
of public functionaries. It brings ambition and avarice and
wealth into a combination, which it is fearful to contemplate,
because it is almost impossible to resist. Do we not perceive,
at this very moment, the extraordinary and melancholy spectacle
of less than one hundred thousand capitalists, by means of this
unhallowed combination, exercising an absolute and despotic
control over the opinions of eight millions of free citizens,
and the fortunes and destinies of ten millions? Sir, I will
not anticipate or forebode evil. I will not permit myself to
believe that the Presidency of the United States will ever be
bought and sold, by this system of bounties and prohibitions.
But I must say that there are certain quarters of this Union in
which, if a candidate for the Presidency were to come forward
with the Harrisburg tariff in his hand, nothing could resist his
pretensions, if his adversary were opposed to this unjust system
of oppression. Yes, sir, that bill would be a talisman which
would give a charmed existence to the candidate who would pledge
himself to support it. And although he were covered with all the
"multiplying villanies of nature," the most immaculate patriot
and profound statesman in the nation could hold no competition
with him, if he should refuse to grant this new species of
imperial donative."
Allusions were constantly made to the combination of manufacturing
capitalists and politicians in pressing this bill. There was
evidently foundation for the imputation. The scheme of it had
been conceived in a convention of manufacturers in the State of
Pennsylvania, and had been taken up by politicians, and was pushed
as a party measure, and with the visible purpose of influencing the
presidential election. In fact these tariff bills, each exceeding
the other in its degree of protection, had become a regular
appendage of our presidential elections--coming round in every cycle
of four years, with that returning event. The year 1816 was the
starting point: 1820, and 1824, and now 1828, having successively
renewed the measure, with successive augmentations of duties. The
South believed itself impoverished to enrich the North by this
system; and certainly a singular and unexpected result had been seen
in these two sections. In the colonial state, the Southern were
the rich part of the colonies, and expected to do well in a state
of independence. They had the exports, and felt secure of their
prosperity: not so of the North, whose agricultural resources were
few, and who expected privations from the loss of British favor.
But in the first half century after Independence this expectation
was reversed. The wealth of the North was enormously aggrandized:
that of the South had declined. Northern towns had become great
cities: Southern cities had decayed, or become stationary; and
Charleston, the principal port of the South, was less considerable
than before the Revolution. The North became a money-lender to the
South, and southern citizens made pilgrimages to northern cities,
to raise money upon the hypothecation of their patrimonial estates.
And this in the face of a southern export since the Revolution to
the value of eight hundred millions of dollars!--a sum equal to
the product of the Mexican mines since the days of Cortez! and
twice or thrice the amount of their product in the same fifty
years. The Southern States attributed this result to the action
of the federal government--its double action of levying revenue
upon the industry of one section of the Union and expending it in
another--and especially to its protective tariffs. To some degree
this attribution was just, but not to the degree assumed; which is
evident from the fact that the protective system had then only been
in force for a short time--since the year 1816; and the reversed
condition of the two sections of the Union had commenced before that
time. Other causes must have had some effect: but for the present
we look to the protective system; and, without admitting it to have
done all the mischief of which the South complained, it had yet done
enough to cause it to be condemned by every friend to equal justice
among the States--by every friend to the harmony and stability of
the Union--by all who detested sectional legislation--by every
enemy to the mischievous combination of partisan politics with
national legislation. And this was the feeling with the mass of
the democratic members who voted for the tariff of 1828, and who
were determined to act upon that feeling upon the overthrow of the
political party which advocated the protective system; and which
overthrow they believed to be certain at the ensuing presidential
election.
CHAPTER XXXV.
THE PUBLIC LANDS--THEIR PROPER DISPOSITION--GRADUATED
PRICES--PRE-EMPTION RIGHTS--DONATIONS TO SETTLERS.
About the year 1785 the celebrated Edmund Burke brought a bill
into the British House of Commons for the sale of the crown
lands, in which he laid down principles in political economy, in
relation to such property, profoundly sagacious in themselves,
applicable to all sovereign landed possessions, whether of kings or
republics--applicable in all countries--and nowhere more applicable
and less known or observed, than in the United States. In the course
of the speech in support of his bill he said:
"Lands sell at the current rate, and nothing can sell for more.
But be the price what it may; a great object is always answered,
whenever any property is transferred from hands which are not
fit for that property, to those that are. The buyer and the
seller must mutually profit by such a bargain; and, what rarely
happens in matters of revenue, the relief of the subject will
go hand in hand with the profit of the Exchequer. * * * The
revenue to be derived from the sale of the forest lands will
not be so considerable as many have imagined; and I conceive it
would be unwise to screw it up to the utmost, or even to suffer
bidders to enhance, according to their eagerness, the purchase
of objects, wherein the expense of that purchase may weaken the
capital to be employed in their cultivation. * * * The principal
revenue which I propose to draw from these uncultivated wastes,
is to spring from the improvement and population of the kingdom;
events infinitely more advantageous to the revenues of the crown
than the rents of the best landed estate which it can hold.
* * * It is thus I would dispose of the unprofitable landed
estates of the crown: _throw them into the mass of private
property_: by which they will come, through the course of
circulation and through the political secretions of the State
into well-regulated revenue. * * * Thus would fall an expensive
agency, with all the influence which attends it."
I do not know how old, or rather, how young I was, when I first
took up the notion that sales of land by a government to its own
citizens, and to the highest bidder, was false policy; and that
gratuitous grants to actual settlers was the true policy, and their
labor the true way of extracting national wealth and strength from
the soil. It might have been in childhood, when reading the Bible,
and seeing the division of the promised land among the children of
Israel: it might have been later, and in learning the operation
of the feudal system in giving lands to those who would defend
them: it might have been in early life in Tennessee, in seeing the
fortunes and respectability of many families derived from the 640
acre head-rights which the State of North Carolina had bestowed upon
the first settlers. It was certainly before I had read the speech
of Burke from which the extract above is taken; for I did not see
that speech until 1826; and seventeen years before that time, when
a very young member of the General Assembly of Tennessee, I was
fully imbued with the doctrine of donations to settlers, and acted
upon the principle that was in me, as far as the case admitted,
in advocating the pre-emption claims of the settlers on Big and
Little Pigeon, French Broad, and Nolichucky. And when I came to the
then Territory of Missouri in 1815, and saw land exposed to sale
to the highest bidder, and lead mines and salt springs reserved
from sale, and rented out for the profit of the federal treasury,
I felt repugnance to the whole system, and determined to make war
upon it whenever I should have the power. The time came round with
my election to the Senate of the United States in 1820: and the
years 1824, '26, and '28, found me doing battle for an ameliorated
system of disposing of our public lands; and with some success.
The pre-emption system was established, though at first the
pre-emption claimant was stigmatized as a trespasser, and repulsed
as a criminal; the reserved lead mines and salt springs, in the
State of Missouri, were brought into market, like other lands; iron
ore lands, intended to have been withheld from sale, were rescued
from that fate, and brought into market. Still the two repulsive
features of the federal land system--sales to the highest bidder,
and donations to no one--with an arbitrary minimum price which
placed the cost of all lands, good and bad, at the same uniform rate
(after the auctions were over), at one dollar twenty-five cents per
acre. I resolved to move against the whole system, and especially
in favor of graduated prices, and donations to actual and destitute
settlers. I did so in a bill, renewed annually for a long time; and
in speeches which had more effect upon the public mind than upon
the federal legislation--counteracted as my plan was by schemes of
dividing the public lands, or the money arising from their sale,
among the States. It was in support of one of these bills that I
produced the authority of Burke in the extract quoted; and no one
took its spirit and letter more promptly and entirely than President
Jackson. He adopted the principle fully, and in one of his annual
messages to Congress recommended that, as soon as the public
(revolutionary) debt should be discharged (to the payment of which
the lands ceded by the States were pledged), that they should CEASE
TO BE A SUBJECT OF REVENUE, AND BE DISPOSED OF CHIEFLY WITH A VIEW
TO SETTLEMENT AND CULTIVATION. His terms of service expired soon
after the extinction of the debt, so that he had not an opportunity
to carry out his wise and beneficent design.
Mr. Burke considered the revenue derived from the sale of crown
lands as a trifle, and of no account, compared to the amount of
revenue derivable from the same lands through their settlement and
cultivation. He was profoundly right! and provably so, both upon
reason and experience. The sale of the land is a single operation.
Some money is received, and the cultivation is disabled to that
extent from its improvement and cultivation. The cultivation is
perennial, and the improved condition of the farmer enables him to
pay taxes, and consume dutiable goods, and to sell the products
which command the imports which pay duties to the government, and
this is the "well-regulated revenue" which comes through the course
of circulation, and through the "political secretions" of the State,
and which Mr. Burke commends above all revenue derived from the
sale of lands. Does any one know the comparative amount of revenue
derived respectively from the sales and from the cultivation of
lands in any one of our new States where the federal government
was the proprietor, and the auctioneer, of the lands? and can he
tell which mode of raising money has been most productive? Take
Alabama, for example. How much has the treasury received for lands
sold within her limits? and how much in duties paid on imports
purchased with the exports derived from her soil? Perfect exactitude
cannot be attained in the answer, but exact enough to know that
the latter already exceeds the former several times, ten times
over; and is perennial and increasing for ever! while the sale of
the land has been a single operation, performed once, and not to
be repeated; and disabling the cultivator by the loss of the money
it took from him. Taken on a large scale, and applied to the whole
United States, and the answer becomes more definite--but still not
entirely exact. The whole annual receipts from land sales at this
time (1850) are about two millions of dollars: the annual receipts
from customs, founded almost entirely upon the direct or indirect
productions of the earth, exceed fifty millions of dollars! giving
a comparative difference of twenty-five to one for cultivation
over sales; and triumphantly sustaining Mr. Burke's theory. I have
looked into the respective amounts of federal revenue, received
into the treasury from these two sources, since the establishment
of the federal government; and find the customs to have yielded,
in that time, a fraction over one thousand millions of dollars
net--the lands to have yielded a little less than one hundred and
thirty millions gross, not forty millions clear after paying all
expenses of surveys, sales and management. This is a difference of
twenty-five to one--with the further difference of endless future
production from one, and no future production from the land once
sold; that is to say, the same acre of land is paying for ever
through cultivation, and pays but once for itself in purchase.
Thus far I have considered Mr. Burke's theory only under one of
its aspects--the revenue aspect: he presents another--that of
population--and here all measure of comparison ceases. The sale of
land brings no people: cultivation produces population: and people
are the true wealth and strength of nations. These various views
were presented, and often enforced, in the course of the several
speeches which I made in support of my graduation and donation
bills: and, on the point of population, and of freeholders, against
tenants, I gave utterance to these sentiments:
"Tenantry is unfavorable to freedom. It lays the foundation for
separate orders in society, annihilates the love of country, and
weakens the spirit of independence. The farming tenant has, in
fact, no country, no hearth, no domestic altar, no household god.
The freeholder, on the contrary, is the natural supporter of a free
government; and it should be the policy of republics to multiply
their freeholders, as it is the policy of monarchies to multiply
tenants. We are a republic, and we wish to continue so: then
multiply the class of freeholders; pass the public lands cheaply and
easily into the hands of the people; sell, for a reasonable price,
to those who are able to pay; and give, without price, to those who
are not. I say give, without price, to those who are not able to
pay; and that which is given, I consider as sold for the best of
prices; for a price above gold and silver; a price which cannot be
carried away by delinquent officers, nor lost in failing banks, nor
stolen by thieves, nor squandered by an improvident and extravagant
administration. It brings a price above rubies--a race of virtuous
and independent laborers, the true supporters of their country, and
the stock from which its best defenders must be drawn.
"'What constitutes a State?
Not high-rais'd battlements, nor labored mound,
Thick wall, nor moated gate;
Nor cities proud, with spires and turrets crown'd,
Nor starr'd and spangled courts,
Where low-born baseness wafts perfume to pride:
But MEN! high-minded men,
Who their _duties_ know, but know their RIGHTS,
And, knowing, _dare_ maintain them.'"
In favor of low prices, and donations, I quoted the example and
condition of the Atlantic States of this Union--all settled under
liberal systems of land distribution which dispensed almost (or
altogether in many instances) with sales for money. I said:
"These Atlantic States were donations from the British crown; and
the great proprietors distributed out their possessions with a free
and generous hand. A few shillings for a hundred acres, a nominal
quitrent, and gifts of a hundred, five hundred, and a thousand
acres, to actual settlers: such were the terms on which they dealt
out the soil which is now covered by a nation of freemen. Provinces,
which now form sovereign States, were sold from hand to hand, for
a less sum than the federal government now demands for an area of
two miles square. I could name instances. I could name the State of
Maine--a name, for more reasons than one, familiar and agreeable to
Missouri, and whose pristine territory was sold by Sir Ferdinando
Gorges to the proprietors of the Massachusetts Bay, for twelve
hundred pounds, provincial money. And well it was for Maine that she
was so sold; well it was for her that the modern policy of waiting
for the rise, and sticking at a _minimum_ of $1 25, was not then
in vogue, or else Maine would have been a desert now. Instead of a
numerous, intelligent, and virtuous population, we should have had
trees and wild beasts. My respectable friend, the senator from that
State (Gen. Chandler), would not have been here to watch so steadily
the interest of the public, and to oppose the bills which I bring in
for the relief of the land claimants. And I mention this to have an
opportunity to do justice to the integrity of his heart, and to the
soundness of his understanding--qualities in which he is excelled
by no senator--and to express my belief that we will come together
upon the final passage of this bill: for the cardinal points in
our policy are the same--economy in the public expenditures, and
the prompt extinction of the public debt. I say, well it was for
Maine that she was sold for the federal price of four sections of
Alabama pine, Louisiana swamp, or Missouri prairie. Well it was for
every State in this Union, that their soil was sold for a song,
or given as a gift to whomsoever would take it. Happy for them,
and for the liberty of the human race, that the kings of England
and the "Lords Proprietors," did not conceive the luminous idea of
waiting for the rise, and sticking to a _minimum_ of $1 25 per acre.
Happy for Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio, that they were settled
under _States_, and not under the federal government. To this happy
exemption they owe their present greatness and prosperity. When
they were settled, the State laws prevailed in the acquisition of
lands; and donations, pre-emptions, and settlement rights, and
sales at two cents the acre, were the order of the day. I include
Ohio, and I do it with a knowledge of what I say: for ten millions
of her soil,--that which now constitutes her chief wealth and
strength,--were settled upon the liberal principles which I mention.
The federal system only fell upon fifteen millions of her soil;
and, of that quantity, the one half now lies waste and useless,
paying no tax to the State, yielding nothing to agriculture, desert
spots in the midst of a smiling garden, "waiting for the rise,"
and exhibiting, in high and bold relief, the miserable folly of
prescribing an arbitrary _minimum_ upon that article which is the
gift of God to man, and which no parental government has ever
attempted to convert into a source of revenue and an article of
merchandise."
Against the policy of holding up refuse lands until they should rise
to the price of good land, and against the reservation of saline and
mineral lands, and making money by boiling salt water, and digging
lead ore, or holding a body of tenantry to boil and dig, I delivered
these sentiments:
"I do trust and believe, Mr. President, that the Executive of
this free government will not be second to George the Third
in patriotism, nor an American Congress prove itself inferior
to a British Parliament in political wisdom. I do trust and
believe that this whole system of holding up land for the rise,
endeavoring to make revenue out of the soil of the country,
leasing and renting lead mines, salt springs, and iron banks,
with all its train of penal laws and civil and military agents,
will be condemned and abolished. I trust that the President
himself will give the subject a place in his next message, and
lend the aid of his recommendation to the success of so great
an object. The mining operations, especially, should fix the
attention of the Congress. They are a reproach to the age in
which we live. National mining is condemned by every dictate of
prudence, by every maxim of political economy, and by the voice
of experience in every age and country. And yet we are engaged
in that business. This splendid federal government, created
for great _national_ purposes, has gone to work among the lead
mines of Upper Louisiana, to give us a second edition, no doubt,
of the celebrated "_Mississippi Scheme_" of John Law. For that
scheme was nothing more nor less than a project of making money
out of the same identical mines. Yes, Mr. President, upon the
same identical theatre, among the same holes and pits, dug by
_John Law's_ men in 1720; among the cinders, ashes, broken
picks, and mouldering furnaces, of that celebrated projector, is
our federal government now at work; and, that no circumstance
should be wanting to complete the folly of such an undertaking,
the task of extracting "_revenue_" from these operations, is
confided, not to the _Treasury_, but to the War Department.
"Salines and salt springs are subjected to the same
system--reserved from sale, and leased for the purpose of
raising revenue. But I flatter myself that I see the end of this
branch of the system. The debate which took place a few weeks
ago on the bill to repeal the existing duty upon salt, is every
word of it applicable to the bill which I have introduced for
the sale of the reserved salt springs. I claim the benefit of it
accordingly, and shall expect the support of all the advocates
for the repeal of that tax, whenever the bill for the sale of
the salines shall be put to the vote."
Argument and sarcasm had their effect, in relation to the mineral
and saline reserves in the State in which I lived--the State of
Missouri. An act was passed in 1828 to throw them into the mass of
private property--to sell them like other public lands. And thus
the federal government, in that State, got rid of a degrading and
unprofitable pursuit; and the State got citizen freeholders instead
of federal tenants; and profitably were developed in the hands of
individuals the pursuits of private industry which languished and
stagnated in the hands of federal agents and tenants. But it was
continued for some time longer (so far as lead ore was concerned)
on the Upper Mississippi, and until an argument arrived which
commanded the respect of the legislature: it was the argument of
profit and loss--an argument which often touches a nerve which is
dead to reason. Mr. Polk, in his message to Congress at the session
of 1845-'46 (the first of his administration), stated that the
expenses of the system during the preceding four years--those of
Mr. Tyler's administration--were twenty-six thousand one hundred
and eleven dollars, and eleven cents; and the whole amount of rents
received during the same period was six thousand three hundred and
fifty-four dollars, and seventy-four cents: and recommended the
abolition of the whole system, and the sale of the reserved mines;
which was done; and thus was completed for the Upper Mississippi
what I had done for Missouri near twenty years before.
The advantage of giving land to those who would settle and cultivate
it, was illustrated in one of my speeches, by reciting the case of
"Granny White"--well known in her time to all the population of
Middle Tennessee, and especially to all who travelled south from
Nashville, along the great road which crossed the "divide" between
the Cumberland and Harpeth waters, at the evergreen tree which
gave name to the gap--the Holly Tree Gap. The aged woman, and her
fortunes, were thus introduced into our senatorial debates and
lodged on a page of our parliamentary history, to enlighten, by her
incidents, the councils of national legislation:
"At the age of sixty, she had been left a widow, in one of
the counties in the tide-water region of North Carolina. Her
poverty was so extreme, that when she went to the county court
to get a couple of little orphan grandchildren bound to her, the
Justices refused to let her have them, because she could not
give security to keep them off the parish. This compelled her
to emigrate; and she set off with the two little boys, upon a
journey of eight or nine hundred miles, to what was then called
"_the Cumberland Settlement_." Arrived in the neighborhood of
Nashville, a generous-hearted Irishman (his name deserves to be
remembered--Thomas McCrory) let her have a corner of his land,
on her own terms,--a nominal price and indefinite credit. It was
fifty acres in extent, and comprised the two faces of a pair of
confronting hills, whose precipitous declivities lacked a few
degrees, and but a few, of mathematical perpendicularity. Mr. B.
said he knew it well, for he had seen the old lady's pumpkins
propped and supported with stakes, to prevent their ponderous
weight from tearing up the vine, and rolling to the bottom of
the hills. There was just room at their base for a road to run
between, and not room for a house, to find a level place for its
foundation; for which purpose a part of the hill had to be dug
away. Yet, from this hopeless beginning, with the advantage of
a little piece of ground that was her own, this aged widow, and
two little grandchildren, of eight or nine years old, advanced
herself to comparative wealth: money, slaves, horses, cattle;
and her fields extended into the valley below, and her orphan
grandchildren, raised up to honor and independence: these were
the fruits of economy and industry, and a noble illustration
of the advantage _of giving land to the poor_. But the federal
government would have demanded sixty-two dollars and fifty
cents for that land, cash in hand; and old Granny White and her
grandchildren might have lived in misery and sunk into vice,
before the opponents of this bill would have taken less."
I quoted the example of all nations, ancient and modern, republican
and monarchical, in favor of giving lands, in parcels suitable to
their wants, to meritorious cultivators; and denied that there was
an instance upon earth, except that of our own federal government,
which made merchandise of land to its citizens--exacted the highest
price it could obtain--and refused to suffer the country to be
settled until it was paid for. The "promised land" was divided
among the children of Israel--the women getting a share where
there was no man at the head of the family--as with the daughters
of Manasseh. All the Atlantic States, when British colonies, were
settled upon gratuitous donations, or nominal sales. Kentucky and
Tennessee were chiefly settled in the same way. The two Floridas,
and Upper and Lower Louisiana, were gratuitously distributed by
the kings of Spain to settlers, in quantities adapted to their
means of cultivation--and with the whole vacant domain to select
from according to their pleasure. Land is now given to settlers in
Canada; and £30,000 sterling, has been voted at a single session
of Parliament, to aid emigrants in their removal to these homes,
and commencing life upon them. The republic of Colombia now gives
400 acres to a settler: other South American republics give more or
less. Quoting these examples, I added:
"Such, Mr. President, is the conduct of the free republics of
the South. I say republics: for it is the same in all of them,
and it would be tedious and monotonous to repeat their numerous
decrees. In fact, throughout the New World, from Hudson's
Bay to Cape Horn (with the single exception of these United
States), land, the gift of God to man, is also the gift of the
government to its citizens. Nor is this wise policy confined to
the New World. It prevails even in Asia; and the present age has
seen--we ourselves have seen--published in the capital of the
European world, the proclamation of the King of Persia, inviting
Christians to go to the ancient kingdom of Cyrus, Cambyses
and Darius, and there receive gifts of land--first rate,
not refuse--with a total exemption from taxes, and the free
enjoyment of their religion. Here is the proclamation: listen to
it.
_The Proclamation._
"'Mirza Mahomed Saul, Ambassador to England, in the name, and
by the authority of Abbas Mirza, King of Persia, offers to
those who shall emigrate to Persia, gratuitous grants of land,
good for the production of wheat, barley, rice, cotton, and
fruits,--free from taxes or contributions of any kind, and with
the free enjoyment of their religion; THE KING'S OBJECT BEING TO
IMPROVE HIS COUNTRY.
"'London, July 8th, 1823.'"
The injustice of holding all lands at one uniform price, waiting
for the cultivation of the good land to give value to the poor,
and for the poorest to rise to the value of the richest, was shown
in a reference to private sales, of all articles; in the whole of
which sales the price was graduated to suit different qualities
of the same article. The heartless and miserly policy of waiting
for government land to be enhanced in value by the neighboring
cultivation of private land, was denounced as unjust as well as
unwise. The new States of the West were the sufferers by this
federal land policy. They were in a different condition from other
States. In these others, the local legislatures held the primary
disposal of the soil,--so much as remained vacant within their
limits,--and being of the same community, made equitable alienations
among their constituents. In the new States it was different. The
federal government held the primary disposition of the soil; and
the majority of Congress (being independent of the people of these
States), was less heedful of their wants and wishes. They were as a
stepmother, instead of a natural mother: and the federal government
being sole purchaser from foreign nations, and sole recipient of
Indian cessions, it became the monopolizer of vacant lands in the
West: and this monopoly, like all monopolies, resulted in hardships
to those upon whom it acted. Few, or none of our public men, had
raised their voice against this hard policy before I came into the
national councils. My own was soon raised there against it: and it
is certain that a great amelioration has taken place in our federal
land policy during my time: and that the sentiment of Congress, and
that of the public generally, has become much more liberal in land
alienations; and is approximating towards the beneficent systems
of the rest of the world. But the members in Congress from the new
States should not intermit their exertions, nor vary their policy;
and should fix their eyes steadily upon the period of the speedy
extinction of the federal title to all the lands within the limits
of their respective States;--to be effected by pre-emption rights,
by donations, and by the sale (of so much as shall be sold), at
graduated prices,--adapted to the different qualities of the tracts,
to be estimated according to the time it has remained in market
unsold--and by liberal grants to objects of general improvement,
both national and territorial.
CHAPTER XXXVI.
CESSION OF A PART OF THE TERRITORY OF ARKANSAS TO THE CHEROKEE
INDIANS.
Arkansas was an organized territory, and had been so since the
year 1819. Her western boundary was established by act of Congress
in May 1824 (chiefly by the exertions of her then delegate, Henry
W. Conway),--and was an extension of her existing boundary on
that side; and for national and State reasons. It was an outside
territory--beyond the Mississippi--a frontier both to Mexico (then
brought deep into the Valley of the Mississippi by the Florida
treaty which gave away Texas), and to the numerous Indian tribes
then being removed from the South Atlantic States to the west of
the Mississippi. It was, therefore, a point of national policy to
make her strong--to make her a first class State,--both for her own
sake and that of the Union,--and equal to all the exigencies of her
advanced and frontier position. The extension was on the west--the
boundaries on the other three sides being fixed and immovable--and
added a fertile belt--a parallelogram of forty miles by three
hundred along her whole western border--and which was necessary to
compensate for the swamp lands in front on the river, and to give
to her certain valuable salt springs there existing, and naturally
appurtenant to the territory, and essential to its inhabitants. Even
with this extension the territory was still deficient in arable
land--not as strong as her frontier position required her to be,
nor susceptible (on account of swamps and sterile districts) of
the population and cultivation which her superficial contents and
large boundaries would imply her to be. Territorially, and in mere
extent, the western addition was a fourth part of the territory:
agriculturally, and in capacity for population, the addition might
be equal to half of the whole territory; and its acquisition was
celebrated as a most auspicious event for Arkansas at the time that
it occurred.
In the month of May, 1828, by a treaty negotiated at Washington by
the Secretary at War, Mr. James Barbour, on one side, and the chiefs
of the Cherokee nation on the other, this new western boundary
for the territory was abolished--the old line re-established:
and what had been an addition to the territory of Arkansas, was
ceded to the Cherokees. On the ratification of this treaty several
questions arose, all raised by myself--some of principle, some of
expediency--as, whether a law of Congress could be abolished by
an Indian treaty? and whether it was expedient so to reduce, and
thus weaken the territory (and future State) of Arkansas? I was
opposed to the treaty, and held the negative of both questions, and
argued against them with zeal and perseverance. The supremacy of
the treaty-making power I held to be confined to subjects within
its sphere, and quoted "Jefferson's Manual," to show that that was
the sense in which the clause in the constitution was understood.
The treaty-making power was supreme; but that supremacy was within
its proper orbit, and free from the invasion of the legislative,
executive, or judicial department. The proper objects of treaties
were international interests, which neither party could regulate
by municipal law, and which required a joint consent, and a
double execution, to give it effect. Tried by this test, and this
Indian treaty lost its supremacy. The subject was one of ordinary
legislation, and specially and exclusively confined to Congress.
It was to repeal a law which Congress had made in relation to
territory; and to reverse the disposition which Congress had made
of a part of its territory. To Congress it belonged to dispose of
territory; and to her it belonged to repeal her own laws. The treaty
avoided the word "repeal," while doing the thing: it used the word
"abolish"--which was the same in effect, and more arrogant and
offensive--not appropriate to legislation, and evidently used to
avoid the use of a word which would challenge objection. If the word
"repeal" had been used, every one would have felt that the ordinary
legislation of Congress was flagrantly invaded; and the avoidance
of that word, and the substitution of another of the same meaning,
could have no effect in legalizing a transaction which would be
condemned under its proper name. And so I held the treaty to be
invalid for want of a proper subject to act upon, and because it
invaded the legislative department.
The inexpediency of the treaty was in the question of crippling and
mutilating Arkansas, reducing her to the class of weak States, and
that against all the reasons which had induced Congress, four years
before, to add on twelve thousand square miles to her domain; and
to almost double the productive and inhabitable capacity of the
Territory, and future State, by the character of the country added.
I felt this wrong to Arkansas doubly, both as a neighbor to my own
State, and because, having a friendship for the delegate, as well
as for his territory, I had exerted myself to obtain the addition
which had been thus cut off. I argued, as I thought, conclusively;
but in vain. The treaty was largely ratified, and by a strong
slaveholding vote, notwithstanding it curtailed slave territory, and
made soil free which was then slave. Anxious to defeat the treaty
for the benefit of Arkansas, I strongly presented this consequence,
showing that there was, not only legal, but actually slavery upon
the amputated part--that these twelve thousand square miles were
inhabited, organized into counties, populous in some parts, and
with the due proportion of slaves found in a southern and planting
State. Nothing would do. It was a southern measure, negotiated, on
the record, by a southern secretary at war, in reality by the clerk
McKinney; and voted for by nineteen approving slaveholding senators
against four dissenting. The affirmative vote was: Messrs. Barton,
Berrien, Bouligny, Branch, Ezekiel Chambers, Cobb, King of Alabama,
McKinley, McLane of Delaware, Macon, Ridgely, Smith of Maryland,
Smith of South Carolina, John Tyler of Virginia, and Williams of
Mississippi. The negative was, Messrs. Benton, Eaton, Rowan, and
Tazewell.--Mr. Calhoun was then Vice-President, and did not vote;
but he was in favor of the treaty, and assisted its ratification
through his friends. The House of Representatives voted the
appropriations to carry it into effect; and thus acquiesced in the
repeal of an act of Congress by the President, Senate, and Cherokee
Indians; and these appropriations were voted with the general
concurrence of the southern members of the House. And thus another
slice, and a pretty large one (twelve thousand square miles), was
taken off of slave territory in the former province of Louisiana;
which about completed the excision of what had been left for slave
State occupation after the Missouri compromise of 1820, and the
cession to Texas of contemporaneous date, and previous cessions
to Indian tribes. And all this was the work of southern men, who
then saw no objection to the Congressional legislation which acted
upon slavery in territories--which further curtailed, and even
extinguished slave soil in all the vast expanse of the former
Louisiana--save and except the comparative little that was left in
the State of Missouri and in the mutilated Territory of Arkansas.
The reason of the southern members for promoting this amputation of
Arkansas in favor of the Cherokees, was simply to assist in inducing
their removal by adding the best part of Arkansas, with its salt
springs, to the ample millions of acres west of that territory
already granted to them; but it was a gratuitous sacrifice, as the
large part of the tribe had already emigrated to the seven millions
of acres, and the remainder were waiting for moneyed inducements
to follow. And besides, the desire for this removal could have
no effect upon the constitutional power of Congress to legislate
upon slavery in territories, or upon the policy which curtails the
boundaries of a future slave State.
I have said that the amputated part of Arkansas was an organized
part of the territory, divided into counties, settled and
cultivated. Now, what became of these inhabitants?--their property?
and possessions? They were bought out by the federal government!
A simultaneous act was passed, making a donation of three hundred
and twenty acres of land (within the remaining part of Arkansas),
to each head of a family who would retire from the amputated part;
and subjecting all to military removal that did not retire. It was
done. They all withdrew. Three hundred and twenty acres of land in
front to attract them, and regular troops in the rear to push them,
presented a motive power adequate to its object; and twelve thousand
square miles of slave territory was evacuated by its inhabitants,
with their flocks, and herds, and slaves; and not a word was said
about it; and the event has been forgotten. But it is necessary to
recall its recollection, as an important act, in itself, in relation
to the new State of Arkansas--as being the work of the South--and as
being necessary to be known in order to understand subsequent events.
CHAPTER XXXVII.
RENEWAL OF THE OREGON JOINT OCCUPATION CONVENTION.
The American settlement at the mouth of the Columbia, or Oregon,
was made in 1811. It was an act of private enterprise, done by the
eminent merchant, Mr. John Jacob Astor, of New-York; and the young
town christened after his own name, Astoria: but it was done with
the countenance and stipulated approbation of the government of
the United States; and an officer of the United States navy--the
brave Lieutenant Thorn, who was with Decatur at Tripoli, and who
afterwards blew up his ship in Nootka Sound to avoid her capture
by the savages (blowing himself, crew and savages all into the
air),--was allowed to command his (Mr. Astor's) leading vessel, in
order to impress upon the enterprise the seal of nationality. This
town was captured during the war of 1812, by a ship of war detached
for that purpose, by Commodore Hillyar, commanding a British
squadron in the Pacific Ocean. No attempt was made to recover it
during the war; and, at Ghent, after some efforts on the part of
the British commissioners, to set up a title to it, its restitution
was stipulated under the general clause which provided for the
restoration of all places captured by either party. But it was not
restored. An empty ceremony was gone through to satisfy the words of
the treaty, and to leave the place in the hands of the British. An
American agent, Mr. John Baptist Prevost, was sent to Valparaiso,
to go in a British sloop of war (the Blossom) to receive the place,
to sign a receipt for it, and leave it in the hands of the British.
This was in the autumn of the year 1818; and coincident with that
nominal restitution was the conclusion of a convention in London
between the United States and British government, for the joint
occupation of the Columbia for ten years--Mr. Gallatin and Mr.
Rush the American negotiators--if those can be called negotiators
who are tied down to particular instructions. The joint occupancy
was provided for, and in these words: "That any country claimed by
either party on the northwest coast of America, together with its
harbors, bays, and creeks, and the navigation of all rivers within
the same, be free and open, for the term of ten years, to the
subjects, citizens, and vessels of the two powers; without prejudice
to any claim which either party might have to any part of the
country."--I was a practising lawyer at St. Louis, no way engaged in
politics, at the time this convention was published; but I no sooner
saw it than I saw its delusive nature--its one-sidedness--and the
whole disastrous consequences which were to result from it to the
United States; and immediately wrote and published articles against
it: of which the following is an extract:
"This is a specimen of the skill with which the diplomatic
art deposits the seeds of a new contestation in the assumed
settlement of an existing one,--and gives unequal privileges in
words of equality,--and breeds a serious question, to be ended
perhaps by war, where no question at all existed. Every word
of the article for this joint occupation is a deception and a
blunder--suggesting a belief for which there is no foundation,
granting privileges for which there is no equivalent, and
presenting ambiguities which require to be solved--peradventure
by the sword. It speaks as if there was a mutuality of countries
on the northwest coast to which the article was applicable,
and a mutuality of benefits to accrue to the citizens of both
governments by each occupying the country claimed by the other.
Not so the fact. There is but one country in question, and
that is our own;--and of this the British are to have equal
possession with ourselves, and we no possession of theirs. The
Columbia is ours; Frazer's River is a British possession to
which no American ever went, or ever will go. The convention
gives a joint right of occupying the ports and harbors, and of
navigating the rivers of each other. This would imply that each
government possessed in that quarter, ports, and harbors, and
navigable rivers; and were about to bring them into hotch-potch
for mutual enjoyment. No such thing. There is but one port,
and that the mouth of the Columbia--but one river, and that
the Columbia itself: and both port and river our own. We give
the equal use of these to the British, and receive nothing in
return. The convention says that the "claim" of neither party
is to be prejudiced by the joint possession. This admits that
Great Britain has a claim--a thing never admitted before by
us, nor pretended by her. At Ghent she stated no claim, and
could state none. Her ministers merely asked for the river as
a boundary, as being the most convenient; and for the use of
the harbor at its mouth, as being necessary to their ships and
trade; but stated no claim. Our commissioners reported that they
(the British commissioners) endeavored 'to lay a nest-egg' for
a future pretension; which they failed to do at Ghent in 1815,
but succeeded in laying in London in 1818; and before the ten
years are out, a full grown fighting chicken will be hatched
of that egg. There is no mutuality in any thing. We furnish
the whole stake--country, river, harbor; and shall not even
maintain the joint use of our own. We shall be driven out of it,
and the British remain sole possessors. The fur trade is the
object. It will fare with our traders on the Columbia under this
convention as it fared with them on the Miami of the Lakes (and
on the lakes themselves), under the British treaties of '94 and
'96, which admitted British traders into our territories. Our
traders will be driven out; and that by the fair competition
of trade, even if there should be no foul play. The difference
between free and dutied goods, would work that result. The
British traders pay no duties: ours pay above an average of
fifty per centum. No trade can stand against such odds. But the
competition will not be fair. The savages will be incited to
kill and rob our traders, and they will be expelled by violence,
without waiting the slower, but equally certain process, of
expulsion by underselling. The result then is, that we admit
the British into our country, our river, and our harbor; and
we get no admittance into theirs, for they have none--Frazer's
River and New Caledonia being out of the question--that they
will become sole possessors of our river, our harbor, and our
country; and at the end of the ten years will have an admitted
'claim' to our property, and the actual possession of it."
Thus I wrote in the year 1818, when the joint occupation convention
of that year was promulgated. I wrote in advance; and long before
the ten years were out, it was all far more than verified. Our
traders were not only driven from the mouth of the Columbia River,
but from all its springs and branches;--not only from all the Valley
of the Columbia, but from the whole region of the Rocky Mountains
between 49 and 42 degrees;--not only from all this mountain region,
but from the upper waters of all our far distant rivers--the
Missouri, the Yellow Stone, the Big Horn, the North Platte; and
all their mountain tributaries. And, by authentic reports made to
our government, not less than five hundred of our citizens had
been killed, nor less than five hundred thousand dollars worth
of goods and furs robbed from them;--the British remaining the
undisturbed possessors of all the Valley of the Columbia, acting
as its masters, and building forts from the sea to the mountains.
This was the effect of the first joint occupation treaty, and every
body in the West saw its approaching termination with pleasure; but
the false step which the government had made induced another. They
had admitted a "claim" on the part of Great Britain, and given her
the sole, under the name of a joint, possession; and now to get
her out was the difficulty. It could not be done; and the United
States agreed to a further continued "joint" occupation (as it was
illusively called in the renewed convention), not for ten years
more, but "indefinitely," determinable on one year's notice from
either party to the other. The reason for this indefinite, and
injurious continuance, was set forth in the preamble to the renewed
convention (Mr. Gallatin now the sole United States negotiator);
and recited that the two governments "being desirous to prevent, as
far as possible, all hazard of misunderstanding, and with a view to
give further time for maturing measures which shall have for their
object a more definite settlement of the claims of each party to the
said territory;" did thereupon agree to renew the joint occupation
article of the convention of 1818, &c. Thus, we had, by our
diplomacy in 1818, and by the permitted non-execution of the Ghent
treaty in the delivery of the post and country, hatched a question
which threatened a "misunderstanding" between the two countries;
and for maturing measures for the settlement of which indefinite
time was required--and granted--Great Britain remaining, in the
mean time, sole occupant of the whole country. This was all that she
could ask, and all that we could grant, even if we actually intended
to give up the country.
I was a member of the Senate when this renewed convention was
sent in for ratification, and opposed it with all the zeal and
ability of which I was master: but in vain. The weight of the
administration, the indifference of many to a remote object, the
desire to put off a difficulty, and the delusive argument that we
could terminate it at any time--(a consolation so captivating to
gentle temperaments)--were too strong for reason and fact; and I was
left in a small minority on the question of ratification. But I did
not limit myself to opposition to the treaty. I proposed, as well as
opposed; and digested my opinions into three resolves; and had them
spread on the executive journal, and made part of our parliamentary
history for future reference.
The resolves were: 1. "That it is not expedient for the United
States and Great Britain to treat further in relation to their
claims on the northwest coast of America, on the basis of a joint
occupation by their respective citizens. 2. That it is expedient
that the joint-occupation article in the convention of 1818 be
allowed to expire upon its own limitation. 3. That it is expedient
for the government of the United States to continue to treat with
His Britannic Majesty in relation to said claims, on the basis of
a separation of interests, and the establishment of a permanent
boundary between their dominions westward of the Rocky Mountains, in
the shortest possible time." These resolves were not voted upon; but
the negative vote on the ratification of the convention showed what
the vote would have been if it had been taken. That negative vote
was--Messrs. Benton, Thomas W. Cobb of Georgia, Eaton of Tennessee,
Ellis of Mississippi, Johnson of Kentucky, Kane of Illinois, and
Rowan of Kentucky--in all 7. Eighteen years afterwards, and when
we had got to the cry of "inevitable war," I had the gratification
to see the whole Senate, all Congress, and all the United States,
occupy the same ground in relation to this joint occupation on which
only seven senators stood at the time the convention for it was
ratified.
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1828, AND FURTHER ERRORS OF MONS. DE
TOCQUEVILLE.
General Jackson and Mr. Adams were the candidates;--with the latter,
Mr. Clay (his Secretary of State), so intimately associated in
the public mind, on account of the circumstances of the previous
presidential election in the House of Representatives, that their
names and interests were inseparable during the canvass. General
Jackson was elected, having received 178 electoral votes to 83
received by Mr. Adams. Mr. Richard Rush, of Pennsylvania, was
the vice-presidential candidate on the ticket of Mr. Adams, and
received an equal vote with that gentleman: Mr. Calhoun was the
vice-presidential candidate on the ticket with General Jackson, and
received a slightly less vote--the deficiency being in Georgia,
where the friends of Mr. Crawford still resented his believed
connection with the "A. B. plot." In the previous election, he had
been neutral between General Jackson and Mr. Adams; but was now
decided on the part of the General, and received the same vote every
where, except in Georgia. In this election there was a circumstance
to be known and remembered. Mr. Adams and Mr. Rush were both from
the non-slaveholding--General Jackson and Mr. Calhoun from the
slaveholding States, and both large slave owners themselves--and
both received a large vote (73 each) in the free States--and of
which at least forty were indispensable to their election. There was
no jealousy, or hostile, or aggressive spirit in the North at that
time against the South!
The election of General Jackson was a triumph of democratic
principle, and an assertion of the people's right to govern
themselves. That principle had been violated in the presidential
election in the House of Representatives in the session of 1824-'25;
and the sanction, or rebuke, of that violation was a leading
question in the whole canvass. It was also a triumph over the high
protective policy, and the federal internal improvement policy,
and the latitudinous construction of the constitution; and of the
democracy over the federalists, then called national republicans;
and was the re-establishment of parties on principle, according to
the landmarks of the early ages of the government. For although Mr.
Adams had received confidence and office from Mr. Madison and Mr.
Monroe, and had classed with the democratic party during the fusion
of parties in the "era of good feeling," yet he had previously
been federal; and in the re-establishment of old party lines which
began to take place after the election of Mr. Adams in the House
of Representatives, his affinities, and policy, became those of
his former party: and as a party, with many individual exceptions,
they became his supporters and his strength. General Jackson, on
the contrary, had always been democratic, so classing when he was a
senator in Congress under the administration of the first Mr. Adams,
and when party lines were most straightly drawn, and upon principle:
and as such now receiving the support of men and States which took
their political position at that time, and had maintained it ever
since--Mr. Macon and Mr. Randolph, for example, and the States of
Virginia and Pennsylvania. And here it becomes my duty to notice
an error, or a congeries of errors, of Mons. de Tocqueville, in
relation to the causes of General Jackson's election; and which he
finds exclusively in the glare of a military fame resulting from "a
very ordinary achievement, only to be remembered where battles are
rare." He says:
"General Jackson, whom the Americans have twice elected to the
head of their government, is a man of a violent temper and
mediocre talents. No one circumstance in the whole course of
his career ever proved that he is qualified to govern a free
people; and, indeed, the majority of the enlightened classes of
the Union has always been opposed to him. But he was raised to
the Presidency, and has been maintained in that lofty station,
solely by the recollection of a victory which he gained twenty
years ago, under the walls of New Orleans;--a victory which,
however, was a very ordinary achievement, and which could only
be remembered in a country where battles are rare."--(_Chapter
17._)
This may pass for American history, in Europe and in a foreign
language, and even finds abettors here to make it American history
in the United States, with a preface and notes to enforce and
commend it: but America will find historians of her own to do
justice to the national, and to individual character. In the mean
time I have some knowledge of General Jackson, and the American
people, and the two presidential elections with which they
honored the General; and will oppose it, that is, my knowledge,
to the flippant and shallow statements of Mons. de Tocqueville.
"_A man of violent temper._" I ought to know something about
that--contemporaries will understand the allusion--and I can say
that General Jackson had a good temper, kind and hospitable to
every body, and a feeling of protection in it for the whole human
race, and especially the weaker and humbler part of it. He had few
quarrels on his own account; and probably the very ones of which
Mons. de Tocqueville had heard were accidental, against his will,
and for the succor of friends. "_Mediocre talent, and no capacity
to govern a free people._" In the first place, free people are not
governed by any man, but by laws. But to understand the phrase as
perhaps intended, that he had no capacity for civil administration,
let the condition of the country at the respective periods when
he took up, and when he laid down the administration, answer. He
found the country in domestic distress--pecuniary distress--and
the national and state legislation invoked by leading politicians
to relieve it by empirical remedies;--tariffs, to relieve one part
of the community by taxing the other;--internal improvement, to
distribute pubic money;--a national bank, to cure the paper money
evils of which it was the author;--the public lands the pillage of
broken bank paper;--depreciated currency and ruined exchanges;--a
million and a half of "unavailable funds" in the treasury;--a large
public debt;--the public money the prey of banks;--no gold in the
country--only twenty millions of dollars in silver, and that in
banks which refused, when they pleased, to pay it down in redemption
of their own notes, or even to render back to depositors. Stay
laws, stop laws, replevin laws, baseless paper, the resource in
half the States to save the debtor from his creditor; and national
bankrupt laws from Congress, and local insolvent laws, in the
States, the demand of every session. Indian tribes occupying a
half, or a quarter of the area of southern States, and unsettled
questions of wrong and insult, with half the powers of Europe. Such
was the state of the country when General Jackson became President:
what was it when he left the Presidency? Protective tariffs, and
federal internal improvement discarded; the national bank left to
expire upon its own limitation; the public lands redeemed from
the pillage of broken bank paper; no more "unavailable funds;"
an abundant gold and silver currency; the public debt paid off;
the treasury made independent of banks; the Indian tribes removed
from the States; indemnities obtained from all foreign powers for
all past aggressions, and to new ones committed; several treaties
obtained from great powers that never would treat with us before;
peace, friendship, and commerce with all the world; and the measures
established which, after one great conflict with the expiring Bank
of the United States, and all her affiliated banks in 1837, put an
end to bank dominion in the United States, and all its train of
contractions and expansions, panic and suspension, distress and
empirical relief. This is the answer which the respective periods
of the beginning and the ending of General Jackson's administration
gives to the flippant imputation of no capacity for civil
government. I pass on to the next. "_The majority of the enlightened
classes always opposed to him._" A majority of those classes which
Mons. de Tocqueville would chiefly see in the cities, and along the
highways--bankers, brokers, jobbers, contractors, politicians, and
speculators--were certainly against him, and he as certainly against
them: but the mass of the intelligence of the country was with him!
and sustained him in retrieving the country from the deplorable
condition in which the "enlightened classes" had sunk it! and in
advancing it to that state of felicity at home, and respect abroad,
which has made it the envy and admiration of the civilized world,
and the absorbent of populations of Europe. I pass on. "_Raised to
the Presidency and maintained there solely by the recollection of
the victory at New Orleans._" Here recollection, and military glare,
reverse the action of their ever previous attributes, and become
stronger, instead of weaker, upon the lapse of time. The victory
at New Orleans was gained in the first week of the year 1815; and
did not bear this presidential fruit until fourteen and eighteen
years afterwards, and until three previous good seasons had passed
without production. There was a presidential election in 1816, when
the victory was fresh, and the country ringing, and imaginations
dazzled with it: but it did not make Jackson President, or even
bring him forward as a candidate. The same four years afterwards, at
the election of 1820--not even a candidate then. Four years still
later, at the election of 1824, he became a candidate, and--was
not elected;--receiving but 99 electoral votes out of 261. In the
year 1828 he was first elected, receiving 178 out of 261 votes;
and in 1832 he was a second time elected, receiving 219 out of
288 votes. Surely there must have been something besides an old
military recollection to make these two elections so different from
the two former; and there was! That something else was principle!
and the same that I have stated in the beginning of this chapter
as entering into the canvass of 1828, and ruling its issue. I
pass on to the last disparagement. "A victory which was a very
ordinary achievement, and only to be remembered where battles were
rare." Such was not the battle at New Orleans. It was no ordinary
achievement. It was a victory if 4,600 citizens just called from
their homes, without knowledge of scientific war, under a leader
as little schooled as themselves in that particular, without other
advantages than a slight field work (a ditch and a bank of earth)
hastily thrown up--over double their numbers of British veterans,
survivors of the wars of the French Revolution, victors in the
Peninsula and at Toulouse, under trained generals of the Wellington
school, and with a disparity of loss never before witnessed. On one
side 700 killed (including the first, second and third generals);
1400 wounded; 500 taken prisoners. On the other, six privates
killed, and seven wounded; and the total repulse of an invading army
which instantly fled to its "wooden walls," and never again placed a
hostile foot on American soil. Such an achievement is not ordinary,
much less "very" ordinary. Does Mons. de Tocqueville judge the
importance of victories by the numbers engaged, and the quantity of
blood shed, or by their consequences? If the former, the cannonade
on the heights of Valmy (which was not a battle, nor even a combat,
but a distant cannon firing in which few were hurt), must seem to
him a very insignificant affair. Yet it did what the marvellous
victories of Champaubert, Montmirail, Château-Thierry, Vauchamps
and Montereau could not do--turned back the invader, and saved the
soil of France from the iron hoof of the conqueror's horse! and
was commemorated twelve years afterwards by the great emperor in a
ducal title bestowed upon one of its generals. The victory at New
Orleans did what the connonade at Valmy did--drove back the invader!
and also what it did not do--destroyed the one fourth part of his
force. And, therefore, it is not to be disparaged, and will not
be, by any one who judges victories by their consequences, instead
of by the numbers engaged. And so the victory at New Orleans will
remain in history as one of the great achievements of the world,
in spite of the low opinion which the writer on American democracy
entertains of it. But Mons. de Tocqueville's disparagement of
General Jackson, and his achievement, does not stop at him and his
victory. It goes beyond both, and reaches the American people, their
republican institutions, and the elective franchise: It represents
the people as incapable of self-government--as led off by a little
military glare to elect a man twice President who had not one
qualification for the place, who was violent and mediocre, and whom
the enlightened classes opposed: all most unjustly said, but still
to pass for American history in Europe, and with some Americans at
home.
Regard for Mons. de Tocqueville is the cause of this correction of
his errors: it is a piece of respect which I do not extend to the
riffraff of European writers who come here to pick up the gossip
of the highways, to sell it in Europe for American history, and to
requite with defamation the hospitalities of our houses. He is not
of that class: he is above it: he is evidently not intentionally
unjust. But he is the victim of the company which he kept while
among us; and his book must pay the penalty of the impositions
practised upon him. The character of our country, and the cause of
republican government, require his errors to be corrected: and,
unhappily, I shall have further occasion to perform that duty.
CHAPTER XXXIX.
RETIRING OF MR. MACON.
Philosophic in his temperament and wise in his conduct, governed
in all his actions by reason and judgment, and deeply imbued with
Bible images, this virtuous and patriotic man (whom Mr. Jefferson
called "the last of the Romans)" had long fixed the term of his
political existence at the age which the Psalmist assigns for the
limit of manly life: "The days of our years are threescore years
and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet
is their strength labor and sorrow, for it is soon cut off, and
we fly away." He touched that age in 1828; and, true to all his
purposes, he was true to his resolve in this, and executed it with
the quietude and indifference of an ordinary transaction. He was in
the middle of a third senatorial term, and in the full possession of
all his faculties of mind and body; but his time for retirement had
come--the time fixed by himself; but fixed upon conviction and for
well-considered reasons, and inexorable to him as if fixed by fate.
To the friends who urged him to remain to the end of his term, and
who insisted that his mind was as good as ever, he would answer,
that it was good enough yet to let him know that he ought to quit
office before his mind quit him, and that he did not mean to risk
the fate of the Archbishop of Grenada. He resigned his senatorial
honors as he had worn them--meekly, unostentatiously, in a letter of
thanks and gratitude to the General Assembly of his State;--and gave
to repose at home that interval of thought and quietude which every
wise man would wish to place between the turmoil of life and the
stillness of eternity. He had nine years of this tranquil enjoyment,
and died without pain or suffering June 29th, 1837,--characteristic
in death as in life. It was eight o'clock in the morning when he
felt that the supreme hour had come, had himself full-dressed with
his habitual neatness, walked in the room and lay upon the bed, by
turns conversing kindly with those who were about him, and showing
by his conduct that he was ready and waiting, but hurrying nothing.
It was the death of Socrates, all but the hemlock, and in that full
faith of which the Grecian sage had only a glimmering. He directed
his own grave on the point of a sterile ridge (where nobody would
wish to plough), and covered with a pile of rough flint-stone,
(which nobody would wish to build with), deeming this sterility and
the uselessness of this rock the best security for that undisturbed
repose of the bones which is still desirable to those who are
indifferent to monuments.
In almost all strongly-marked characters there is usually some
incident or sign, in early life, which shows that character, and
reveals to the close observer the type of the future man. So it was
with Mr. Macon. His firmness, his patriotism, his self-denial,
his devotion to duty and disregard of office and emolument; his
modesty, integrity, self-control, and subjection of conduct to the
convictions of reason and the dictates of virtue, all so steadily
exemplified in a long life, were all shown from the early age of
eighteen, in the miniature representation of individual action,
and only confirmed in the subsequent public exhibitions of a long,
beautiful, and exalted career.
He was of that age, and a student at Princeton college, at the time
of the Declaration of American Independence. A small volunteer
corps was then on the Delaware. He quit his books, joined it,
served a term, returned to Princeton, and resumed his studies. In
the year 1778 the Southern States had become a battle-field, big
with their own fate, and possibly involving the issue of the war.
British fleets and armies appeared there, strongly supported by
the friends of the British cause; and the conquest of the South
was fully counted upon. Help was needed in these States; and Mr.
Macon, quitting college, returned to his native county in North
Carolina, joined a militia company as a private, and marched to
South Carolina--then the theatre of the enemy's operations. He had
his share in all the hardships and disasters of that trying time;
was at the fall of Fort Moultrie, surrender of Charleston, defeat
at Camden; and in the rapid winter retreat across the upper part of
North Carolina. He was in the camp on the left bank of the Yadkin
when the sudden flooding of that river, in the brief interval
between the crossing of the Americans and the coming up of the
British, arrested the pursuit of Cornwallis, and enabled Greene to
allow some rest to his wearied and exhausted men. In this camp,
destitute of every thing and with gloomy prospects ahead, a summons
came to Mr. Macon from the Governor of North Carolina, requiring
him to attend a meeting of the General Assembly, of which he had
been elected a member, without his knowledge, by the people of his
county. He refused to go: and the incident being talked of through
the camp, came to the knowledge of the general. Greene was a _man_
himself, and able to know a _man_. He felt at once that, if this
report was true, this young soldier was no common character; and
determined to verify the fact. He sent for the young man, inquired
of him, heard the truth, and then asked for the reason of this
unexpected conduct--this preference for a suffering camp over a
comfortable seat in the General Assembly? Mr. Macon answered him,
in his quaint and sententious way, that he had seen the _faces_ of
the British many times, but had never seen their _backs_, and meant
to stay in the army till he did. Greene instantly saw the material
the young man was made of, and the handle by which he was to be
worked. That material was patriotism; that handle a sense of duty;
and laying hold of this handle, he quickly worked the young soldier
into a different conclusion from the one that he had arrived at. He
told him he could do more good as a member of the General Assembly
than as a soldier; that in the army he was but one man, and in
the General Assembly he might obtain many, with the supplies they
needed, by showing the destitution and suffering which he had seen
in the camp; and that it was his duty to go. This view of duty and
usefulness was decisive. Mr. Macon obeyed the Governor's summons;
and by his representations contributed to obtain the supplies which
enabled Greene to turn back and face Cornwallis,--fight him, cripple
him, drive him further back than he had advanced (for Wilmington is
South of Camden), disable him from remaining in the South (of which,
up to the battle of Guilford, he believed himself to be master); and
sending him to Yorktown, where he was captured, and the war ended.
The philosophy of history has not yet laid hold of the battle of
Guilford, its consequences and effects. That battle made the capture
at Yorktown. The events are told in every history; their connection
and dependence in none. It broke up the plan of Cornwallis in the
South, and changed the plan of Washington in the North. Cornwallis
was to subdue the Southern States, and was doing it until Greene
turned upon him at Guilford. Washington was occupied with Sir Henry
Clinton, then in New-York, with 12,000 British troops. He had formed
the heroic design to capture Clinton and his army (the French fleet
co-operating) in that city, and thereby putting an end to the war.
All his preparations were going on for that grand consummation when
he got the news of the battle of Guilford; the retreat of Cornwallis
to Wilmington, his inability to keep the field in the South, and
his return northward through the lower part of Virginia. He saw his
advantage--an easier prey--and the same result, if successful.
Cornwallis or Clinton, either of them captured, would put an end
to the war. Washington changed his plan, deceived Clinton, moved
rapidly upon the weaker general, captured him and his 7000 men; and
ended the revolutionary war. The battle of Guilford put that capture
into Washington's hands; and thus Guilford and Yorktown became
connected; and the philosophy of history shows their dependence, and
that the lesser event was father to the greater. The State of North
Carolina gave General Greene 25,000 acres of western land for that
day's work, now worth a million of dollars; but the day itself has
not yet obtained its proper place in American history.
The military life of Mr. Macon finished with his departure from
the camp on the Yadkin, and his civil public life commenced on his
arrival at the General Assembly, to which he had been summoned--that
civil public life in which he was continued above forty years
by free elections--representative in Congress under Washington,
Adams, Jefferson, and Madison, and long the Speaker of the House;
senator in Congress under Madison, Monroe, and John Quincy Adams;
and often elected President of the Senate, and until voluntarily
declining; twice refusing to be Postmaster General under Jefferson;
never taking any office but that to which he was elected; and
resigning his last senatorial term when it was only half run. But a
characteristic trait remains to be told of his military life--one
that has neither precedent nor imitation (the example of Washington
being out of the line of comparison): he refused to receive pay, or
to accept promotion, and served three years as a private through
mere devotion to his country. And all the long length of his life
was conformable to this patriotic and disinterested beginning:
and thus the patriotic principles of the future senator were
all revealed in early life, and in the obscurity of an unknown
situation. Conformably to this beginning, he refused to take any
thing under the modern acts of Congress for the benefit of the
surviving officers and soldiers of the Revolution, and voted against
them all, saying they had suffered alike (citizens and military),
and all been rewarded together in the establishment of independence;
that the debt to the army had been settled by pay, by pensions to
the wounded, by half-pay and land to the officers; that no military
claim could be founded on depreciated continental paper money, from
which the civil functionaries who performed service, and the farmers
who furnished supplies, suffered as much as any. On this principle
he voted against the bill for Lafayette, against all the modern
revolutionary pensions and land bounty acts, and refused to take any
thing under them (for many were applicable to himself).
His political principles were deep-rooted, innate, subject to no
change and to no machinery of party. He was democratic in the
broad sense of the word, as signifying a capacity in the people
for self-government; and in its party sense, as in favor of a
plain and economical administration of the federal government, and
against latitudinarian constructions of the constitution. He was a
party man, not in the hackneyed sense of the word, but only where
principle was concerned and was independent of party in all his
social relations, and in all the proceedings which he disapproved.
Of this he gave a strong instance in the case of General Hamilton,
whom he deemed honorable and patriotic; and utterly refused to be
concerned in a movement proposed to affect him personally, though
politically opposed to him. He venerated Washington, admired the
varied abilities and high qualities of Hamilton; and esteemed
and respected the eminent federal gentlemen of his time. He had
affectionate regard for Madison and Monroe; but Mr. Jefferson was
to him the full and perfect exemplification of the republican
statesman. His almost fifty years of personal and political
friendship and association with Mr. Randolph is historical, and
indissolubly connects their names in memories in the recollection
of their friends, and in history, if it does them justice. He was
the early friend of General Jackson, and intimate with him when he
was a senator in Congress under the administration of the elder Mr.
Adams; and was able to tell Congress and the world who he was when
he began to astonish Europe and America by his victories. He was
the kind observer of the conduct of young men, encouraging them by
judicious commendation when he saw them making efforts to become
useful and respectable, and never noting their faults. He was just
in all things, and in that most difficult of all things, judging
political opponents,--to whom he would do no wrong, not merely in
word or act, but in thought. He spoke frequently in Congress, always
to the point, and briefly and wisely; and was one of those speakers
which Mr. Jefferson described Dr. Franklin to have been--a speaker
of no pretension and great performance,--who spoke more good sense
while he was getting up out of his chair, and getting back into it,
than many others did in long discourses; and he suffered no reporter
to dress up a speech for him.
He was above the pursuit of wealth, but also above dependence and
idleness; and, like an old Roman of the elder Cato's time, worked
in the fields at the head of his slaves in the intervals of public
duty; and did not cease this labor until advancing age rendered him
unable to stand the hot sun of summer--the only season of the year
when senatorial duties left him at liberty to follow the plough,
or handle the hoe. I think it was the summer of 1817,--that was
the last time (he told me) he tried it, and found the sun too hot
for him--then sixty years of age, a senator, and the refuser of
all office. How often I think of him, when I see at Washington
robustious men going through a scene of supplication, tribulation,
and degradation, to obtain office, which the salvation of the soul
does not impose upon the vilest sinner! His fields, his flocks, and
his herds yielded an ample supply of domestic productions. A small
crop of tobacco--three hogsheads when the season was good, two when
bad--purchased the exotics which comfort and necessity required, and
which the farm did not produce. He was not rich, but rich enough
to dispense hospitality and charity, to receive all guests in his
house, from the President to the day laborer--no other title being
necessary to enter his house but that of an honest man; rich enough
to bring up his family (two daughters) as accomplished ladies, and
marry them to accomplished gentlemen--one to William Martin, Esq.,
the other to William Eaton, Esq., of Roanoke, my early school-fellow
and friend for more than half a century; and, above all, he was rich
enough to pay as he went, and never to owe a dollar to any man.
He was steadfast in his friendships, and would stake himself for
a friend, but would violate no point of public duty to please
or oblige him. Of this his relations with Mr. Randolph gave a
signal instance. He drew a knife to defend him in the theatre at
Philadelphia, when menaced by some naval and military officers for
words spoken in debate, and deemed offensive to their professions;
yet, when speaker of the House of Representatives, he displaced Mr.
Randolph from the head of the committee of ways and means, because
the chairman of that committee should be on terms of political
friendship with the administration,--which Mr. Randolph had then
ceased to be with Mr. Jefferson's. He was above executive office,
even the highest the President could give; but not above the lowest
the people could give, taking that of justice of the peace in his
county, and refusing that of Postmaster-General at Washington. He
was opposed to nepotism, and to all quartering of his connections
on the government; and in the course of his forty-years' service,
with the absolute friendship of many administrations and the perfect
respect of all, he never had office or contract for any of his
blood. He refused to be a candidate for the vice-presidency, but
took the place of elector on the Van Buren ticket in 1836. He was
against paper money and the paper system, and was accustomed to
present the strong argument against both in the simple phrase, that
this was a hard-money government, made by hard-money men, who had
seen the evil of paper-money, and meant to save their posterity
from it. He was opposed to securityships, and held that no man
ought to be entangled in the affairs of another, and that the
interested parties alone--those who expected to find their profit
in the transaction--should bear the bad consequences, as well as
enjoy the good ones, of their own dealings. He never called any one
"friend" without being so; and never expressed faith in the honor
and integrity of a man without acting up to the declaration when
the occasion required it. Thus, in constituting his friend Weldon
N. Edwards, Esq., his testamentary and sole executor, with large
discretionary powers, he left all to his honor, and forbid him to
account to any court or power for the manner in which he should
execute that trust. This prohibition so characteristic, and so
honorable to both parties, and has been so well justified by the
event, that I give it in his own words, as copied from his will, to
wit:
"I subjoin the following, in my own handwriting, as a codicil to
this my last will and testament, and direct that it be a part
thereof--that is to say, having full faith in the honor and
integrity of my executor above named, he shall not be held to
account to any court or power whatever for the discharge of the
trust confided by me to him in and by the foregoing will."
And the event has proved that his judgment, as always, committed
no mistake when it bestowed that confidence. He had his
peculiarities--idiosyncracies, if any one pleases--but they were
born with him, suited to him, constituting a part of his character,
and necessary to its completeness. He never subscribed to charities,
but gave, and freely, according to his means--the left hand not
knowing what the right hand did. He never subscribed for new books,
giving as a reason to the soliciting agent, that nobody purchased
his tobacco until it was inspected; and he could buy no book until
he had examined it. He would not attend the Congress Presidential
Caucus of 1824, although it was sure to nominate his own choice (Mr.
Crawford); and, when a reason was wanted, he gave it in the brief
answer that he attended one once and they cheated him, and he had
said that he would never attend another. He always wore the same
dress--that is to say a suit of the same material, cut, and color,
superfine navy blue--the whole suit from the same piece, and in the
fashion of the time of the Revolution; and always replaced by a new
one before it showed age. He was neat in his person, always wore
fine linen, a fine cambric stock, a fine fur hat with a brim to it,
fair top-boots--the boot outside of the pantaloons, on the principle
that leather was stronger than cloth. He would wear no man's honors,
and when complimented on the report on the Panama mission, which,
as chairman of the committee on foreign relations, he had presented
to the Senate, he would answer, "Yes; it is a good report; Tazewell
wrote it." Left to himself, he was ready to take the last place,
and the lowest seat any where; but in his representative capacity
he would suffer no derogation of a constitutional or of a popular
right. Thus, when Speaker of the House, and a place behind the
President's Secretaries had been assigned him in some ceremony,
he disregarded the programme; and, as the elect of the elect of
all the people, took his place next after those whom the national
vote had elected. And in 1803, on the question to change the form
of voting for President and Vice-President, and the vote wanting
one of the constitutional number of two thirds, he resisted the
rule of the House which restricted the speaker's vote to a tie,
or to a vote which would make a tie,--claimed his constitutional
right to vote as a member, obtained it, gave the vote, made the two
thirds, and carried the amendment. And, what may well be deemed
idiosyncratic in these days, he was punctual in the performance of
all his minor duties to the Senate, attending its sittings to the
moment, attending all the committees to which he was appointed,
attending all the funerals of the members and officers of the
Houses, always in time at every place where duty required him; and
refusing double mileage for one travelling, when elected from the
House of Representatives to the Senate, or summoned to an extra
session. He was an habitual reader and student of the Bible, a pious
and religious man, and of the "_Baptist persuasion_," as he was
accustomed to express it.
I have a pleasure in recalling the recollections of this wise, just,
and good man, and in writing them down, not without profit, I hope,
to rising generations, and at least as extending the knowledge of
the kind of men to whom we are indebted for our independence, and
for the form of government which they established for us. Mr. Macon
was the real Cincinnatus of America, the pride and ornament of my
native State, my hereditary friend through four generations, my
mentor in the first seven years of my senatorial, and the last seven
of his senatorial life; and a feeling of gratitude and of filial
affection mingles itself with this discharge of historical duty to
his memory.
ADMINISTRATION OF ANDREW JACKSON.
[Illustration: decorative]
CHAPTER XL.
COMMENCEMENT OF GENERAL JACKSON'S ADMINISTRATION.
On the 4th of March, 1829, the new President was inaugurated,
with the usual ceremonies, and delivered the address which
belongs to the occasion; and which, like all of its class, was
a general declaration of the political principles by which the
new administration would be guided. The general terms in which
such addresses are necessarily conceived preclude the possibility
of minute practical views, and leave to time and events the
qualification of the general declarations. Such declarations are
always in harmony with the grounds upon which the new President's
election had been made, and generally agreeable to his supporters,
without being repulsive to his opponents; harmony and conciliation
being an especial object with every new administration. So of
General Jackson's inaugural address on this occasion. It was
a general chart of democratic principles; but of which a few
paragraphs will bear reproduction in this work, as being either
new and strong, or a revival of good old principles, of late
neglected. Thus: as a military man his election had been deprecated
as possibly leading to a military administration: on the contrary
he thus expressed himself on the subject of standing armies, and
subordination of the military to the civil authority: "Considering
standing armies as dangerous to free government, in time of peace, I
shall not seek to enlarge our present establishment; nor disregard
that salutary lesson of political experience which teaches that
the military should be held subordinate to the civil power." On
the cardinal doctrine of economy, and freedom from public debt, he
said: "Under every aspect in which it can be considered, it would
appear that advantage must result from the observance of a strict
and faithful economy. This I shall aim at the more anxiously, both
because it will facilitate the extinguishment of the national
debt--the unnecessary duration of which is incompatible with real
independence;--and because it will counteract that tendency to
public and private profligacy which a profuse expenditure of money
by the government is but too apt to engender." Reform of abuses
and non-interference with elections, were thus enforced: "The
recent demonstration of public sentiment inscribes, on the 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." The oath of
office was administered by the venerable Chief Justice, Marshall,
to whom that duty had belonged for about thirty years. The Senate,
according to custom, having been convened in extra session for the
occasion, the cabinet appointments were immediately sent in and
confirmed. They were, Martin Van Buren, of New-York, Secretary of
State (Mr. James A. Hamilton, of New-York, son of the late General
Hamilton, being charged with the duties of the office until Mr. Van
Buren could enter upon them); Samuel D. Ingham, of Pennsylvania,
Secretary of the Treasury; John H. Eaton, of Tennessee, Secretary
at War; John Branch, of North Carolina, Secretary of the Navy;
John M. Berrien, of Georgia, Attorney General; William T. Harry,
of Kentucky, Postmaster General; those who constituted the late
cabinet, under Mr. Adams, only one of them, (Mr. John McLean, the
Postmaster General,) classed politically with General Jackson; and
a vacancy having occurred on the bench of the Supreme Court by the
death of Mr. Justice Trimble, of Kentucky, Mr. McLean was appointed
to fill it; and a further vacancy soon after occurring, the death
of Mr. Justice Bushrod Washington (nephew of General Washington),
Mr. Henry Baldwin, of Pennsylvania, was appointed in his place. The
Twenty-first Congress dated the commencement of its legal existence
on the day of the commencement of the new administration, and its
members were as follows:
SENATE.
MAINE--John Holmes, Peleg Sprague.
NEW HAMPSHIRE--Samuel Bell, Levi Woodbury.
MASSACHUSETTS--Nathaniel Silsbee, Daniel Webster.
CONNECTICUT--Samuel A. Foot, Calvin Willey.
RHODE ISLAND--Nehemiah R. Knight, Asher Robbins.
VERMONT--Dudley Chase, Horatio Seymour.
NEW-YORK--Nathan Sanford, Charles E. Dudley.
NEW JERSEY--Theodore Frelinghuysen, Mahlon Dickerson.
PENNSYLVANIA--William Marks, Isaac D. Barnard.
DELAWARE--John M. Clayton, (_Vacant._)
MARYLAND--Samuel Smith, Ezekiel F. Chambers.
VIRGINIA--L. W. Tazewell, John Tyler.
NORTH CAROLINA--James Iredell, (_Vacant._)
SOUTH CAROLINA--William Smith, Robert Y. Hayne.
GEORGIA--George M. Troup, John Forsyth.
KENTUCKY--John Rowan, George M. Bibb.
TENNESSEE--Hugh L. White, Felix Grundy.
OHIO--Benjamin Ruggles, Jacob Burnet.
LOUISIANA--Josiah S. Johnston, Edward Livingston.
INDIANA--William Hendricks, James Noble.
MISSISSIPPI--Powhatan Ellis, (_Vacant._)
ILLINOIS--Elias K. Kane, John McLane.
ALABAMA--John McKinley, William R. King.
MISSOURI--David Barton, Thomas H. Benton.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MAINE--John Anderson, Samuel Butman, George Evans, Rufus
McIntire, James W. Ripley, Joseph F. Wingate--6. (_One vacant._)
NEW HAMPSHIRE--John Brodhead, Thomas Chandler, Joseph Hammons,
Jonathan Harvey, Henry Hubbard, John W. Weeks--6.
MASSACHUSETTS--John Bailey, Issac C. Bates, B. W. Crowninshield,
John Davis, Henry W. Dwight, Edward Everett, Benjamin Gorham,
George Grennell, jr., James L. Hodges, Joseph G. Kendall, John
Reed, Joseph Richardson, John Varnum--13.
RHODE ISLAND--Tristam Burgess, Dutee J. Pearce--2.
CONNECTICUT--Noyes Barber, Wm. W. Ellsworth, J. W. Huntington,
Ralph J. Ingersoll, W. L. Storrs, Eben Young--6.
VERMONT--William Cahoon, Horace Everett, Jonathan Hunt, Rollin
C. Mallary, Benjamin Swift--5.
NEW-YORK--William G. Angel, Benedict Arnold, Thomas Beekman,
Abraham Bockee, Peter I. Borst, C. C. Cambreleng, Jacob
Crocheron, Timothy Childs, Henry B. Cowles, Hector Craig,
Charles G. Dewitt, John D. Dickinson, Jonas Earll, jr., George
Fisher, Isaac Finch, Michael Hoffman, Joseph Hawkins, Jehiel
H. Halsey, Perkins King, James W. Lent, John Magee, Henry C.
Martindale, Robert Monell, Thomas Maxwell, E. Norton, Gershom
Powers, Robert S. Rose, Henry R. Storrs, James Strong, Ambrose
Spencer, John W. Taylor, Phineas L. Tracy, Gulian. C. Verplanck,
Campbell P. White--34.
NEW JERSEY--Lewis Condict, Richard M. Cooper, Thomas H. Hughes,
Isaac Pierson, James F. Randolph, Samuel Swan--6.
PENNSYLVANIA--James Buchanan, Richard Coulter, Thomas H.
Crawford, Joshua Evans, Chauncey Forward, Joseph Fry, jr.,
James Ford, Innes Green, John Gilmore, Joseph Hemphill, Peter
Ihrie, jr., Thomas Irwin, Adam King, George G. Leiper, H. A.
Muhlenburg, Alem Marr, Daniel H. Miller, William McCreery,
William Ramsay, John Scott, Philander Stephens, John B.
Sterigere, Joel B. Sutherland, Samuel Smith, Thomas H. Sill--25.
(_One vacant._)
DELAWARE--Kensy Johns, jr.--1.
MARYLAND--Elias Brown, Clement Dorsey, Benjamin C. Howard,
George E. Mitchell, Michael C. Sprigg, Benedict I. Semmes,
Richard Spencer, George C. Washington, Ephraim K. Wilson--9.
VIRGINIA--Mark Alexander, Robert Allen, Wm. S. Archer, Wm.
Armstrong, jr., John S. Barbour, Philip P. Barbour, J. T.
Boulding, Richard Coke, jr., Nathaniel H. Claiborne, Robert B.
Craig, Philip Doddridge, Thomas Davenport, William F. Gordon,
Lewis Maxwell, Charles F. Mercer, William McCoy, Thomas Newton,
John Roane, Alexander Smyth, Andrew Stevenson, John Taliaferro,
James Trezvant--22.
NORTH CAROLINA--Willis Alston, Daniel L. Barringer, Samuel
P. Carson, H. W. Conner, Edmund Deberry, Edward B. Dudley,
Thomas H. Hall, Robert Potter, William B. Shepard, Augustine H.
Shepperd, Jesse Speight, Lewis Williams--12. (_One vacant._)
SOUTH CAROLINA--Robert W. Barnwell, James Blair, John Campbell,
Warren R. Davis, William Drayton, William D. Martin, George
McDuffie, William T. Nuckolls, Starling Tucker--9.
GEORGIA--Thomas F. Forster, Charles E. Haynes, Wilson Lumpkin,
Henry G. Lamar, Wiley Thompson, Richard H. Wilde, James M.
Wayne--7.
KENTUCKY--James Clark, N. D. Coleman, Thomas Chilton, Henry
Daniel, Nathan Gaither, R. M. Johnson, John Kinkaid, Joseph
Lecompte, Chittenden Lyon, Robert P. Letcher, Charles A.
Wickliffe, Joel Yancey--12.
TENNESSEE--John Blair, John Bell, David Crockett, Robert Desha,
Jacob C. Isacks, Cave Johnson, Pryor Lea, James K. Polk, James
Standifer--9.
OHIO--Mordecai Bartley, Joseph H. Crane, William Creighton,
James Findlay, John M. Goodenow, Wm. W. Irwin, Wm. Kennon, Wm.
Russell, William Stanberry, James Shields, John Thomson, Joseph
Vance, Samuel F. Vinton, Elisha Whittlesey--14.
LOUISIANA--Henry H. Gurley, W. H. Overton, Edward D. White--3.
INDIANA--Ratliff Boon, Jonathan Jennings, John Test--3.
ALABAMA--R. E. B. Baylor, C. C. Clay, Dixon H. Lewis--3.
MISSISSIPPI--Thomas Hinds--1.
ILLINOIS--Joseph Duncan--1.
MISSOURI--Spencer Pettis--1.
DELEGATES.
MICHIGAN TERRITORY--John Biddle--1.
ARKANSAS TERRITORY--A. H. Sevier--1.
FLORIDA TERRITORY--Joseph M. White--1.
Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, was re-elected speaker of the House,
receiving 152 votes out of 191; and he classing politically with
General Jackson, this large vote in his favor, and the small one
against him (and that scattered and thrown away on several different
names not candidates), announced a pervading sentiment among the
people, in harmony with the presidential election--and showing that
political principles, and not military glare, had produced the
General's election.
CHAPTER XLI.
THE FIRST ANNUAL MESSAGE OF GENERAL JACKSON TO THE TWO HOUSES OF
CONGRESS.
The first annual message of a new President, being always a
recommendation of practical measures, is looked to with more
interest than the inaugural address, confined as this latter must
be, to a declaration of general principles. That of General Jackson,
delivered the 8th of December, 1829, was therefore anxiously looked
for; and did not disappoint the public expectation. It was strongly
democratic, and contained many recommendations of a nature to
simplify, and purify the working of the government, and to carry
it back to the times of Mr. Jefferson--to promote its economy and
efficiency, and to maintain the rights of the people, and of the
States in its administration. On the subject of electing a President
and Vice-President of the United States, he spoke thus:
"I consider it one of the most urgent of my duties to bring
to your attention the propriety of amending that part of our
Constitution which relates to the election of President and
Vice-President. Our system of government was, by its framers,
deemed an experiment; and they, therefore, consistently provided
a mode of remedying its defects.
"To the people belongs the right of electing their chief
magistrate: it was never designed that their choice should,
in any case, be defeated, either by the intervention of
electoral colleges, or by the agency confided, under certain
contingencies, to the House of Representatives. Experience
proves, that, in proportion as agents to execute the will of the
people are multiplied, there is danger of their wishes being
frustrated. Some may be unfaithful: all are liable to err. So
far, therefore, as the people can, with convenience, speak, it
is safer for them to express their own will.
"In this, as in all other matters of public concern, policy
requires that as few impediments as possible should exist to
the free operation of the public will. Let us, then, endeavor
so to amend our system, as that the office of chief magistrate
may not be conferred upon any citizen but in pursuance of a fair
expression of the will of the majority.
"I would therefore recommend such an amendment of the
constitution as may remove all intermediate agency in the
election of President and Vice-President. The mode may be so
regulated as to preserve to each State its present relative
weight in the election; and a failure in the first attempt may
be provided for, by confining the second to a choice between the
two highest candidates. In connection with such an amendment,
it would seem advisable to limit the service of the chief
magistrate to a single term, of either four or six years. If,
however, it should not be adopted, it is worthy of consideration
whether a provision disqualifying for office the Representatives
in Congress on whom such an election may have devolved, would
not be proper."
This recommendation in relation to our election system has not yet
been carried into effect, though doubtless in harmony with the
principles of our government, necessary to prevent abuses, and now
generally demanded by the voice of the people. But the initiation
of amendments to the federal constitution is too far removed
from the people. It is in the hands of Congress and of the State
legislatures; but even there an almost impossible majority--that
of two thirds of each House, or two thirds of the State
legislatures--is required to commence the amendment; and a still
more difficult majority--that of three fourths of the States--to
complete it. Hitherto all attempts to procure the desired amendment
has failed; but the friends of that reform should not despair. The
great British parliamentary reform was only obtained after forty
years of annual motions in parliament; and forty years of organized
action upon the public mind through societies, clubs, and speeches;
and the incessant action of the daily and periodical press. In the
meantime events are becoming more impressive advocates for this
amendment than any language could be. The selection of President
has gone from the hands of the people--usurped by irresponsible and
nearly self-constituted bodies--in which the selection becomes the
result of a juggle, conducted by a few adroit managers, who baffle
the nomination until they are able to govern it, and to substitute
their own will for that of the people. Perhaps another example
is not upon earth of a free people voluntarily relinquishing the
elective franchise, in a case so great as that of electing their
own chief magistrate, and becoming the passive followers of an
irresponsible body--juggled, and baffled, and governed by a few
dextrous contrivers, always looking to their own interest in the
game which they play in putting down and putting up men. Certainly
the convention system, now more unfair and irresponsible than the
exploded congress caucus system, must eventually share the same
fate, and be consigned to oblivion and disgrace. In the meantime
the friends of popular election should press the constitutional
amendment which would give the Presidential election to the people,
and discard the use of an intermediate body which disregards the
public will and reduces the people to the condition of political
automatons.
Closely allied to this proposed reform was another recommended by
the President in relation to members of Congress, and to exclude
them generally from executive appointments; and especially from
appointments conferred by the President for whom they voted.
The evil is the same whether the member votes in the House of
Representatives when the election goes to that body, or votes and
manages in a Congress caucus, or in a nominating convention. The
act in either case opens the door to corrupt practices; and should
be prevented by legal, or constitutional enactments, if it cannot
be restrained by the feelings of decorum, or repressed by public
opinion. On this point the message thus recommended:
"While members of Congress can be constitutionally appointed
to offices of trust and profit, it will be the practice, even
under the most conscientious adherence to duty, to select them
for such stations as they are believed to be better qualified to
fill than other citizens; but the purity of our government would
doubtless be promoted by their exclusion from all appointments
in the gift of the President in whose election they may have
been officially concerned. The nature of the judicial office,
and the necessity of securing in the cabinet and in diplomatic
stations of the highest rank, the best talents and political
experience, should, perhaps, except these from the exclusion."
On the subject of a navy, the message contained sentiments worthy
of the democracy in its early day, and when General Jackson was
a member of the United States Senate. The republican party had
a POLICY then in respect to a navy: it was, a navy for DEFENCE,
instead of CONQUEST; and limited to the protection of our coasts and
commerce. That policy was impressively set forth in the celebrated
instructions to the Virginia senators in the year 1800, in which it
was said:
"With respect to the navy, it may be proper to remind you that
whatever may be the proposed object of its establishment, or
whatever may be the prospect of temporary advantages resulting
therefrom, it is demonstrated by the experience of all nations,
who have ventured far into naval policy, that such prospect is
ultimately delusive; and that a navy has ever in practice been
known more as an instrument of power, a source of expense, and
an occasion of collisions and wars with other nations, than
as an instrument of defence, of economy, or of protection to
commerce."
These were the doctrines of the republican party, in the early
stage of our government--in the great days of Jefferson and his
compeers. We had a policy then--the result of thought, of judgment,
and of experience: a navy for defence, and not for conquest: and,
consequently, confinable to a limited number of ships, adequate to
their defensive object--instead of thousands, aiming at the dominion
of the seas. That policy was overthrown by the success of our
naval combats during the war; and the idea of a great navy became
popular, without any definite view of its cost and consequences.
Admiration for good fighting did it, without having the same effect
on the military policy. Our army fought well also, and excited
admiration; but without subverting the policy which interdicted
standing armies in time of peace. The army was cut down in peace:
the navy was building up in peace. In this condition President
Jackson found the two branches of the service--the army reduced
by two successive reductions from a large body to a very small
one--6000 men--and although illustrated with military glory yet
refusing to recommend an army increase: the navy, from a small one
during the war, becoming large during the peace--gradual increase
the law--ship-building the active process, and rotting down the
active effect; and thus we have been going on for near forty years.
Correspondent to his army policy was that of President Jackson
in relation to the navy; he proposed a pause in the process of
ship-building and ship-rotting. He recommended a total cessation of
the further building of vessels of the first and second class--ships
of the line, and frigates--with a collection of materials for
future use--and the limitation of our naval policy to the object of
commercial protection. He did not even include coast defence, his
experience having shown him that the men on shore could defend the
land. In a word, he recommended a naval policy; and that was the
same which the republicans of 1798 had adopted, and which Virginia
made obligatory upon her senators in 1800; and which, under the
blaze of shining victories, had yielded to the blind, and aimless,
and endless operation of building and rotting peaceful ships of war.
He said:
"In time of peace, we have need of no more ships of war than
are requisite to the protection of our commerce. Those not
wanted for this object must lay in the harbors, where, without
proper covering, they rapidly decay; and, even under the best
precautions for their preservation, must soon become useless.
Such is already the case with many of our finest vessels;
which, though unfinished, will now require immense sums of
money to be restored to the condition in which they were, when
committed to their proper element. On this subject there can be
but little doubt that our best policy would be, to discontinue
the building of ships of the first and second class, and look
rather to the possession of ample materials, prepared for the
emergencies of war, than to the number of vessels which we can
float in a season of peace, as the index of our naval power."
This was written twenty years ago, and by a President who saw
what he described--many of our finest ships going to decay before
they were finished--demanding repairs before they had sailed--and
costing millions for which there was no return. We have been going
on at the same rate ever since--building, and rotting, and sinking
millions; but little to show for forty years of ship-carpentry;
and that little nothing to do but to cruise where there is nothing
to catch, and to carry out ministers to foreign courts who are not
quite equal to the Franklins, Adamses and Jeffersons--the Pinckneys,
Rufus Kings, and Marshalls--the Clays, Gallatins and Bayards--that
went out in common merchant vessels. Mr. Jefferson told me that this
would be the case twenty-five years ago when naval glory overturned
national policy, and when a navy board was created to facilitate
ship-construction. But this is a subject which will require a
chapter of its own, and is only incidentally mentioned now to remark
that we have no policy with respect to a navy, and ought to have
one--that there is no middle point between defence and conquest--and
no sequence to a conquering navy but wars with the world,--and the
debt, taxes, pension list, and pauper list of Great Britain.
The inutility of a Bank of the United States as a furnisher of a
sound and uniform currency, and of questionable origin under our
constitution, was thus stated:
"The charter of the Bank of the United States expires in 1836,
and its stockholders will most probably apply for a renewal of
their privileges. In order to avoid the evils resulting from
precipitancy in a measure involving such important principles,
and such deep pecuniary interests, I feel that I cannot, in
justice to the parties interested, too soon present it to the
deliberate consideration of the legislature and the people. Both
the constitutionality and the expediency of the law creating
this bank, are well questioned by a large portion of our
fellow-citizens; and it must be admitted by all, that it has
failed in the great end of establishing a uniform and sound
currency."
This is the clause which party spirit, and bank tactics, perverted
at the time (and which has gone into history), into an attack upon
the bank--a war upon the bank--with a bad motive attributed for a
war so wanton. At the same time nothing could be more fair, and
just, and more in consonance with the constitution which requires
the President to make the legislative recommendations which he
believes to be proper. It was notice to all concerned--the bank
on one side, and the people on the other--that there would be
questions, and of high import--constitutionality and expediency--if
the present corporators, at the expiration of their charter, should
apply for a renewal of their privileges. It was an intimation
against the institution, not against its administrators, to whom
a compliment was paid in another part of the same message, in
ascribing to the help of their "judicious arrangement" the averting
of the mercantile pressure which might otherwise have resulted from
the sudden withdrawal of the twelve and a half millions which had
just been taken from the bank and applied to the payment of the
public debt. But of this hereafter. The receipts and expenditures
were stated, respectively, for the preceding year, and estimated for
the current year, the former at a fraction over twenty-four and a
half millions--the latter a fraction over twenty-six millions--with
large balances in the treasury, exhibiting the constant financial
paradox, so difficult to be understood, of permanent annual balances
with an even, or even deficient revenue. The passage of the message
is in these words:
"The balance in the treasury on the 1st of January, 1829, was
five millions nine hundred and seventy-two thousand four hundred
and thirty-five dollars and eighty-one cents. The receipts of
the current year are estimated at twenty-four millions, six
hundred and two thousand, two hundred and thirty dollars, and
the expenditures for the same time at twenty-six millions one
hundred and sixty-four thousand five hundred and ninety-five
dollars; leaving a balance in the treasury on the 1st of January
next, of four millions four hundred and ten thousand and seventy
dollars, eighty-one cents."
Other recommendations contained the sound democratic
doctrines--speedy and entire extinction of the public
debt--reduction of custom-house duties--equal and fair incidental
protection to the great national interests (agriculture,
manufactures and commerce)--the disconnection of politics and
tariffs--and the duty of retrenchment by discontinuing and
abolishing all useless offices. In a word, it was a message of the
old republican school, in which President Jackson had been bred; and
from which he had never departed; and which encouraged the young
disciples of democracy, and consoled the old surviving fathers of
that school.
CHAPTER XLII.
THE RECOVERY OF THE DIRECT TRADE WITH THE BRITISH WEST INDIA ISLANDS.
The recovery of this trade had been a large object with the
American government from the time of its establishment. As British
colonies we enjoyed it before the Revolution; as revolted colonies
we lost it; and as an independent nation we sought to obtain it
again. The position of these islands, so near to our ports and
shores--the character of the exports they received from us, being
almost entirely the product of our farms and forests, and their
large amount, always considerable, and of late some four millions
of dollars per annum--the tropical productions which we received
in return, and the large employment it gave to our navigation--all
combined to give a cherished value to this branch of foreign
trade, and to stimulate our government to the greatest exertions
to obtain and secure its enjoyment; and with the advantage of
being carried on by our own vessels. But these were objects not
easily attainable, and never accomplished until the administration
of President Jackson. All powers are jealous of alien intercourse
with their colonies, and have a natural desire to retain colonial
trade in their own hands, both for commercial and political
reasons; and have a perfect right to do so if they please. Partial
and conditional admission to trade with their colonies, or total
exclusion from them, is in the discretion of the mother country; and
any participation in their trade by virtue of treaty stipulations
or legislative enactment, is the result of concession--generally
founded in a sense of self-interest, or at best in a calculation
of mutual advantage. No less than six negotiations (besides
several attempts at "concerted legislation") had been carried on
between the United States and Great Britain on this subject; and
all, until the second year of General Jackson's administration,
resulting in nothing more than limited concessions for a year,
or for short terms; and sometimes coupled with conditions which
nullified the privilege. It was a primary object of concern with
General Washington's administration; and a knowledge of the action
then had upon it elucidates both the value of the trade, the
difficulty of getting admission to its participation, and the right
of Great Britain to admit or deny its enjoyment to others. General
Washington had practical knowledge on the subject. He had seen it
enjoyed, and lost--enjoyed as British subjects, lost as revolted
colonies and independent states--and knew its value, both from
the use and the loss, and was most anxious to recover it. It was
almost the first thing, in our foreign relations, to which he put
his hand on becoming President; and literally did he put his hand
to it. For as early as the 14th of October, 1789--just six months
after his inauguration--in a letter of unofficial instructions to
Mr. Gouverneur Morris, then in Europe, written with his own hand
(requesting him to sound the British government on the subject of a
commercial treaty with the United States), a point that he made was
to ascertain their views in relation to allowing us the "privilege"
of this trade. Privilege was his word, and the instruction ran thus:
"Let it be strongly impressed on your mind that the privilege of
carrying our productions in our own vessels to their islands, and
bringing, in return, the productions of those islands to our ports
and markets, is regarded here as of the highest importance," &c.
It was a prominent point in our very first negotiation with Great
Britain in 1794; and the instructions to Mr. Jay, in May of that
year, shows that admission to the trade was then only asked as a
privilege, as in the year '89 and upon terms of limitation and
condition. This is so material to the right understanding of this
question, and to the future history of the case, and especially
of a debate and vote in the Senate, of which President Jackson's
instructions through Mr. Van Buren on the same subject was made
the occasion, that I think it right to give the instructions of
President Washington to Mr. Jay in his own words. They were these:
"If to the actual footing of our commerce and navigation in
the British European dominions could be added the privilege of
carrying directly from the United States to the British West
Indies in our own bottoms generally, or of certain specified
burthens, the articles which by the Act of Parliament, 28, Geo.
III., chap. 6, may be carried thither in British bottoms, and of
bringing them thence directly to the United States in American
bottoms, this would afford an acceptable basis of treaty for a
term not exceeding fifteen years."
An article was inserted in the treaty in conformity to these
principles--our carrying vessels limited in point of burthen to
seventy tons and under; the privilege limited in point of duration
to the continuance of the then existing war between Great Britain
and the French Republic, and to two years after its termination;
and restricted in the return cargo both as to the nature of the
articles and the port of their destination. These were hard terms,
and precarious, and the article containing them was "suspended"
by the Senate in the act of ratification, in the hope to obtain
better; and are only quoted here in order to show that this direct
trade to the British West Indies was, from the beginning of our
federal government, only sought as a privilege, to be obtained
under restrictions and limitations, and subordinately to British
policy and legislation. This was the end of the first negotiation;
five others were had in the ensuing thirty years, besides repeated
attempts at "concerted legislation"--all ending either abortively or
in temporary and unsatisfactory arrangements.
The most important of these attempts was in the years 1822 and 1823:
and as it forms an essential item in the history of this case, and
shows, besides, the good policy of letting "well-enough" alone, and
the great mischief of inserting an apparently harmless word in a
bill of which no one sees the drift but those in the secret, I will
here give its particulars, adopting for that purpose the language
of senator Samuel Smith, of Maryland,--the best qualified of all
our statesmen to speak on the subject, he having the practical
knowledge of a merchant in addition to experience as a legislator.
His statement is this:
"During the session of 1822, Congress was informed that an
act was pending in Parliament for the opening of the colonial
ports to the commerce of the United States. In consequence, an
act was passed authorizing the President (then Mr. Monroe),
in case the act of Parliament was satisfactory to him, to
open the ports of the United States to British vessels by his
proclamation. The act of Parliament was deemed satisfactory, and
a proclamation was accordingly issued, and the trade commenced.
Unfortunately for our commerce, and I think contrary to justice,
a treasury circular issued, directing the collectors to charge
British vessels entering our ports with the alien tonnage and
discriminating duties. This order was remonstrated against by
the British minister (I think Mr. Vaughan). The trade, however,
went on uninterrupted. Congress met and a bill was drafted in
1823 by Mr. Adams, then Secretary of State, and passed both
Houses, with little, if any, debate. I voted for it, believing
that it met, in a spirit of reciprocity, the British act of
Parliament. This bill, however, contained one little word,
"elsewhere," which completely defeated all our expectations.
It was noticed by no one. The senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Webster) may have understood its effect. If he did so understand
it, he was silent. The effect of that word "elsewhere" was to
assume the pretensions alluded to in the instructions to Mr.
McLane. (Pretension to a "right" in the trade.) The result
was, that the British government shut their colonial ports
immediately, and thenceforward. This act of 1822 gave us a
monopoly (virtually) of the West India trade. It admitted, free
of duty, a variety of articles, such as Indian corn, meal, oats,
peas, and beans. The British government thought we entertained a
belief that they could not do without our produce, and by their
acts of the 27th June and 5th July, 1825, they opened their
ports to all the world, on terms far less advantageous to the
United States, than those of the act of 1822."
Such is the important statement of General Smith. Mr. Webster was
present at the time, and said nothing. Both these acts were clear
rights on the part of Great Britain, and that of 1825 contained a
limitation upon the time within which each nation was to accept the
privilege it offered, or lose the trade for ever. This legislative
privilege was accepted by all nations which had any thing to send to
the British West Indies, except the United States. Mr. Adams did not
accept the proffered privilege--undertook to negotiate for better
terms--failed in the attempt--and lost all. Mr. Clay was Secretary
of State, Mr. Gallatin the United States Minister in London, and the
instructions to him were, to insist upon it as a "right" that our
produce should be admitted on the same terms on which produce from
the British possessions were admitted.--This was the "elsewhere,"
&c. The British government refused to negotiate; and then Mr.
Gallatin was instructed to waive temporarily the demand of right,
and accept the privilege offered by the act of 1825. But in the mean
time the year allowed in the act for its acceptance had expired, and
Mr. Gallatin was told that his offer was too late! To that answer
the British ministry adhered; and, from the month of July, 1826, the
direct trade to the British West Indies was lost to our citizens,
leaving them no mode of getting any share in that trade, either
in sending out our productions or receiving theirs, but through
the expensive, tedious, and troublesome process of a circuitous
voyage and the intervention of a foreign vessel. The shock and
dissatisfaction in the United States were extreme at this unexpected
bereavement; and that dissatisfaction entered largely into the
political feelings of the day, and became a point of attack on Mr.
Adams's administration, and an element in the presidential canvass
which ended in his defeat.
In giving an account of this untoward event to his government, Mr.
Gallatin gave an account of his final interview with Mr. Huskisson,
from which it appeared that the claim of "right" on the part of the
United States, on which Mr. Gallatin had been instructed to "insist"
was "temporarily waived;" but without effect. Irritation, on account
of old scores, as expressed by Mr Gallatin--or resentment at our
pertinacious persistence to secure a "right" where the rest of the
world accepted a "privilege," as intimated by Mr. Huskisson--mixed
itself with the refusal; and the British government adhered to its
absolute right to regulate the foreign trade of its colonies, and to
treat us as it did the rest of the world. The following are passages
from Mr. Gallatin's dispatch, from London, September 11, 1827:
"Mr. Huskisson said it was the intention of the British
government to consider the intercourse of the British colonies
as being exclusively under its control, and any relaxation from
the colonial system as an indulgence, to be granted on such
terms as might suit the policy of Great Britain at the time
it was granted. I said every question of _right_ had, on this
occasion, been waived on the part of the United States, the
only object of the present inquiry being to ascertain whether,
as a matter of mutual convenience, the intercourse might not
be opened in a manner satisfactory to both countries. He (Mr.
H.) said that it had appeared as if America had entertained
the opinion that the British West Indies could not exist
without her supplies; and that she might, therefore, compel
Great Britain to open the intercourse on any terms she pleased.
I disclaimed any such belief or intention on the part of the
United States. But it appeared to me, and I intimated it,
indeed, to Mr. Huskisson, that he was acting rather under the
influence of irritated feelings, on account of past events, than
with a view to the mutual interests of both parties."
This was Mr. Gallatin's last dispatch. An order in council was
issued, interdicting the trade to the United States; and he returned
home. Mr. James Barbour, Secretary at War, was sent to London
to replace him, and to attempt again the repulsed negotiation;
but without success. The British government refused to open the
question: and thus the direct access to this valuable commerce
remained sealed against us. President Adams, at the commencement of
the session of Congress, 1827-28, formally communicated this fact
to that body, and in terms which showed at once that an insult had
been received, an injury sustained, redress refused, and ill-will
established between the two governments. He said:
"At the commencement of the last session of Congress, they were
informed of the sudden and unexpected exclusion by the British
government, of access, in vessels of the United States, to all
their colonial ports, except those immediately bordering upon
our own territory.
"In the amicable discussions which have succeeded the adoption
of this measure, which, as it affected harshly the interests
of the United States, became a subject of expostulation
on our part, the principles upon which its justification
has been placed have been of a diversified character. It
has at once been ascribed to a mere recurrence to the old
long-established principle of colonial monopoly, and at the
same time to a feeling of resentment, because the offers of
an act of Parliament, opening the colonial ports upon certain
conditions, had not been grasped at with sufficient eagerness
by as instantaneous conformity to them. At a subsequent period
it has been intimated that the new exclusion was in resentment,
because a prior act of Parliament, of 1822, opening certain
colonial ports, under heavy and burdensome restrictions, to
vessels of the United States, had not been reciprocated by
an admission of British vessels from the colonies, and their
cargoes, without any restriction or discrimination whatever.
But, be the motive for the interdiction what it may, the British
government have manifested no disposition, either by negotiation
or by corresponding legislative enactments, to recede from it;
and we have been given distinctly to understand that neither
of the bills which were under the consideration of Congress at
their last session, would have been deemed sufficient in their
concessions to have been rewarded by any relaxation from the
British interdict. The British government have not only declined
negotiation upon the subject, but, by the principle they have
assumed with reference to it, have precluded even the means
of negotiation. It becomes not the self-respect of the United
States, either to solicit gratuitous favours, or to accept, as
the grant of a favor, that for which an ample equivalent is
exacted."
This was the communication of Mr. Adams to Congress, and certainly
nothing could be more vexatious or hopeless than the case which he
presented--an injury, an insult, a rebuff, and a refusal to talk
with us upon the subject. Negotiation, and the hope of it, having
thus terminated, President Adams did what the laws required of him,
and issued his proclamation making known to the country the total
cessation of all direct commerce between the United States and the
British West India Islands.
The loss of this trade was a great injury to the United States
(besides the insult), and was attended by circumstances which
gave it the air of punishment for something that was past. It was
a rebuff in the face of Europe; for while the United States were
sternly and unceremoniously cut off from the benefit of the act of
1825, for omission to accept it within the year, yet other powers
in the same predicament (France, Spain and Russia) were permitted
to accept after the year; and the "irritated feelings" manifested
by Mr. Huskisson indicated a resentment which was finding its
gratification. We were ill-treated, and felt it. The people felt it.
It was an ugly case to manage, or to endure; and in this period of
its worst aspect General Jackson was elected President.
His position was delicate and difficult. His election had been
deprecated as that of a rash and violent man, who would involve us
in quarrels with foreign nations; and here was a dissension with
a great nation lying in wait for him--prepared to his hand--the
legacy of his predecessor--either to be composed satisfactorily,
or to ripen into retaliation and hostility; for it was not to be
supposed that things could remain as they were. He had to choose
between an attempt at amicable recovery of the trade by new
overtures, or retaliation--leading to, it is not known what. He
determined upon the first of these alternatives, and Mr. Louis
McLane, of Delaware, was selected for the delicate occasion. He
was sent minister to London; and in renewing an application which
had been so lately and so categorically rejected, some reason had
to be given for a persistance which might seem both importunate
and desperate, and even deficient in self-respect; and that reason
was found in the simple truth that there had been a change of
administration in the United States, and with it a change of opinion
on the subject, and on the essential point of a "right" in us to
have our productions admitted into her West Indies on the same
terms as British productions were received; that we were willing to
take the trade as a "privilege," and simply and unconditionally,
under the act of Parliament of 1825. Instructions to that effect
had been drawn up by Mr. Van Buren, Secretary of State, under
the special directions of General Jackson, who took this early
occasion to act upon his cardinal maxim in our foreign intercourse:
"_Ask nothing but what is right--submit to nothing wrong._" This
frank and candid policy had its effect. The great object was
accomplished. The trade was recovered; and what had been lost under
one administration, and precariously enjoyed under others, and been
the subject of fruitless negotiation for forty years, and under six
different Presidents--Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison,
Monroe, Quincy Adams--with all their accomplished secretaries and
ministers, was now amicably and satisfactorily obtained under the
administration of General Jackson; and upon the basis to give it
perpetuity--that of mutual interest and actual reciprocity. The
act of Parliament gave us the trade on terms nearly as good as
those suggested by Washington in 1789; fully as good as those asked
for by him in 1794; better than those inserted in the treaty of
that year, and suspended by the Senate; and, though nominally on
the same terms as given to the rest of the world, yet practically
better, on account of our proximity to this British market; and our
superabundance of articles (chiefly provisions and lumber) which it
wants. And the trade has been enjoyed under this act ever since,
with such entire satisfaction, that there is already an oblivion
of the forty years' labor which it cost us to obtain it; and a
generation has grown up, almost without knowing to whom they are
indebted for its present enjoyment. But it made its sensation at the
time, and a great one. The friends of the Jackson administration
exulted; the people rejoiced; gratification was general--but not
universal; and these very instructions, under which such great and
lasting advantages had been obtained, were made the occasion in the
Senate of the United States of rejecting their ostensible author as
a minister to London. But of this hereafter.
The auspicious conclusion of so delicate an affair was doubtless
first induced by General Jackson's frank policy in falling back
upon Washington's ground of "privilege," in contradistinction to
the new pretension of "right,"--helped out a little, it may be,
by the possible after-clap suggested in the second part of his
maxim. Good sense and good feeling may also have had its influence,
the trade in question being as desirable to Great Britain as to
the United States, and better for each to carry it on direct in
their own vessels, than circuitously in the vessels of others;
and the articles on each side being of a kind to solicit mutual
exchange--tropical productions on one part, and those of the
temperate zone on the other. But there was one thing which certainly
contributed to the good result, and that was the act of Congress of
May 29th, of which General Samuel Smith, senator from Maryland, was
the chief promoter; and by which the President was authorized, on
the adoption of certain measures by Great Britain, to open the ports
of the United States to her vessels on reciprocal terms. The effect
of this act was to strengthen General Jackson's candid overture;
and the proclamation opening the trade was issued October the 5th,
1830, in the second year of the first term of the administration of
President Jackson. And under that proclamation this long desired
trade has been enjoyed ever since, and promises to be enjoyed in
after time co-extendingly with the duration of peace between the two
countries.
CHAPTER XLIII.
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GLOBE NEWSPAPER.
At a presidential levee in the winter of 1830-'31, Mr. Duff Green,
editor of the _Telegraph_ newspaper, addressed a person then and now
a respectable resident of Washington city (Mr. J. M. Duncanson), and
invited him to call at his house, as he had something to say to him
which would require a confidential interview. The call was made,
and the object of the interview disclosed, which was nothing less
than to engage his (Mr. Duncanson's) assistance in the execution of
a scheme in relation to the next presidential election, in which
General Jackson should be prevented from becoming a candidate for
re-election, and Mr. Calhoun should be brought forward in his place.
He informed Mr. Duncanson that a rupture was impending between
General Jackson and Mr. Calhoun; that a correspondence had taken
place between them, brought about (as he alleged) by the intrigues
of Mr. Van Buren; that the correspondence was then in print, but
its publication delayed until certain arrangements could be made;
that the democratic papers at the most prominent points in the
States were to be first secured; and men well known to the people
as democrats, but in the exclusive interest of Mr. Calhoun, placed
in charge of them as editors; that as soon as the arrangements
were complete, the _Telegraph_ would startle the country with the
announcement of the difficulty (between General Jackson and Mr.
Calhoun), and the motive for it; and that all the secured presses,
taking their cue from the _Telegraph_, would take sides with Mr.
Calhoun, and cry out at the same time; and the storm would seem to
be so universal, and the indignation against Mr. Van Buren would
appear to be so great, that even General Jackson's popularity would
be unable to save him.
Mr. Duncanson was then invited to take part in the execution
of this scheme, and to take charge of the Frankfort (Kentucky)
_Argus_; and flattering inducements held out to encourage him to
do so. Mr. Duncanson expressed surprise and regret at all that he
heard--declared himself the friend of General Jackson, and of his
re-election--opposed to all schemes to prevent him from being a
candidate again--a disbeliever in their success, if attempted--and
made known his determination to reveal the scheme, if it was not
abandoned. Mr. Green begged him not to do so--said that the plan was
not fully agreed upon; and might not be carried out. This was the
end of the first interview. A few days afterwards Mr. Green called
on Mr. Duncanson, and informed him that a rupture was now determined
upon, and renewed his proposition that he should take charge of some
paper, either as proprietor, or as editor on a liberal salary--one
that would tell on the farmers and mechanics of the country, and
made so cheap as to go into every workshop and cabin. Mr. Duncanson
was a practical printer--owned a good job office--was doing a large
business, especially for the departments--and only wished to remain
as he was. Mr. Green offered, in both interviews, to relieve him
from that concern by purchasing it from him, and assured him that
he would otherwise lose the printing of the departments, and be
sacrificed. Mr. Duncanson again refused to have any thing to do
with the scheme, consulted with some friends, and caused the whole
to be communicated to General Jackson. The information did not take
the General by surprise; it was only a confirmation of what he well
suspected, and had been wisely providing against. The history of the
movement in Mr. Monroe's cabinet, to bring him before a military
court, for his invasion of Spanish territory during the Seminole
war, had just come to his knowledge; the doctrine of nullification
had just been broached in Congress; his own patriotic toast: "The
Federal Union: it must be preserved"--had been delivered; his own
intuitive sagacity told him all the rest--the breach with Mr.
Calhoun, the defection of the _Telegraph_, and the necessity for a
new paper at Washington, faithful, fearless and incorruptible.
The _Telegraph_ had been the central metropolitan organ of his
friends and of the democratic party, during the long and bitter
canvass which ended in the election of General Jackson, in 1828. Its
editor had been gratified with the first rich fruits of victory--the
public printing of the two Houses of Congress, the executive
patronage, and the organship of the administration. The paper was
still (in 1830) in its columns, and to the public eye, the advocate
and supporter of General Jackson; but he knew what was to happen,
and quietly took his measures to meet an inevitable contingency. In
the summer of 1830, a gentleman in one of the public offices showed
him a paper, the Frankfort (Kentucky) _Argus_, containing a powerful
and spirited review of a certain nullification speech in Congress.
He inquired for the author, ascertained him to be Mr. Francis
P. Blair--not the editor, but an occasional contributor to the
_Argus_--and had him written to on the subject of taking charge of
a paper in Washington. The application took Mr. Blair by surprise.
He was not thinking of changing his residence and pursuits. He was
well occupied where he was--clerk of the lucrative office of the
State Circuit Court at the capital of the State, salaried president
of the Commonwealth Bank (by the election of the legislature), and
proprietor of a farm and slaves in that rich State. But he was
devoted to General Jackson and his measures, and did not hesitate
to relinquish his secure advantages at home to engage in the
untried business of editor at Washington. He came--established the
_Globe_ newspaper--and soon after associated with John C. Rives,--a
gentleman worthy of the association and of the confidence of General
Jackson and of the democratic party: and under their management the
paper became the efficient and faithful organ of the administration
during the whole period of his service, and that of his successor,
Mr. Van Buren. It was established in time, and just in time, to
meet the advancing events at Washington City. All that General
Jackson had foreseen in relation to the conduct of the _Telegraph_,
and all that had been communicated to him through Mr. Duncanson,
came to pass: and he found himself, early in the first term of his
administration, engaged in a triple war--with nullification, the
Bank of the United States, and the whig party:--and must have been
without defence or support from the newspaper press at Washington
had it not been for his foresight in establishing the _Globe_.
CHAPTER XLIV.
LIMITATION OF PUBLIC LAND SALES. SUSPENSION OF SURVEYS. ABOLITION
OF THE OFFICE OF SURVEYOR GENERAL. ORIGIN OF THE UNITED STATES
LAND SYSTEM. AUTHORSHIP OF THE ANTI-SLAVERY ORDINANCE OF 1778.
SLAVERY CONTROVERSY. PROTECTIVE TARIFF. INCEPTION OF THE DOCTRINE OF
NULLIFICATION.
At the commencement of the session 1829-'30, Mr. Foot, of
Connecticut, submitted in the Senate a resolution of inquiry which
excited much feeling among the western members of that body. It
was a proposition to inquire into the expediency of limiting the
sales of the public lands to those then in market--to suspend the
surveys of the public lands--and to abolish the office of Surveyor
General. The effect of such a resolution, if sanctioned upon
inquiry and carried into legislative effect, would have been to
check emigration to the new States in the West--to check the growth
and settlement of these States and territories--and to deliver up
large portions of them to the dominion of wild beasts. In that sense
it was immediately taken up by myself, and other western members,
and treated as an injurious proposition--insulting as well as
injurious--and not fit to be considered by a committee, much less to
be reported upon and adopted. I opened the debate against it in a
speech, of which the following is an extract:
"Mr. Benton disclaimed all intention of having anything to do
with the motives of the mover of the resolution: he took it
according to its effect and operation, and conceiving this to
be eminently injurious to the rights and interests of the new
States and Territories, he should justify the view which he had
taken, and the vote he intended to give, by an exposition of
facts and reasons which would show the disastrous nature of the
practical effects of this resolution.
"On the first branch of these effects--checking emigration to
the West--it is clear, that, if the sales are limited to the
lands now in market, emigration will cease to flow; for these
lands are not of a character to attract people at a distance.
In Missouri they are the refuse of forty years picking under
the Spanish Government, and twenty more under the Government
of the United States. The character and value of this refuse
had been shown, officially, in the reports of the Registers and
Receivers, made in obedience to a call from the Senate. Other
gentlemen would show what was said of it in their respective
States; he would confine himself to his own, to the State of
Missouri, and show it to be miserable indeed. The St. Louis
District, containing two and a quarter millions of acres, was
estimated at an average value of fifteen cents per acre; the
Cape Girardeau District, containing four and a half millions
of acres, was estimated at twelve and a half cents per acre;
the Western District, containing one million and three quarters
of acres, was estimated at sixty-two and a half cents; from
the other two districts there was no intelligent or pertinent
return; but assuming them to be equal to the Western District,
and the average value of the lands they contain would be only
one half the amount of the present minimum price. This being the
state of the lands in Missouri which would be subject to sale
under the operation of this resolution, no emigrants would be
attracted to them. Persons who remove to new countries want new
lands, first choices; and if they cannot get these, they have no
sufficient inducement to move.
"The second ill effect to result from this resolution, supposing
it to ripen into the measures which it implies to be necessary
would be in limiting the settlements in the new States and
Territories. This limitation of settlement would be the
inevitable effect of confining the sales to the lands now in
market. These lands in Missouri, only amount to one third of
the State. By consequence, only one third could be settled.
Two thirds of the State would remain without inhabitants; the
resolution says, for 'a certain period,' and the gentlemen, in
their speeches, expound this certain period to be seventy-two
years. They say seventy-two millions of acres are now in market;
that we sell but one million a year; therefore, we have enough
to supply the demand for seventy-two years. It does not enter
their heads to consider that, if the price was adapted to the
value, all this seventy-two millions that is fit for cultivation
would be sold immediately. They must go on at a million a year
for seventy-two years, the Scripture term of the life of man--a
long period in the age of a nation; the exact period of the
Babylonish captivity--a long and sorrowful period in the history
of the Jews; and not less long nor less sorrowful in the history
of the West, if this resolution should take effect.
"The third point of objection is, that it would deliver up large
portions of new States and Territories to the dominion of wild
beasts. In Missouri, this surrender would be equal to two-thirds
of the State, comprising about forty thousand square miles,
covering the whole valley of the Osage River, besides many other
parts, and approaching within a dozen miles of the centre and
capital of the State. All this would be delivered up to wild
beasts: for the Indian title is extinguished, and the Indians
gone; the white people would be excluded from it; beasts alone
would take it; and all this in violation of the Divine command
to replenish the earth, to increase and multiply upon it, and
to have dominion over the beasts of the forest, the birds of
the air, the fish in the waters, and the creeping things of the
earth.
"The fourth point of objection is, in the removal of the land
records--the natural effect of abolishing all the offices of
the Surveyors General. These offices are five in number. It is
proposed to abolish them all, and the reason assigned in debate
is, that they are sinecures; that is to say, offices which
have revenues and no employment. This is the description of a
sinecure. We have one of these offices in Missouri, and I know
something of it. The Surveyor General, Colonel McRee, in point
of fidelity to his trust, belongs to the school of Nathaniel
Macon; in point of science and intelligence, he belongs to the
first order of men that Europe or America contains. He and his
clerks carry labor and drudgery to the ultimate point of human
exertion, and still fall short of the task before them; and this
is an office which it is proposed to abolish under the notion of
a sinecure, as an office with revenues, and without employment.
The abolition of these offices would involve the necessity of
removing all their records, and thus depriving the country of
all the evidences of the foundations of all the land titles.
This would be sweeping work; but the gentleman's plan would be
incomplete without including the General Land Office in this
city, the principal business of which is to superintend the five
Surveyor General's offices, and for which there could be but
little use after they were abolished.
"These are the practical effects of the resolution. Emigration
to the new States checked their settlement limited; a large
portion of their surface delivered up to the dominion of
beasts; the land records removed. Such are the injuries to be
inflicted upon the new States, and we, the senators from those
States, are called upon to vote in favor of the resolution which
proposes to inquire into the expediency of committing all these
enormities! I, for one, will not do it. I will vote for no such
inquiry. I would as soon vote for inquiries into the expediency
of conflagrating cities, of devastating provinces, and of
submerging fruitful lands under the waves of the ocean.
"I take my stand upon a great moral principle, that it is never
right to inquire into the expediency of doing wrong.
"The proposed inquiry is to do wrong; to inflict unmixed,
unmitigated evil upon the new States and Territories. Such
inquiries are not to be tolerated. Courts of law will not
sustain actions which have immoral foundations; legislative
bodies should not sustain inquiries which have iniquitous
conclusions. Courts of law make it an object to give public
satisfaction in the administration of justice; legislative
bodies should consult the public tranquillity in the
prosecution of their measures. They should not alarm and
agitate the country; yet, this inquiry, if it goes on, will
give the greatest dissatisfaction to the new States in the
West and South. It will alarm and agitate them, and ought to
do it. It will connect itself with other inquiries going on
elsewhere--in the other end of this building--in the House of
Representatives--to make the new States a source of revenue
to the old ones, to deliver them up to a new set of masters,
to throw them as grapes into the wine press, to be trod and
squeezed as long as one drop of juice could be pressed from
their hulls. These measures will go together; and if that
resolution passes, and this one passes, the transition will
be easy and natural, from dividing the money after the lands
are sold, to divide the lands before they are sold, and then
to renting the land and drawing an annual income, instead of
selling it for a price in hand. The signs are portentous; the
crisis is alarming; it is time for the new States to wake up to
their danger, and to prepare for a struggle which carries ruin
and disgrace to them, if the issue is against them."
The debate spread, and took an acrimonious turn, and sectional,
imputing to the quarter of the Union from which it came an old,
and early policy to check the growth of the West at the outset
by proposing to limit the sale of the western lands to a "clean
riddance" as they went--selling no tract in advance until all in the
rear was sold out. It so happened that the first ordinance reported
for the sale and survey of western lands in the Congress of the
Confederation, (1785,) contained a provision to this effect; and
came from a committee strongly Northern--two to one, eight against
four: and was struck out in the House on the motion of southern
members, supported by the whole power of the South. I gave this
account of the circumstance:
"The ordinance reported by the committee, contained the plan
of surveying the public lands, which has since been followed.
It adopted the scientific principle of ranges of townships,
which has been continued ever since, and found so beneficial
in a variety of ways to the country. The ranges began on the
Pennsylvania line, and proceeded west to the Mississippi; and
since the acquisition of Louisiana, they have proceeded west
of that river; the townships began upon the Ohio River, and
proceeded north to the Lakes. The townships were divided into
sections of a mile square, six hundred and forty acres each; and
the minimum price was fixed at one dollar per acre, and not less
than a section to be sold together. This is the outline of the
present plan of sales and surveys; and, with the modifications
it has received, and may receive, in graduating the price of the
land to the quality, the plan is excellent. But a principle was
incorporated in the ordinance of the most fatal character. It
was, that each township should be sold out complete before any
land could offered in the next one! This was tantamount to a law
that the lands should not be sold; that the country should not
be settled: for it is certain that every township, or almost
every one, would contain land unfit for cultivation, and for
which no person would give six hundred and forty dollars for six
hundred and forty acres. The effect of such a provision may be
judged by the fact that above one hundred thousand acres remain
to this day unsold in the first land district; the district of
Steubenville, in Ohio, which included the first range and first
township. If that provision had remained in the ordinance,
the settlements would not yet have got out of sight of the
Pennsylvania line. It was an unjust and preposterous provision.
It required the people to take the country clean before them;
buy all as they went; mountains, hills, and swamps; rocks,
glens, and prairies. They were to make clean work, as the giant
Polyphemus did when he ate up the companions of Ulysses:
'No entrails, blood, nor solid bone remains.'
Nothing could be more iniquitous than such a provision. It
was like requiring your guest to eat all the bones on his plate
before he should have more meat. To say that township No. 1
should be sold out complete before township No. 2 should be
offered for sale, was like requiring the bones of the first
turkey to be eat up before the breast of the second one should
be touched. Yet such was the provision contained in the first
ordinance for the sale of the public lands, reported by a
committee of twelve, of which eight were from the north and
four from the south side of the Potomac. How invincible must
have been the determination of some politicians to prevent the
settlement of the West, when they would thus counteract the
sales of the lands which had just been obtained after years of
importunity, for the payment of the public debt!
"When this ordinance was put upon its passage in Congress, two
Virginians, whose names, for that act alone, would deserve the
lasting gratitude of the West, levelled their blows against the
obnoxious provision. Mr. Grayson moved to strike it out, and Mr.
Monroe seconded him; and, after an animated and arduous contest,
they succeeded. The whole South supported them; not one recreant
arm from the South; many scattering members from the North also
voted with the South, and in favor of the infant West; proving
then, as now, and as it always has been, that the West has true
supporters of her rights and interests--unhappily not enough of
them--in that quarter of the Union from which the measures have
originated that several times threatened to be fatal to her."
Still enlarging its circle, but as yet still confined to the sale
and disposition of the public lands, the debate went on to discuss
the propriety of selling them to settlers at auction prices,
and at an arbitrary minimum for all qualities, and a refusal of
donations; and in this hard policy the North was again considered
as the exacting part of the Union--the South as the favorer of
liberal terms, and the generous dispenser of gratuitous grants to
the settlers in the new States and Territories. On this point, Mr.
Hayne, of South Carolina, thus expressed himself:
"The payment of 'a penny,' or a 'pepper corn,' was the
stipulated price which our fathers along the whole Atlantic
coast, now composing the old thirteen States, paid for their
lands; and even when conditions, seemingly more substantial,
were annexed to the grants; such for instance as 'settlement and
cultivation;' these were considered as substantially complied
with, by the cutting down a few trees and erecting a log
cabin--the work of only a few days. Even these conditions very
soon came to be considered as merely nominal, and were never
required to be pursued, in order to vest in the grantee the fee
simple of the soil. Such was the system under which this country
was originally settled, and under which the thirteen colonies
flourished and grew up to that early and vigorous manhood, which
enabled them in a few years to achieve their independence; and
I beg gentlemen to recollect, and note the fact, that, while
they paid substantially nothing to the mother country, the whole
profits of their industry were suffered to remain in their own
hands. Now, what, let us inquire, was the reason which has
induced all nations to adopt this system in the settlement of
new countries? Can it be any other than this; that it affords
the only certain means of building up in a wilderness, great
and prosperous communities? Was not that policy founded on
the universal belief, that the conquest of a new country, the
driving out "the savage beasts and still more savage men,"
cutting down and subduing the forest, and encountering all the
hardships and privations necessarily incident to the conversion
of the wilderness into cultivated fields, was worth the fee
simple of the soil? And was it not believed that the mother
country found ample remuneration for the value of the land so
granted, in the additions to her power and the new sources of
commerce and of wealth, furnished by prosperous and populous
States? Now, sir, I submit to the candid consideration of
gentlemen, whether the policy so diametrically opposite to this,
which has been invariably pursued by the United States towards
the new States in the West has been quite so just and liberal,
as we have been accustomed to believe. Certain it is, that the
British colonies to the north of us, and the Spanish and French
to the south and west, have been fostered and reared up under
a very different system. Lands, which had been for fifty or a
hundred years open to every settler, without any charge beyond
the expense of the survey, were, the moment they fell into the
hands of the United States, held up for sale at the highest
price that a public auction, at the most favorable seasons, and
not unfrequently a spirit of the wildest competition, could
produce; with a limitation that they should never be sold below
a certain minimum price; thus making it, as it would seem, the
cardinal point of our policy, not to settle the country, and
facilitate the formation of new States, but to fill our coffers
by coining our lands into gold."
The debate was taking a turn which was foreign to the expectations
of the mover of the resolution, and which, in leading to sectional
criminations, would only inflame feelings without leading to any
practical result. Mr. Webster saw this; and to get rid of the
whole subject, moved its indefinite postponement; but in arguing
his motion he delivered a speech which introduced new topics, and
greatly enlarged the scope, and extended the length of the debate
which he proposed to terminate. One of these new topics referred
to the authorship, and the merit of passing the famous ordinance
of 1787, for the government of the Northwestern Territory, and
especially in relation to the antislavery clause which that
ordinance contained. Mr. Webster claimed the merit of this
authorship for Mr. Nathan Dane--an eminent jurist of Massachusetts,
and avowed that "_it was carried by the North, and by the North
alone_." I replied, claiming the authorship for Mr. Jefferson,
and showing from the Journals that he (Mr. Jefferson) brought the
measure into Congress in the year 1784 (the 19th of April of that
year), as chairman of a committee, with the antislavery clause in
it, which Mr. Speight, of North Carolina, moved to strike out; and
it was struck out--the three Southern States present voting for the
striking out, because the clause did not then contain the provision
in favor of the recovery of fugitive slaves, which was afterwards
ingrafted upon it. Mr. Webster says it was struck out because "nine
States" did not vote for its retention. That is an error arising
from confounding the powers of the confederation. Nine States were
only required to concur in measures of the highest import, as
declaring war, making peace, negotiating treaties, &c.,--and in all
ordinary legislation the concurrence of a bare majority (seven) was
sufficient; and in this case there were only six States voting for
the retention, New Jersey being erroneously counted by Mr. Webster
to make seven. If she had voted the number would have been seven,
and the clause would have stood. He was led into the error by seeing
the name of Mr. Dick appearing in the call for New Jersey; but New
Jersey was not present as a State, being represented by only one
member, and it requiring two to constitute the presence of a State.
Mr. Dick was indulged with putting his name on the Journal, but his
vote was not counted. Mr. Webster says the ordinance reported by
Mr. Jefferson in 1784 did not pass into a law. This is a mistake
again. It did pass; and that within five days after the antislavery
clause was struck out--and that without any attempt to renew that
clause, although the competent number (seven) of non-slaveholding
States were present--the colleague of Mr. Dick having joined him,
and constituted the presence of New Jersey. Two years afterwards, in
July 1787, the ordinance was passed over again, as it now stands,
and was pre-eminently the work of the South. The ordinance, as it
now stands, was reported by a committee of five members, of whom
three were from slaveholding States, and two (and one of them the
chairman) were from Virginia alone. It received its first reading
the day it was reported--its second reading the next day, when one
other State had appeared--the third reading on the day ensuing;
going through all the forms of legislation, and becoming a law in
three days--receiving the votes of the eight States present, and
the vote of every member of each State, except one; and that one
from a free State north of the Potomac. These details I verified by
producing the Journals, and showed under the dates of July 11th,
1787, and July 12th and 13th, the votes actually given for the
ordinance. The same vote repealed the ordinance (Mr. Jefferson's)
of 1784. I read in the Senate the passages from the Journal of the
Congress of the confederation, the passages which showed these
votes, and incorporated into the speech which I published, the
extract from the Journal which I produced; and now incorporate the
same in this work, that the authorship of that ordinance of 1787,
and its passage through the old Congress, may be known in all
time to come as the indisputable work, both in its conception and
consummation, of the South. This is the extract:
THE JOURNAL.
_Wednesday, July 11th, 1787._
"Congress assembled: Present, the seven States above mentioned."
(Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Georgia--7.)
"The Committee, consisting of Mr. Carrington (of Virginia),
Mr. Dane (of Massachusetts), Mr. R. H. Lee (of Virginia), Mr.
Kean (of South Carolina), and Mr. Smith (of New York), to whom
was referred the report of a committee touching the temporary
government of the Western Territory, reported an ordinance for
the government of the Territory of the United States northwest
of the river Ohio; which was read a first time.
"Ordered, That to-morrow be assigned for the second reading."
"_Thursday, July 12th, 1787._
"Congress assembled: Present, Massachusetts, New York, New
Jersey, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Georgia--(8.)
"According to order, the ordinance for the government of the
Territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio, was
read a second time.
"Ordered, That to-morrow be assigned for the third reading of
said ordinance."
"_Friday, July 13th, 1787._
"Congress assembled: Present, as yesterday.
"According to order, the ordinance for the government of the
Territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio, was
read a third time, and passed as follows."
[Here follows the whole ordinance, in the very words in which
it now appears among the laws of the United States, with the
non-slavery clause, the provisions in favor of schools and
education, against impairing the obligation of contracts,
laying the foundation and security of all these stipulations
in compact, in favor of restoring fugitives from service, and
repealing the ordinance of 23d of April, 1784--the one reported
by Mr. Jefferson.]
"On passing the above ordinance, the yeas and nays being
required by Mr. Yates:
_Massachusetts_--Mr. Holten, aye; Mr. Dane, aye.
_New York_--Mr. Smith, aye; Mr. Yates, no; Mr. Harring, aye.
_New Jersey_--Mr. Clarke, aye; Mr. Scheurman, aye.
_Delaware_--Mr. Kearney, aye; Mr. Mitchell, aye.
Virginia--Mr. Grayson, aye; Mr. R. H. Lee, aye; Mr. Carrington,
aye.
_North Carolina_--Mr. Blount, aye; Mr. Hawkins, aye.
_South Carolina_--Mr. Kean, aye; Mr. Huger, aye.
_Georgia_--Mr. Few, aye; Mr. Pierce, aye.
So it was resolved in the affirmative." (Page 754, volume 4.)
The bare reading of these passages from the Journals of the Congress
of the old confederation, shows how erroneous Mr. Webster was in
these portions of his speech:
"At the foundation of the constitution of these new northwestern
States, we are accustomed, sir, to praise the lawgivers
of antiquity; we help to perpetuate the fame of Solon and
Lycurgus; but I doubt whether one single law of any lawgiver,
ancient or modern, has produced effects of more distinct,
marked, and lasting character, than the ordinance of '87.
That instrument, was drawn by Nathan Dane, then, and now, a
citizen of Massachusetts. It was adopted, as I think I have
understood, without the slightest alteration; and certainly it
has happened to few men to be the authors of a political measure
of more large and enduring consequence. It fixed, for ever,
the character of the population in the vast regions northwest
of the Ohio, by excluding from them involuntary servitude. It
impressed on the soil itself, while it was yet a wilderness,
an incapacity to bear up any other than free men. It laid the
interdict against personal servitude, in original compact, not
only deeper than all local law, but deeper, also, than all
local constitutions. Under the circumstances then existing,
I look upon this original and seasonable provision, as a real
good attained. We see its consequences at this moment, and we
shall never cease to see them, perhaps, while the Ohio shall
flow. It was a great and salutary measure of prevention. Sir, I
should fear the rebuke of no intelligent gentleman of Kentucky,
were I to ask whether if such an ordinance could have been
applied to his own State, while it yet was a wilderness, and
before Boon had passed the gap of the Alleghany, he does not
suppose it would have contributed to the ultimate greatness of
that commonwealth? It is, at any rate, not to be doubted, that
where it did apply it has produced an effect not easily to be
described, or measured in the growth of the States, and the
extent and increase of their population. Now, sir, this great
measure again was carried by the north, and by the north alone.
There were, indeed, individuals elsewhere favorable to it; but
it was supported as a measure, entirely by the votes of the
northern States. If New England had been governed by the narrow
and selfish views now ascribed to her, this very measure was,
of all others, the best calculated to thwart her purposes. It
was, of all things, the very means of rendering certain a vast
emigration from her own population to the west. She looked to
that consequence only to disregard it. She deemed the regulation
a most useful one to the States that would spring up on the
territory, and advantageous to the country at large. She adhered
to the principle of it perseveringly, year after year, until it
was finally accomplished.
"An attempt has been made to transfer, from the North to
the South, the honor of this exclusion of slavery from the
northwestern territory. The journal, without argument or
comment, refutes such attempt. The cession by Virginia was
made, March, 1784. On the 19th of April following, a committee,
consisting of Messrs. Jefferson, Chase, and Howell, reported a
plan for a temporary government of the territory, in which was
this article: 'that, after the year 1800, there shall be neither
slavery, nor involuntary servitude in any of the said States,
otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall
have been convicted.' Mr. Speight, of North Carolina, moved to
strike out this paragraph. The question was put, according to
the form then practised: 'Shall these words stand, as part of
the plan,' &c.? New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania--seven
States, voted in the affirmative. Maryland, Virginia, and South
Carolina, in the negative. North Carolina was divided. As the
consent of nine States was necessary, the words could not stand,
and were struck out accordingly. Mr. Jefferson voted for the
clause, but was overruled by his colleagues.
"In March, the next year [1785], Mr. King of Massachusetts,
seconded by Mr. Ellery of Rhode Island, proposed the formerly
rejected article, with this addition: '_And that this
regulation shall be an article of compact, and remain a
fundamental principle of the constitutions between the thirteen
original States, and each of the States described in the
resolve_,' &c. On this clause, which provided the adequate
and thorough security, the eight northern States at that time
voted affirmatively, and the four southern States negatively.
The votes of nine States were not yet obtained, and thus,
the provision was again rejected by the southern States. The
perseverance of the north held out, and two years afterwards the
object was attained."
This is shown to be all erroneous in relation to this ordinance.
It was not first drawn by Mr. Dane, but by Mr. Jefferson, and that
nearly two years before Mr. Dane came into Congress. It was not
passed by the North alone, but equally by the South--there being
but eight States present at the passing, and they equally of the
North and the South--and the South voting unanimously for it, both
as States and as individual members, while the North had one member
against it. It was not baffled two years for the want of nine
States; if so, and nine States had been necessary, it would not have
been passed when it was, and never by free State votes alone. There
were but eight States (both Northern and Southern) present at the
passing; and there were not nine free States in the confederacy at
that time. There were but thirteen in all: and the half of these,
as nearly as thirteen can be divided, were slave States. The fact
is, that the South only delayed its vote for the antislavery clause
in the ordinance for want of the provision in favor of recovering
fugitives from service. As soon as that was added, she took the lead
again for the ordinance--a fact which gives great emphasis to the
corresponding provision in the constitution.
Mr. Webster was present when I read these extracts, and said
nothing. He neither reaffirmed his previous statement, that Mr. Dane
was the author of the ordinance, and that "_this great measure was
carried by the North, and by the North alone_." He said nothing;
nor did he afterwards correct the errors of his speech: and they
now remain in it; and have given occasion to a very authentic
newspaper contradiction of his statement, copied, like my statement
to the Senate, from the Journals of the old Congress. It was by
Edward Coles, Esq., formerly of Virginia, and private secretary to
President Madison, afterwards governor of the State of Illinois, and
now a citizen of Pennsylvania, resident of Philadelphia. He made
his correction through the National Intelligencer, of Washington
City; and being drawn from the same sources it agrees entirely with
my own. And thus the South is entitled to the credit of originating
and passing this great measure--a circumstance to be remembered and
quoted, as showing the South at that time in taking the lead in
curtailing and restricting the existence of slavery. The cause of
Mr. Webster's mistakes may be found in the fact that the ordinance
was three times before the old Congress, and once (the third time)
in the hands of a committee of which Mr. Dane was a member. It was
first reported by a committee of three (April, 1784) of which two
were from slave states, (Mr. Jefferson of Virginia and Mr. Chase of
Maryland,) Mr. Howard, of Rhode Island; and this, as stated, was
nearly two years before Mr. Dane became a member. The antislavery
clause was then dropped, there being but six States for it. The next
year, the antislavery clause, with some modification, was moved by
Mr. Rufus King, and sent as a proposition to a committee: but did
not ripen into a law. Afterwards the whole ordinance was passed as
it now stands, upon the report of a committee of six, of whom Mr.
Dane was one; but not the chairman.
Closely connected with this question of authorship to which Mr.
Webster's remarks give rise, was another which excited some warm
discussion--the topic of slavery--and the effect of its existence
or non-existence in different States. Kentucky and Ohio were taken
for examples, and the superior improvement and population of Ohio
were attributed to its exemption from the evils of slavery. This
was an excitable subject, and the more so because the wounds of
the Missouri controversy, in which the North was the undisputed
aggressor, were still tender, and hardly scarred over. Mr. Hayne
answered with warmth and resented as a reflection upon the slave
States this disadvantageous comparison. I replied to the same topic
myself, and said:
"I was on the subject of slavery, as connected with the Missouri
question, when last on the floor. The senator from South
Carolina [Mr. Hayne] could see nothing in the question before
the Senate, nor in any previous part of the debate, to justify
the introduction of that topic. Neither could I. He thought he
saw the ghost of the Missouri question brought in among us.
So did I. He was astonished at the apparition. I was not: for
a close observance of the signs in the West had prepared me
for this development from the East. I was well prepared for
that invective against slavery, and for that amplification of
the blessings of exemption from slavery, exemplified in the
condition of Ohio, which the senator from Massachusetts indulged
in, and which the object in view required to be derived from
the Northeast. I cut the root of that derivation by reading a
passage from the Journals of the old Congress; but this will
not prevent the invective and encomium from going forth to do
their office; nor obliterate the line which was drawn between
the free State of Ohio and the slave State of Kentucky. If
the only results of this invective and encomium were to exalt
still higher the oratorical fame of the speaker, I should
spend not a moment in remarking upon them. But it is not to be
forgotten that the terrible Missouri agitation took its rise
from the "substance of two speeches" delivered on this floor;
and since that time, antislavery speeches, coming from the same
political and geographical quarter, are not to be disregarded
here. What was said upon that topic was certainly intended for
the north side of the Potomac and Ohio; to the people, then,
of that division of the Union, I wish to address myself, and
to disabuse them of some erroneous impressions. To them I can
truly say, that slavery, in the abstract, has but few advocates
or defenders in the slave-holding States, and that slavery as
it is, an hereditary institution descended upon us from our
ancestors, would have fewer advocates among us than it has, if
those who have nothing to do with the subject would only let
us alone. The sentiment in favor of slavery was much weaker
before those intermeddlers began their operations than it is
at present. The views of leading men in the North and the
South were indisputably the same in the earlier periods of our
government. Of this our legislative history contains the highest
proof. The foreign-slave trade was prohibited in Virginia, as
soon as the Revolution began. It was one of her first acts of
sovereignty. In the convention of that State which adopted the
federal constitution, it was an objection to that instrument
that it tolerated the African slave-trade for twenty years.
Nothing that has appeared since has surpassed the indignant
denunciations of this traffic by Patrick Henry, George Mason,
and others, in that convention.
"Sir, I regard with admiration, that is to say, with wonder,
the sublime morality of those who cannot bear the abstract
contemplation of slavery, at the distance of five hundred or a
thousand miles off. It is entirely above, that is to say, it
affects a vast superiority over the morality of the primitive
Christians, the apostles of Christ, and Christ himself. Christ
and the apostles appeared in a province of the Roman empire,
when that empire was called the Roman world, and that world was
filled with slaves. Forty millions was the estimated number,
being one-fourth of the whole population. Single individuals
held twenty thousand slaves. A freed man, one who had himself
been a slave, died the possessor of four thousand--such were
the numbers. The rights of the owners over this multitude of
human beings was that of life and death, without protection
from law or mitigation from public sentiment. The scourge,
the cross, the fish-pond, the den of the wild beast, and the
arena of the gladiator, was the lot of the slave, upon the
slightest expression of the master's will. A law of incredible
atrocity made all slaves responsible with their own lives for
the life of their master; it was the law that condemned the
whole household of slaves to death, in case of the assassination
of the master--a law under which as many as four hundred have
been executed at a time. And these slaves were the white people
of Europe and of Asia Minor, the Greeks and other nations,
from whom the present inhabitants of the world derive the
most valuable productions of the human mind. Christ saw all
this--the number of the slaves--their hapless condition--and
their white color, which was the same with his own; yet he said
nothing against slavery; he preached no doctrines which led to
insurrection and massacre; none which, in their application
to the state of things in our country, would authorize an
inferior race of blacks to exterminate that superior race of
whites, in whose ranks he himself appeared upon earth. He
preached no such doctrines, but those of a contrary tenor,
which inculcated the duty of fidelity and obedience on the
part of the slave--humanity and kindness on the part of the
master. His apostles did the same. St. Paul sent back a runaway
slave. Onesimus, to his owner, with a letter of apology and
supplication. He was not the man to harbor a runaway, much less
to entice him from his master; and, least of all, to excite an
insurrection."
This allusion to the Missouri controversy, and invective against the
free States for their part in it, brought a reply from Mr. Webster,
showing what their conduct had been at the first introduction of the
slavery topic in the Congress of the United States, and that they
totally refused to interfere between master and slave in any way
whatever. This is what he said:
"When the present constitution was submitted for the
ratification of the people, there were those who imagined that
the powers of the government which it proposed to establish
might, perhaps, in some possible mode, be exerted in measures
tending to the abolition of slavery. This suggestion would, of
course, attract much attention in the southern conventions. In
that of Virginia, Governor Randolph said:
"'I hope there is none here who, considering the subject in the
calm light of philosophy, will make an objection dishonorable to
Virginia--that, at the moment they are securing the rights of
their citizens, an objection is started, that there is a spark
of hope that those unfortunate men now held in bondage may, by
the operation of the general government, be made free.'
"At the very first Congress, petitions on the subject
were presented, if I mistake not, from different States.
The Pennsylvania society for promoting the abolition of
slavery, took a lead, and laid before Congress a memorial,
praying Congress to promote the abolition by such powers as
it possessed. This memorial was referred, in the House of
Representatives, to a select committee consisting of Mr. Foster
of New Hampshire; Mr. Gerry of Massachusetts, Mr. Huntington of
Connecticut; Mr. Lawrence of New-York; Mr. Sinnickson of New
Jersey; Mr. Hartley of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Parker of Virginia;
all of them, sir, as you will observe, northern men, but the
last. This committee made a report, which was committed to a
committee of the whole house, and there considered and discussed
on several days; and being amended, although in no material
respect, it was made to express three distinct propositions on
the subject of slavery and the slave-trade. First, in the words
of the constitution, that Congress could not, prior to the year
1808, prohibit the migration or importation of such persons as
any of the States, then existing, should think proper to admit.
Second, that Congress had authority to restrain the citizens of
the United States from carrying on the African slave-trade, for
the purpose of supplying foreign countries. On this proposition,
our laws against those who engage in that traffic, are founded.
The third proposition, and that which bears on the present
question, was expressed in the following terms:
"'_Resolved_, That Congress have no authority to interfere in
the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them in any
of the States; it remaining with the several States alone to
provide rules and regulations therein, which humanity and true
policy may require.'
"This resolution received the sanction of the House of
Representatives so early as March, 1790. And now, sir, the
honorable member will allow me to remind him, that not only were
the select committee who reported the resolution, with a single
exception, all northern men, but also that of the members then
composing the House of Representatives, a large majority, I
believe nearly two thirds, were northern men also.
"The house agreed to insert these resolutions in its journal,
and, from that day to this, it has never been maintained or
contended that Congress had any authority to regulate, or
interfere with, the condition of slaves in the several States.
No northern gentleman, to my knowledge, has moved any such
question in either house of Congress.
"The fears of the South, whatever fears they might have
entertained, were allayed and quieted by this early decision;
and so remained, till they were excited afresh, without cause,
but for collateral and indirect purposes. When it became
necessary, or was thought so, by some political persons, to
find an unvarying ground for the exclusion of northern men
from confidence and from lead in the affairs of the republic,
then, and not till then, the cry was raised, and the feeling
industriously excited, that the influence of northern men in
the public councils would endanger the relation of master and
slave. For myself I claim no other merit than that this gross
and enormous injustice towards the whole North, has not wrought
upon me to change my opinions, or my political conduct. I hope
I am above violating my principles, even under the smart of
injury and false imputations. Unjust suspicions and undeserved
reproach, whatever pain I may experience from them, will not
induce me, I trust, nevertheless, to overstep the limits of
constitutional duty, or to encroach on the rights of others.
The domestic slavery of the South I leave where I find it--in
the hands of their own governments. It is their affair, not
mine. Nor do I complain of the peculiar effect which the
magnitude of that population has had in the distribution of
power under this federal government. We know, sir, that the
representation of the states in the other house is not equal.
We know that great advantage, in that respect, is enjoyed by
the slaveholding States; and we know, too, that the intended
equivalent for that advantage, that is to say, the imposition of
direct taxes in the same ratio, has become merely nominal; the
habit of the government being almost invariably to collect its
revenues from other sources, and in other modes. Nevertheless,
I do not complain: nor would I countenance any movement to
alter this arrangement of representation. It is the original
bargain, the compact--let it stand: let the advantage of it be
fully enjoyed. The Union itself is too full of benefit to be
hazarded in propositions for changing its original basis. I
go for the constitution as it is, and for the Union as it is.
But I am resolved not to submit, in silence, to accusations,
either against myself individually, or against the North,
wholly unfounded and unjust; accusations which impute to us a
disposition to evade the constitutional compact, and to extend
the power of the government over the internal laws and domestic
condition of the States. All such accusations, wherever and
whenever made, all insinuations of the existence of any such
purposes, I know, and feel to be groundless and injurious. And
we must confide in southern gentlemen themselves; we must trust
to those whose integrity of heart and magnanimity of feeling
will lead them to a desire to maintain and disseminate truth,
and who possess the means of its diffusion with the southern
public; we must leave it to them to disabuse that public of its
prejudices. But, in the mean time, for my own part, I shall
continue to act justly, whether those towards whom justice is
exercised, receive it with candor or with contumely."
This is what Mr. Webster said on the subject of slavery; and
although it was in reply to an invective of my own, excited by
the recent agitation of the Missouri question, I made no answer
impugning its correctness; and must add that I never saw any thing
in Mr. Webster inconsistent with what he then said; and believe that
the same resolves could have been passed in the same way at any time
during the thirty years that I was in Congress.
But the topic which became the leading feature of the whole
debate; and gave it an interest which cannot die, was that of
nullification--the assumed right of a state to annul an act of
Congress--then first broached in our national legislature--and in
the discussion of which Mr. Webster and Mr. Hayne were the champion
speakers on opposite sides--the latter understood to be speaking the
sentiments of the Vice-President, Mr. Calhoun. This new turn in the
debate was thus brought about: Mr. Hayne, in the sectional nature of
the discussion which had grown up, made allusions to the conduct of
New England during the war of 1812; and especially to the assemblage
known as the Hartford Convention, and to which designs unfriendly to
the Union had been attributed. This gave Mr. Webster the rights both
of defence and of retaliation; and he found material for the first
in the character of the assemblage, and for the second in the public
meetings which had taken place in South Carolina on the subject of
the tariff--and at which resolves were passed, and propositions
adopted significant of resistance to the act; and, consequently, of
disloyalty to the Union. He, in his turn, made allusions to these
resolves and propositions, until he drew out Mr. Hayne into their
defence, and into an avowal of what has since obtained the current
name of "_Nullification_;" although at the time (during the debate)
it did not at all strike me as going the length which it afterwards
avowed; nor have I ever believed that Mr. Hayne contemplated
disunion, in any contingency, as one of its results. In entering
upon the argument, Mr. Webster first summed up the doctrine, as he
conceived it to be avowed, thus:
"I understand the honorable gentleman from South Carolina
to maintain, that it is a right of the State legislature
to interfere, whenever, in their judgment, this government
transcends its constitutional limits, and to arrest the
operation of its laws.
"I understand him to maintain this right, as a right existing
under the constitution; not as a right to overthrow it, on the
ground of extreme necessity, such as would justify violent
revolution.
"I understand him to maintain an authority, on the part of the
States, thus to interfere, for the purpose of correcting the
exercise of power by the general government, of checking it, and
of compelling it to conform to their opinion of the extent of
its powers.
"I understand him to maintain that the ultimate power of judging
of the constitutional extent of its own authority is not lodged
exclusively in the general government, or any branch of it;
but that, on the contrary, the States may lawfully decide for
themselves, and each State for itself, whether, in a given case,
the act of the general government transcends its power.
"I understand him to insist that, if the exigency of the case,
in the opinion of any State government, require it, such State
government may, by its own sovereign authority, annul an act
of the general government, which it deems plainly and palpably
unconstitutional."
Mr. Hayne, evidently unprepared to admit, or fully deny, the
propositions as broadly laid down, had recourse to a statement
of his own; and, adopted for that purpose, the third resolve of
the Virginia resolutions of the year 1798--reaffirmed in 1799. He
rose immediately and said that, for the purpose of being clearly
understood, he would state that his proposition was in the words of
the Virginia resolution; and read it--
"That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare,
that it views the powers of the federal government as resulting
from the compact, to which the States are parties, as limited
by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting
that compact, as no farther valid than they are authorized by
the grants enumerated in that compact; and that, in case of a
deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers,
not granted by the said compact, the States who are parties
thereto have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for
arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within
their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties,
appertaining to them."
Thus were the propositions stated, and argued--each speaker taking
his own proposition for his text; which in the end, (and as the
Virginia resolutions turned out to be understood in the South
Carolina sense) came to be identical. Mr. Webster, at one point,
giving to his argument a practical form, and showing what the South
Carolina doctrine would have accomplished in New England if it had
been acted upon by the Hartford Convention, said:
"Let me here say, sir, that, if the gentleman's doctrine had
been received and acted upon in New England, in the times of
the embargo and non-intercourse, we should probably not now
have been here. The government would, very likely, have gone to
pieces, and crumbled into dust. No stronger case can ever arise
than existed under those laws; no States can ever entertain a
clearer conviction than the New England States then entertained;
and if they had been under the influence of that heresy of
opinion, as I must call it which the honorable member espouses,
this Union would, in all probability, have been scattered to
the four winds. I ask the gentleman, therefore, to apply his
principles to that case; I ask him to come forth and declare,
whether, in his opinion, the New England States would have been
justified in interfering to break up the embargo system, under
the conscientious opinions which they held upon it? Had they a
right to annul that law? Does he admit or deny? If that which is
thought palpably unconstitutional in South Carolina, justifies
that State in arresting the progress of the law, tell me,
whether that which was thought palpably unconstitutional also in
Massachusetts, would have justified her in doing the same thing?
Sir, I deny the whole doctrine. It has not a foot of ground in
the constitution to stand on. No public man of reputation ever
advanced it in Massachusetts, in the warmest times, or could
maintain himself upon it there at any time."
He argued that the doctrine had no foundation either in the
constitution, or in the Virginia resolutions--that the constitution
makes the federal government act upon citizens within the States,
and not upon the States themselves, as in the old confederation:
that within their constitutional limits the laws of Congress were
supreme--and that it was treasonable to resist them with force: and
that the question of their constitutionality was to be decided by
the Supreme Court. On this point, he said:
"The people, then, sir, erected this government. They gave it
a constitution; and in that constitution they have enumerated
the powers which they bestow on it. They have made it a
limited government. They have defined its authority. They have
restrained it to the exercise of such powers as are granted; and
all others, they declare, are reserved to the States or to the
people. But, sir, they have not stopped here. If they had, they
would have accomplished but half their work. No definition can
be so clear as to avoid possibility of doubt; no limitation so
precise as to exclude all uncertainty. Who then shall construe
this grant of the people? Who shall interpret their will, where
it may be supposed they have left it doubtful? With whom do
they repose this ultimate right of deciding on the powers of
the government? Sir, they have settled all this in the fullest
manner. They have left it with the government itself, in its
appropriate branches. Sir, the very chief end, the main design,
for which the whole constitution was framed and adopted was, to
establish a government that should not be obliged to act through
State agency, or depend on State opinion and State discretion.
The people had had quite enough of that kind of government
under the confederacy. Under that system, the legal action,
the application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to
the States. Congress could only recommend; their acts were not
of binding force, till the States had adopted and sanctioned
them. Are we in that condition still? Are we yet at the mercy
of State discretion, and State construction? Sir, if we are,
then vain will be our attempt to maintain the constitution under
which we sit. But, sir, the people have wisely provided, in the
constitution itself, a proper, suitable mode and tribunal for
settling questions of constitutional law. There are, in the
constitution, grants of powers to Congress, and restrictions
on these powers. There are, also, prohibitions on the States.
Some authority must, therefore, necessarily exist, having the
ultimate jurisdiction to fix and ascertain the interpretation of
these grants, restrictions, and prohibitions. The constitution
has, itself, pointed out, ordained, and established, that
authority. How has it accomplished this great and essential end?
By declaring, sir, that 'the constitution, and the laws of the
United States made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme
law of the land, any thing in the constitution or laws of any
State to the contrary notwithstanding.'
"This, sir, was the first great step. By this, the supremacy
of the constitution and laws of the United States is declared.
The people so will it. No State law is to be valid which comes
in conflict with the constitution or any law of the United
States. But who shall decide this question of interference? To
whom lies the last appeal? This, sir, the constitution itself
decides also, by declaring 'that the judicial power shall
extend to all cases arising under the constitution and laws of
the United States.' These two provisions, sir, cover the whole
ground. They are, in truth, the key-stone of the arch. With
these, it is a constitution; without them it is a confederacy.
In pursuance of these clear and express provisions, Congress
established, at its very first session, in the Judicial Act, a
mode for carrying them into full effect, and for bringing all
questions of constitutional power to the final decision of the
Supreme Court. It then, sir, became a government. It then had
the means of self-protection; and, but for this, it would, in
all probability, have been now among things which are past.
Having constituted the government, and declared its powers,
the people have farther said, that, since somebody must decide
on the extent of these powers, the government shall itself
decide; subject, always, like other popular governments, to its
responsibility to the people. And now, sir, I repeat, how is
it that a State legislature acquires any power to interfere?
Who or what gives them the right to say to the people, 'we, who
are your agents and servants for one purpose, will undertake to
decide that your other agents and servants, appointed by you for
another purpose, have transcended the authority you gave them?'
The reply would be, I think, not impertinent: who made you judge
over another's servants? To their own masters they stand or
fall."
With respect to the Virginia resolutions, on which Mr. Hayne relied,
Mr. Webster disputed the interpretation put upon them--claimed for
them an innocent and justifiable meaning--and exempted Mr. Madison
from the suspicion of having penned a resolution asserting the right
of a State legislature to annul an act of Congress, and thereby
putting it in the power of one State to destroy a form of government
which he had just labored so hard to establish. To this effect he
said:
"I wish now, sir, to make a remark upon the Virginia resolutions
of 1798. I cannot undertake to say how these resolutions were
understood by those who passed them. Their language is not a
little indefinite. In the case of the exercise, by Congress, of
a dangerous power, not granted to them, the resolutions assert
the right, on the part of the State, to interfere, and arrest
the progress of the evil. This is susceptible of more than one
interpretation. It may mean no more than that the States may
interfere by complaint and remonstrance; or by proposing to the
people an alteration of the federal constitution. This would all
be quite unobjectionable; or, it may be, that no more is meant
than to assert the general right of revolution, as against all
governments, in cases of intolerable oppression. This no one
doubts; and this, in my opinion, is all that he who framed the
resolutions could have meant by it: for I shall not readily
believe that he (Mr. Madison) was ever of opinion that a State,
under the constitution, and in conformity with it, could, upon
the ground of her own opinion of its unconstitutionality,
however clear and palpable she might think the case, annul a law
of Congress, so far as it should operate on herself, by her own
legislative power."
Mr. Hayne, on his part, disclaimed all imitation of the Hartford
Convention; and gave (as the practical part of his doctrine)
the pledge of forcible resistance to any attempt to enforce
unconstitutional laws. He said:
"Sir, unkind as my allusion to the Hartford Convention has been
considered by its supporters, I apprehend that this disclaimer
of the gentleman will be regarded as 'the unkindest cut of
all.' When the gentleman spoke of the Carolina conventions of
Colleton and Abbeville, let me tell him that he spoke of that
which never had existence, except in his own imagination. There
have, indeed, been meetings of the people in those districts,
composed, sir, of as high-minded and patriotic men as any
country can boast; but we have had no 'convention' as yet; and
when South Carolina shall resort to such a measure for the
redress of her grievances, let me tell the gentleman that, of
all the assemblies that have ever been convened in this country,
the Hartford Convention is the very last we shall consent to
take as an example; nor will it find more favor in our eyes,
from being recommended to us by the senator from Massachusetts.
Sir, we would scorn to take advantage of difficulties created
by a foreign war, to wring from the federal government a
redress even of our grievances. We are standing up for our
constitutional rights, in a time of profound peace; but if the
country should, unhappily, be involved in a war to-morrow, we
should be found flying to the standard of our country--first
driving back the common enemy, and then insisting upon the
restoration of our rights.
"The gentleman has called upon us to carry out our scheme
practically. Now, sir, if I am correct in my view of this
matter, then it follows, of course, that the right of a State
being established, the federal government is bound to acquiesce
in a solemn decision of a State, acting in its sovereign
capacity, at least so far as to make an appeal to the people
for an amendment to the constitution. This solemn decision of
a State (made either through its legislature, or a convention,
as may be supposed to be the proper organ of its sovereign
will--a point I do not propose now to discuss) binds the federal
government, under the highest constitutional obligation, not
to resort to any means of coercion against the citizens of the
dissenting State. How, then, can any collision ensue between
the federal and State governments, unless, indeed, the former
should determine to enforce the law by unconstitutional means?
What could the federal government do, in such a case? Resort,
says the gentleman, to the courts of justice. Now, can any man
believe that, in the face of a solemn decision of a State,
that an act of Congress is 'a gross, palpable, and deliberate
violation of the constitution,' and the interposition of its
sovereign authority to protect its citizens from the usurpation,
that juries could be found ready merely to register the decrees
of the Congress, wholly regardless of the unconstitutional
character of their acts? Will the gentleman contend that juries
are to be coerced to find verdicts at the point of the bayonet?
And if not, how are the United States to enforce an act solemnly
pronounced to be unconstitutional? But, if the attempt should
be made to carry such a law into effect, by force, in what
would the case differ from an attempt to carry into effect an
act nullified by the courts, or to do any other unlawful and
unwarrantable act? Suppose Congress should pass an agrarian law,
or a law emancipating our slaves, or should commit any other
gross violation of our constitutional rights, will any gentleman
contend that the decision of every branch of the federal
government, in favor of such laws, could prevent the States from
declaring them null and void, and protecting their citizens from
their operation?
"Sir, if Congress should ever attempt to enforce any such laws,
they would put themselves so clearly in the wrong, that no one
could doubt the right of the State to exert its protecting power.
"Sir, the gentleman has alluded to that portion of the militia
of South Carolina with which I have the honor to be connected,
and asked how they would act in the event of the nullification
of the tariff law by the State of South Carolina? The tone of
the gentleman, on this subject, did not seem to me as respectful
as I could have desired. I hope, sir, no imputation was
intended."
[Mr. Webster: "Not at all; just the reverse."]
"Well, sir, the gentleman asks what their leaders would be
able to read to them out of Coke upon Littleton, or any other
law book, to justify their enterprise? Sir, let me assure the
gentleman that, whenever any attempt shall be made from any
quarter, to enforce unconstitutional laws, clearly violating our
essential rights, our leaders (whoever they may be) will not
be found reading black letter from the musty pages of old law
books. They will look to the constitution, and when called upon,
by the sovereign authority of the State, to preserve and protect
the rights secured to them by the charter of their liberties,
they will succeed in defending them, or 'perish in the last
ditch.'"
I do not pretend to give the arguments of the gentlemen, or even
their substance, but merely to state their propositions and their
conclusions. For myself, I did not believe in any thing serious in
the new interpretation given to the Virginia resolutions--did not
believe in any thing practical from nullification--did not believe
in forcible resistance to the tariff laws from South Carolina--did
not believe in any scheme of disunion--believed, and still believe,
in the patriotism of Mr. Hayne: and as he came into the argument
on my side in the article of the public lands, so my wishes were
with him, and I helped him where I could. Of this desire to help,
and disbelief in disunion, I gave proof, in ridiculing, as well as
I could, Mr. Webster's fine peroration to liberty and union, and
really thought it out of place--a fine piece of rhetoric misplaced,
for want of circumstances to justify it. He had concluded thus:
"When my eyes shall be turned to behold, for the last time,
the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken
and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on States
dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil
feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their
last feeble and lingering glance, rather, behold the gorgeous
ensign of the republic, now known and honored throughout the
earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming
in their original lustre, not a stripe erased or polluted, nor
a single star obscured, bearing for its motto no such miserable
interrogatory as, What is all this worth? Nor those other words
of delusion and folly, Liberty first, and Union afterwards; but
every where, spread all over in characters of living light,
blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and
over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that
other sentiment, dear to every true American heart--Liberty
_and_ Union, now and for ever, one and inseparable!"
These were noble sentiments, oratorically expressed, but too
elaborately and too artistically composed for real grief in presence
of a great calamity--of which calamity I saw no sign; and therefore
deemed it a fit subject for gentle castigation: and essayed it thus:
"I proceed to a different theme. Among the novelties of
this debate, is that part of the speech of the senator from
Massachusetts which dwells with such elaboration of declamation
and ornament, upon the love and blessings of union--the hatred
and horror of disunion. It was a part of the senator's speech
which brought into full play the favorite Ciceronian figure of
amplification. It was up to the rule in that particular. But,
it seemed to me, that there was another rule, and a higher,
and a precedent one, which it violated. It was the rule of
propriety; that rule which requires the fitness of things to be
considered; which requires the time, the place, the subject, and
the audience, to be considered; and condemns the delivery of
the argument, and all its flowers, if it fails in congruence to
these particulars. I thought the essay upon union and disunion
had so failed. It came to us when we were not prepared for it;
when there was nothing in the Senate, nor in the country to
grace its introduction; nothing to give, or to receive, effect
to, or from, the impassioned scene that we witnessed. It may be,
it was the prophetic cry of the distracted daughter of Priam,
breaking into the council, and alarming its tranquil members
with vaticinations of the fall of Troy; but to me, it all
sounded like the sudden proclamation for an earthquake, when the
sun, the earth, the air, announced no such prodigy; when all the
elements of nature were at rest, and sweet repose pervading the
world. There was a time, and you, and I, and all of us, did see
it, sir, when such a speech would have found, in its delivery,
every attribute of a just and rigorous propriety! It was at a
time, when the five-striped banner was waving over the land of
the North! when the Hartford Convention was in session! when the
language in the capitol was, "Peaceably, if we can; forcibly,
if we must!" when the cry, out of doors, was, "the Potomac the
boundary; the negro States by themselves! The Alleghanies the
boundary; the Western savages by themselves! The Mississippi
the boundary, let Missouri be governed by a prefect, or given
up as a haunt for wild beasts!" That time was the fit occasion
for this speech; and if it had been delivered then, either in
the hall of the House of Representatives, or in the den of the
Hartford Convention, or in the highway among the bearers and
followers of the five-striped banner, what effects must it not
have produced! What terror and consternation among the plotters
of disunion! But, here, in this loyal and quiet assemblage, in
this season of general tranquillity and universal allegiance,
the whole performance has lost its effect for want of affinity,
connection, or relation, to any subject depending, or sentiment
expressed, in the Senate; for want of any application, or
reference, to any event impending in the country."
I do not quote this passage for any thing that I now see out of
place in that peroration; but for a quite different purpose--for
the purpose of showing that I was slow to believe in any design
to subvert this Union--that at the time of this great debate
(February and March, 1830) I positively discredited it, and publicly
proclaimed my incredulity. I did not want to believe it. I repulsed
the belief. I pushed aside every circumstance that Mr. Webster
relied on, and softened every expression that Mr. Hayne used, and
considered him as limiting (practically) his threatened resistance
to the tariff act, to the kind of resistance which Virginia made
to the alien and sedition laws--which was an appeal to the reason,
judgment and feelings of the other States--and which had its
effect in the speedy repeal of those laws. Mr. Calhoun had not
then uncovered his position in relation to nullification. I knew
that Mr. Webster was speaking at him in all that he said to Mr.
Hayne: but I would believe nothing against him except upon his own
showing, or undoubted evidence. Although not a favorite statesman
with me, I felt admiration for his high intellectual endowments, and
respect for the integrity and purity of his private life. Mr. Hayne
I cordially loved; and believed, and still believe, in the loyalty
of his intentions to the Union. They were both from the South--that
sister Carolina, of which the other was my native State, and in both
of which I have relatives and hereditary friends--and for which I
still have the affections which none but the wicked ever lose for
the land of their birth: and I felt as they did in all that relates
to the tariff--except their remedy. But enough for the present. The
occasion will come, when we arrive at the practical application of
the modern nullification doctrine, to vindicate the constitution
from the political solecism of containing within itself a suicidal
principle, and to vindicate the Virginia resolutions, and their
authors (and, in their own language), from the "_anarchical and
preposterous_" interpretation which has been put upon their words.
CHAPTER XLV.
REPEAL OF THE SALT TAX.
A tax on Salt is an odious measure, hated by all people and in all
time, and justly, because being an article of prime necessity,
indispensable to man and to beast, and bountifully furnished them
by the Giver of all good, the cost should not be burthened, nor the
use be stinted by government regulation; and the principles of fair
taxation would require it to be spared, because it is an agent, and
a great one, in the development of many branches of agricultural
and mechanical industry which add to the wealth of the country and
produce revenue from the exports and consumption to which they
give rise. People hate the salt tax, because they are obliged to
have the salt, and cannot evade the tax: governments love the tax
for the same reason--because people are obliged to pay it. This
would seem to apply to governments despotic or monarchial, and not
to those which are representative and popular. But representative
governments sometimes have calamities--war for example--when
subjects of taxation diminish as need for revenue increases: and
then representative governments, like others, must resort to the
objects which will supply its necessities. This has twice been the
case with the article of salt in the United States. The duty on that
article was carried up to a high tax in the _quasi_ war with France
(1798), having been small before; and then only imposed as a war
measure--to cease as soon as the war was over. But all governments
work alike on the imposition and release of taxes--easy to get them
on in a time of necessity--hard to get them off when the necessity
has passed. So of this first war tax on salt. The "speck of war"
with France, visible above the horizon in '98, soon sunk below it;
and the sunshine of peace prevailed. In the year 1800--two years
after the duty was raised to its maximum--the countries were on the
most friendly terms; but it was not until 1807, and under the whole
power of Mr. Jefferson's administration, that this temporary tax
was abolished; and with it the whole system of fishing bounties and
allowances founded upon it.
In the war of 1812, at the commencement of the war with Great
Britain, it was renewed, with its concomitant of fishing bounties
and allowances; but still as a temporary measure, limited to the
termination of the war which induced it, and one year thereafter.
The war terminated in 1815, and the additional year expired in
1816; but before the year was out, the tax was continued, not for
a definite period, but without time--on the specious argument
that, if a time was fixed, it would be difficult to get it off
before the time was out: but if unfixed, it would be easy to get
it off at any time: and all agreed that that was to be soon--that
a temporary continuance of all the taxes was necessary until the
revenue, deranged by the war, should become regular and adequate.
It was continued on this specious argument--and remained in full
until General Jackson's administration--and, in part, until this
day (1850)--the fishing bounties and allowances in full: and that
is the working of all governments in the levy and repeal of taxes.
I found the salt tax in full force when I came to the Senate in
1820, strengthened by time, sustained by a manufacturing interest,
and by the fishing interest (which made the tax a source of profit
in the supposed return of the duty in the shape of bounties and
allowances): and by the whole American system; which took the tax
into its keeping, as a protection to a branch of home industry. I
found efforts being made in each House to suppress this burthen upon
a prime necessary of life; and, in the session 1829-'30, delivered a
speech in support of the laudable endeavor, of which these are some
parts:
"Mr. Benton commenced his speech, by saying that he was no
advocate for unprofitable debate, and had no ambition to add
his name to the catalogue of barren orators; but that there
were cases in which speaking did good; cases in which moderate
abilities produced great results, and he believed the question
of repealing the salt tax to be one of those cases. It had
certainly been so in England. There the salt tax had been
overthrown by the labors of plain men, under circumstances
much more unfavorable to their undertaking than exist here.
The English salt tax had continued one hundred and fifty
years. It was cherished by the ministry, to whom it yielded a
million and a half sterling of revenue; it was defended by the
domestic salt makers, to whom it gave a monopoly of the home
market; it was consecrated by time, having subsisted for five
generations; it was fortified by the habits of the people, who
were born, and had grown gray under it; and it was sanctioned
by the necessities of the State, which required every resource
of rigorous taxation. Yet it was overthrown; and the overthrow
was effected by two debates, conducted, not by the orators
whose renown has filled the world--not by Sheridan, Burke,
Pitt, and Fox--but by plain, business men--Mr. Calcraft, Mr.
Curwen, and Mr. Egerton. These patriotic members of the British
Parliament commenced the war upon the British salt tax in 1817,
and finished it in 1822. They commenced with the omens and
auspices all against them, and ended with complete success.
They abolished the salt tax _in toto_. They swept it all off,
bravely rejecting all compromises when they had got their
adversaries half vanquished, and carrying their appeals home
to the people, until they had roused a spirit before which the
ministry quailed, the monopolizers trembled, the Parliament gave
way, and the tax fell. This example is encouraging; it is full
of consolation and of hope; it shows what zeal and perseverance
can do in a good cause: it shows that the cause of truth and
justice is triumphant when its advocates are bold and faithful.
It leads to the conviction that the American salt tax will fall
as the British tax did, as soon as the people shall see that its
continuance is a burthen to them, without adequate advantage to
the government, and that its repeal is in their own hands.
"The enormous amount of the tax was the first point to which Mr.
B. would direct his attention. He said it was near three hundred
per cent. upon Liverpool blown, and four hundred per cent. upon
alum salt; but as the Liverpool was a very inferior salt, and
not much used in the West, he would confine his observations to
the salt of Portugal and the West Indies, called by the general
name of alum. The import price of this salt was from eight to
nine cents a bushel of fifty-six pounds each, and the duty upon
that bushel was twenty cents. Here was a tax of upwards of two
hundred per cent. Then the merchant had his profit upon the duty
as well as the cost of the article: and when it went through
the hands of several merchants before it got to the consumer,
each had his profit upon it; and whenever this profit amounted
to fifty per cent. upon the duty, it was upwards of one hundred
per cent. upon the salt. Then, the tariff laws have deprived the
consumer of thirty-four pounds in the bushel, by substituting
weight for measure, and that weight a false one. The true weight
of a measured bushel of alum salt is eighty-four pounds; but the
British tariff laws, for the sake of multiplying the bushels,
and increasing the product of the tax, substituted weight for
measure; and our tariff laws copied after them, and adopted
their standard of fifty-six pounds to the bushel.
"Mr. B. entered into statistical details, to show the aggregate
amount of this tax, which he stated to be enormous, and contrary
to every principle of taxation, even if taxes were so necessary
as to justify the taxing of salt. He stated the importation
of foreign salt, in 1829, at six millions of bushels, round
numbers; the value seven hundred and fifteen thousand dollars,
and the tax at twenty cents a bushel, one million two hundred
thousand dollars, the merchant's profit upon that duty at fifty
per cent. is six hundred thousand dollars; and the secret or
hidden tax, in the shape of false weight for true measure, at
the rate of thirty pounds in the bushel, was four hundred and
fifty thousand dollars. Here, then, is taxation to the amount
of about two millions and a quarter of dollars, upon an article
costing seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars, and that
article one of prime necessity and universal use, ranking next
after bread, in the catalogue of articles for human subsistence.
"The distribution of this enormous tax upon the different
sections of the Union, was the next object of Mr. B.'s inquiry;
and, for this purpose, he viewed the Union under three great
divisions--the Northeast, the South, and the West. To the
northeast, and especially to some parts of it, he considered
the salt tax to be no burthen, but rather a benefit and a
money-making business. The fishing allowances and bounties
produced this effect. In consideration of the salt duty, the
curers and exporters of fish are allowed money out of the
treasury, to the amount, as it was intended, of the salt duty
paid by them; but it has been proved to be twice as much.
The annual allowance is about two hundred and fifty thousand
dollars, and the aggregate drawn from the treasury since the
first imposition of the salt duty in 1789, is shown by the
treasury returns to be five millions of dollars. Much of this is
drawn by undue means, as is shown by the report of the Secretary
of the Treasury, at the commencement of the present session,
page eight of the annual report on the finances. The Northeast
makes much salt at home, and chiefly by solar evaporation, which
fits it for curing fish and provisions. Much of it is proved,
by the returns of the salt makers, to be used in the fisheries,
while the fisheries are drawing money from the treasury under
the laws which intended to indemnify them for the duty paid on
foreign salt. To this section of the Union, then, the salt tax
is not felt as a burthen.
"Let us proceed to the South. In this section there are but
few salt works, and no bounties or allowances, as there are no
fisheries. The consumers are thrown almost entirely upon the
foreign supply, and chiefly use the Liverpool blown. The import
price of this is about fifteen cents a bushel; the weight and
strength is less than that of alum salt; and the tax falls
heavily and directly upon the people, to the whole amount of
their consumption. It is a heavy burthen upon the South.
"The West is the last section to be viewed, and it will be
found to be the true seat of the most oppressive operations of
the salt tax. The domestic supply is high in price, deficient
in quantity, and altogether unfit for one of the greatest
purposes for which salt is there wanted--curing provisions
for exportation. A foreign supply is indispensable, and alum
salt is the kind used. The import price of this kind, from
the West Indies, is nine cents a bushel; from Portugal, eight
cents a bushel. At these prices, the West could be supplied
with this salt at New Orleans, if the duty was abolished; but,
in consequence of the duty, it costs thirty-seven and a half
cents per bushel there, being four times the import price of
the article, and seventy-five cents per bushel at Louisville
and other central parts of the valley of the Mississippi. This
enormous price, resolved into its component parts, is thus made
up: 1. Eight or nine cents a bushel for the salt. 2. Twenty
cents for duty. 3. Eight or ten cents for merchant's profit
at New Orleans. 4. Sixteen or seventeen cents for freight to
Louisville. 5. Fifteen or twenty cents for the second merchant's
profit, who counts his per centum on his whole outlay. In all,
about seventy-five cents for a bushel of fifty pounds, which,
if there was no duty, and the tariff regulations of weight
for measure abolished, would be bought in New Orleans, by the
measured bushel of eighty pounds weight, for eight or nine
cents, and would be brought up the river, by steamboats, at
the rate of thirty-three and a third cents per hundred weight.
It thus appears that the salt tax falls heaviest upon the
West. It is an error to suppose that the South is the greatest
sufferer. The West wants it for every purpose the South does,
and two great purposes besides--curing provision for export,
and salting stock. The West uses alum salt, and on this the
duty is heaviest, because the price is lower, and the weight
greater. Twenty cents on salt which costs eight or nine cents a
bushel is a much heavier duty than on that which costs fifteen
cents; and then the deception in the substitution of weight for
measure is much greater in alum salt, which weighs so much more
than the Liverpool blown. Like the South, the West receives no
bounties or allowances on account of the salt duties. This may
be fair in the South, where the imported salt is not re-exported
upon fish or provisions; but it is unfair in the West, where
the exportation of beef, pork, bacon, cheese, and butter, is
prodigious, and the foreign salt re-exported upon the whole of
it.
"Mr. B. then argued, with great warmth, that the provision
curers and exporters were entitled to the same bounties and
allowances with the exporters of fish. The claims of each
rested upon the same principle, and upon the principle of all
drawbacks--that of a reimbursement of the duty which was paid
on the imported salt when re-exported on fish and provisions.
The same principle covers the beef and pork of the farmer,
which covers the fish of the fisherman; and such was the law
in the beginning. The first act of Congress, in the year 1789,
which imposed a duty upon salt, allowed a bounty, in lieu of a
drawback, on beef and pork exported, as well as fish. The bounty
was the same in each case; it was five cents a quintal on dried
fish, five cents a barrel on pickled fish, and five on beef
and pork. As the duty on salt was increased, the bounties and
allowances were increased also. Fish and salted beef and pork
fared alike for the first twenty years.
"They fared alike till the revival of the salt tax at the
commencement of the late war. Then they parted company; bounties
and allowances were continued to the fisheries, and dropped
on beef and pork; and this has been the case ever since. The
exporters of fish are now drawing at the rate of two hundred
and fifty thousand dollars per annum, as a reimbursement for
their salt tax; while exporters of provisions draw nothing.
The aggregate of the fishing bounties and allowances, actually
drawn from the treasury, exceeds five millions of dollars;
while the exporters of provisions, who get nothing, would have
been entitled to draw a greater sum; for the export in salted
provisions exceeds the value of exported fish.
"Mr. B. could not quit this part of his subject, without
endeavoring to fix the attention of the Senate upon the
provision trade of the West. He took this trade in its largest
sense, as including the export trade of beef, pork, bacon,
cheese, and butter, to foreign countries, especially the West
Indies; the domestic trade to the Lower Mississippi and the
Southern States; the neighborhood trade, as supplying the towns
in the upper States, the miners in Missouri and the Upper
Mississippi, the army and the navy; and the various professions,
which, being otherwise employed, did not raise their own
provisions. The amount of this trade, in this comprehensive
view, was prodigious, and annually increasing, and involving in
its current almost the entire population of the West, either as
the growers and makers of the provisions, the curers, exporters,
or consumers. The amount could scarcely be ascertained. What
was exported from New Orleans was shown to be great; but it
was only a fraction of the whole trade. He declared it to be
entitled to the favorable consideration of Congress, and that
the repeal of the salt duty was the greatest favor, if an act of
justice ought to come under the name of favor, which could be
rendered it, as the salt was necessary in growing the hogs and
cattle, as well as in preparing the beef and pork for market. A
reduction in the price of salt, next to a reduction in the price
of land, was the greatest blessing which the federal government
could now confer upon the West. Mr. B. referred to the example
of England, who favored her provision curers, and permitted
them to import alum salt free of duty, for the encouragement of
the provision trade, even when her own salt manufacturers were
producing an abundant and superfluous supply of common salt. He
showed that she did more; that she extended the same relief and
encouragement to the Irish; and he read from the British statute
book an act of the British Parliament, passed in 1807, entitled
'An act to encourage the export of salted beef and pork from
Ireland,' which allowed a bounty of ten pence sterling on every
hundred weight of beef and pork so exported, in consideration of
the duty paid on the salt which was used in the curing of it.
He stated, that, at a later period, the duty had been entirely
repealed, and the Irish, in common with other British subjects,
allowed a free trade with all the world, in salt; and then
demanded, in the most emphatic manner, if the people of the West
could not obtain from the American Congress the justice which
the oppressed Irish had procured from a British Parliament,
composed of hereditary nobles, and filled with representatives
of rotten boroughs, and slavish retainers of the king's
ministers.
"The 'American system' has taken the salt tax under its
shelter and protection. The principles of that system, as I
understand them, and practise upon them, are to tax, through
the custom-house, the foreign rivals of our own essential
productions, when, by that taxation, an adequate supply of the
same article, as good and as cheap, can be made at home. These
were the principles of the system (Mr. B. said) when he was
initiated, and, if they had changed since, he had not changed
with them; and he apprehended a promulgation of the change would
produce a schism amongst its followers. Taking these to be the
principles of the system, let the salt tax be brought to its
test. In the first place, the domestic manufacture had enjoyed
all possible protection. The duty was near three hundred per
cent. on Liverpool salt, and four hundred upon alum salt; and
to this must be added, so far as relates to all the interior
manufactories, the protection arising from transportation,
frequently equal to two or three hundred per cent. more. This
great and excessive protection has been enjoyed, without
interruption, for the last eighteen years, and partially for
twenty years longer. This surely is time enough for the trial
of a manufacture which requires but little skill or experience
to carry it on. Now for the results. Have the domestic
manufactories produced an adequate supply for the country?
They have not; nor half enough. The production of the last
year (1829) as shown in the returns to the Secretary of the
Treasury, is about five millions of bushels; the importation of
foreign salt, for the same period, as shown by the custom-house
returns, is five million nine hundred and forty-five thousand
five hundred and forty-seven bushels. This shows the consumption
to be eleven millions of bushels, of which five are domestic.
Here the failure in the essential particular of an adequate
supply is more than one half. In the next place, how is it in
point of price? Is the domestic article furnished as cheap as
the foreign? Far from it, as already shown, and still further,
as can be shown. The price of the domestic, along the coast of
the Atlantic States, varies, at the works, from thirty-seven
and a half to fifty cents; in the interior, the usual prices,
at the works, are from thirty-three and a third cents to one
dollar for the bushel of fifty pounds, which can nearly be put
into a half bushel measure. The prices of the foreign salt, at
the import cities, as shown in the custom-house returns for
1829, are, for the Liverpool blown, about fifteen cents for the
bushel of fifty-six pounds; for Turk's Island and other West
India salt, about nine cents; for St. Ubes and other Portugal
salt, about eight cents; for Spanish salt, Bay of Biscay
and Gibraltar, about seven cents; from the Island of Malta,
six cents. Leaving out the Liverpool salt, which is made by
boiling, and, therefore, contains slack and bittern, a septic
ingredient, which promotes putrefaction, and renders that salt
unfit for curing provisions, and which is not used in the West,
and the average price of the strong, pure, alum salt, made by
solar evaporation, in hot climates, is about eight cents to the
bushel. Here, then, is another lamentable failure. Instead of
being sold as cheap as the foreign, the domestic salt is from
four to twelve times the price of alum salt. The last inquiry
is as to the quality of the domestic article. Is it as good
as the foreign? This is the most essential application of the
test: and here again the failure is decisive. The domestic salt
will not cure provisions for exportation (the little excepted
which is made, in the Northeast, by solar evaporation), nor
for consumption in the South, nor for long keeping at the army
posts, nor for voyages with the navy. For all these purposes it
is worthless, and useless, and the provisions which are put up
in it are lost, or have to be repacked, at a great expense, in
alum salt. This fact is well known throughout the West, where
too many citizens have paid the penalty of trusting to domestic
salt, to be duped or injured by it any longer.
"And here he submitted to the Senate, that the American system,
without a gross departure from its original principles, could
not cover this duty any longer. It has had the full benefit of
that system in high duties, imposed for a long time, on foreign
salt; it had not produced an adequate supply for the country,
nor half a supply; nor at as cheap a rate, by three hundred or
one thousand per cent.; and what it did supply so far from
being equal in quantity, could not even be used as a substitute
for the great and important business of the provision trade. The
amount of so much of that trade as went to foreign countries,
Mr. B. showed to be sixty-six thousand barrels of beef,
fifty-four thousand barrels of pork, two millions of pounds of
bacon, two millions of pounds of butter, and one million of
pounds of cheese; and he considered the supply for the army and
navy, and for consumption in the South, to exceed the quantity
exported.
"It cannot be necessary here to dilate upon the uses of salt.
But, in repealing that duty in England, it was thought worthy
of notice that salt was necessary to the health, growth, and
fattening of hogs, cattle, sheep, and horses; that it was a
preservative of hay and clover, and restored moulded and flooded
hay to its good and wholesome state, and made even straw and
chaff available as food for cattle. The domestic salt makers
need not speak of protection against alum salt. No quantity of
duty will keep it out. The people must have it for the provision
trade; and the duty upon that kind of salt is a grievous burthen
upon them, without being of the least advantage to the salt
makers.
"Mr. B. said, there was no argument which could be used here, in
favor of continuing this duty, which was not used, and used in
vain, in England; and many were used there, of much real force,
which cannot be used here. The American system, by name, was not
impressed into the service of the tax there, but its doctrines
were; and he read a part of the report of the committee on
salt duties, in 1817, to prove it. It was the statement of the
agent of the British salt manufacturers, Mr. William Horne, who
was sworn and examined as a witness. He said: 'I will commence
by referring to the evidence I gave upon the subject of rock
salt, in order to establish the presumption of the national
importance of the salt trade, arising from the large extent of
British capital employed in the trade, and the considerable
number of persons dependant upon it for support. I, at the
same time, stated that the salt trade was in a very depressed
state, and that it continued to fall off. I think it cannot be
doubted that the salt trade, in common with all staple British
manufactures, is entitled to the protection of government; and
the British manufacturers of salt consider that, in common
with other manufacturers of this country, they are entitled to
such protection, in particular from a competition at home with
foreign manufacturers; and, in consequence, they hope to see a
prohibitory duty on foreign salt.'
"Such was the petition of the British manufacturers. They urged
the amount of their capital, the depressed state of their
business, the number of persons dependent upon it for support,
the duty of the government to protect it, the necessity for
a prohibitory duty on foreign salt, and the fact that they
were making more than the country could consume. The ministry
backed them with a call for the continuance of the revenue,
one million five hundred thousand pounds sterling, derived
from the salt tax; and with a threat to lay that amount upon
something else, if it was taken off of salt. All would not
do. Mr. Calcraft, and his friends, appealed to the rights
and interests of the people, as overruling considerations in
questions of taxation. They denounced the tax itself as little
less than impiety, and an attack upon the goodness and wisdom
of God, who had filled the bowels of the earth, and the waves
of the sea, with salt for the use and blessing of man, and to
whom it was denied, its use clogged and fettered, by odious and
abominable taxes. They demanded the whole repeal; and when the
ministry and the manufacturers, overpowered by the voice of
the people, offered to give up three fourths of the tax, they
bravely resisted the proposition, stood out for total repeal,
and carried it.
"Mr. B. could not doubt a like result here, and he looked
forward, with infinite satisfaction, to the era of a free trade
in salt. The first effect of such a trade would be, to reduce
the price of alum salt, at the import cities, to eight or nine
cents a bushel. The second effect would be, a return to the
measured bushel, by getting rid of the tariff regulation, which
substituted weight for measure, and reduced eighty-four pounds
to fifty. The third effect would be, to establish a great trade,
carried on by barter, between the inhabitants of the United
States and the people of the countries which produce alum salt,
to the infinite advantage and comfort of both parties. He
examined the operation of this barter at New Orleans. He said,
this pure and superior salt, made entirely by solar evaporation,
came from countries which were deficient in the articles of
food, in which the West abounded. It came from the West Indies,
from the coasts of Spain and Portugal, and from places in the
Mediterranean; all of which are at this time consumers of
American provisions, and take from us beef, pork, bacon, rice,
corn, corn meal, flour, potatoes, &c. Their salt costs them
almost nothing. It is made on the sea beach by the power of the
sun, with little care and aid from man. It is brought to the
United States as ballast, costing nothing for the transportation
across the sea. The duty alone prevents it from coming to
the United States in the most unbounded quantity. Remove the
duty, and the trade would be prodigious. A bushel of corn is
worth more than a sack of salt to the half-starved people to
whom the sea and the sun give as much of this salt as they
will rake up and pack away. The levee at New Orleans would be
covered--the warehouses would be crammed with salt; the barter
trade would become extensive and universal, a bushel of corn,
or of potatoes, a few pounds of butter, or a few pounds of beef
or pork, would purchase a sack of salt; the steamboats would
bring it up for a trifle; and all the upper States of the Great
Valley, where salt is so scarce, so dear, and so indispensable
for rearing stock and curing provisions, in addition to all
its obvious uses, would be cheaply and abundantly supplied with
that article. Mr. B. concluded with saying, that, next to the
reduction of the price of public lands, and the free use of the
earth for labor and cultivation, he considered the abolition of
the salt tax, and a free trade in foreign salt, as the greatest
blessing which the federal government could now bestow upon the
people of the West."
CHAPTER XLVI.
BIRTHDAY OF MR. JEFFERSON, AND THE DOCTRINE OF NULLIFICATION.
The anniversary of the birthday of Mr. Jefferson (April 13th) was
celebrated this year by a numerous company at Washington City. Among
the invited guests present were the President and Vice-President of
the United States, three of the Secretaries of departments--Messrs.
Van Buren, Eaton and Branch--and the Postmaster-General, Mr.
Barry--and numerously attended by members of both Houses of
Congress, and by citizens. It was a subscription dinner; and as the
paper imported, to do honor to the memory of Mr. Jefferson as the
founder of the political school to which the subscribers belonged.
In that sense I was a subscriber to the dinner and attended it;
and have no doubt that the mass of the subscribers acted under the
same feeling. There was a full assemblage when I arrived, and I
observed gentlemen standing about in clusters in the ante-rooms,
and talking with animation on something apparently serious, and
which seemed to engross their thoughts. I soon discovered what it
was--that it came from the promulgation of the twenty-four regular
toasts, which savored of the new doctrine of nullification; and
which, acting on some previous misgivings, began to spread the
feeling, that the dinner was got up to inaugurate that doctrine,
and to make Mr. Jefferson its father. Many persons broke off, and
refused to attend further; but the company was still numerous,
and ardent, as was proved by the number of volunteer votes
given--above eighty--in addition to the twenty-four regulars; and
the numerous and animated speeches delivered--the report of the
whole proceedings filling eleven newspaper columns. When the regular
toasts were over, the President was called upon for a volunteer,
and gave it--the one which electrified the country, and has become
historical: "Our Federal Union: It must be preserved." This brief
and simple sentiment, receiving emphasis and interpretation from
all the attendant circumstances, and from the feeling which had
been spreading since the time of Mr. Webster's speech, was received
by the public as a proclamation from the President, to announce a
plot against the Union, and to summon the people to its defence.
Mr. Calhoun gave the next toast; and it did not at all allay the
suspicions which were crowding every bosom. It was this: "The Union:
next to our Liberty the most dear: may we all remember that it
can only be preserved by respecting the rights of the States, and
distributing equally the benefit and burthen of the Union." This
toast touched all the tender parts of the new question--liberty
_before_ union--_only_ to be preserved--_State rights_--inequality
of _burthens_ and _benefits_. These phrases, connecting themselves
with Mr. Hayne's speech, and with proceedings and publications
in South Carolina, unveiled NULLIFICATION, as a new and distinct
doctrine in the United States, with Mr. Calhoun for its apostle, and
a new party in the field of which he was the leader. The proceedings
of the day put an end to all doubt about the justice of Mr.
Webster's grand peroration, and revealed to the public mind the fact
of an actual design tending to dissolve the Union.
Mr. Jefferson was dead at that time, and could not defend himself
from the use which the new party made of his name--endeavoring to
make him its founder;--and putting words in his mouth for that
purpose which he never spoke. He happened to have written in his
lifetime, and without the least suspicion of its future great
materiality, the facts in relation to his concern in the famous
resolutions of Virginia and Kentucky, and which absolve him from the
accusation brought against him since his death. He counselled the
resolutions of the Virginia General Assembly; and the word nullify,
or nullification, is not in them, or any equivalent word: he drew
the Kentucky resolutions of 1798: and they are equally destitute of
the same phrases. He had nothing to do with the Kentucky resolutions
of 1799, in which the word "_nullification_," and as the "rightful
remedy," is found; and upon which the South Carolina school relied
as their main argument--and from which their doctrine took its
name. Well, he had nothing to do with it! and so wrote (as a mere
matter of information, and without foreseeing its future use), in a
letter to William C. Cabell shortly before his death. This letter is
in Volume III., page 429, of his published correspondence. Thus, he
left enough to vindicate himself, without knowing that a vindication
would be necessary, and without recurring to the argumentative
demonstration of the peaceful and constitutional remedies which
the resolutions which he did write, alone contemplated. But he
left a friend to stand up for him when he was laid low in his
grave--one qualified by his long and intimate association to be
his compurgator, and entitled from his character to the absolute
credence of all mankind. I speak of Mr. Madison, who, in various
letters published in a quarto volume by Mr. J. C. McGuire, of
Washington City, has given the proofs which I have already used,
and added others equally conclusive. He fully overthrows and justly
resents the attempt "_of the nullifiers to make the name of Mr.
Jefferson the pedestal of their colossal heresy_." (Page 286: letter
to Mr. N. P. Trist.) And he left behind him a State also to come
to the rescue of his assailed integrity--his own native State of
Virginia--whose legislature almost unanimously, immediately after
the attempt to make Mr. Jefferson "_the pedestal of this colossal
heresy_," passed resolves repulsing the imputation, and declaring
that there was nothing in the Virginia resolutions '98 '99, to
support South Carolina in her doctrine of nullification. These
testimonies absolve Mr. Jefferson: but the nullifiers killed his
birthday celebrations! Instead of being renewed annually, in all
time, as his sincere disciples then intended, they have never been
heard of since! and the memory of a great man--benefactor of his
species--has lost an honor which grateful posterity intended to pay
it, and which the preservation and dissemination of his principles
require to be paid.
CHAPTER XLVII.
REGULATION OF COMMERCE.
The constitution of the United States gives to Congress the power
to regulate commerce with foreign nations. That power has not yet
been executed, in the sense intended by the constitution: for the
commercial treaties made by the President and the Senate are not
the legislative regulation intended in that grant of power; nor are
the tariff laws, whether for revenue or protection, any the more
so. They all miss the object, and the mode of operating, intended
by the constitution in that grant--the true nature of which was
explained early in the life of the new federal government by those
most competent to do it--Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Wm.
Smith of South Carolina,--and in the form most considerate and
responsible. Mr. Jefferson, as Secretary of State, in his memorable
report "On the restrictions and privileges of the commerce of the
United States in foreign countries;" Mr. Madison in his resolutions
as a member of the House of Representatives in the year 1793, "For
the regulation of our foreign commerce;" and in his speeches in
support of his resolutions; and the speeches in reply, chiefly by
Mr. William Smith, of South Carolina, speaking (as it was held),
the sense of General Hamilton; so that in the speeches and writing
of these three early members of our government (not to speak of
many other able men then in the House of Representatives), we have
the authentic exposition of the meaning of the clause in question,
and of its intended mode of operation: for they all agreed in
that view of the subject, though differing about the adoption
of a system which would then have borne most heavily upon Great
Britain. The plan was defeated at that time, and only by a very
small majority (52 to 47),--the defeat effected by the mercantile
influence, which favored the British trade, and was averse to any
discrimination to her disadvantage, though only intended to coerce
her into a commercial treaty--of which we then had none with her.
Afterwards the system of treaties was followed up, and protection
to our own industry extended incidentally through the clause in
the constitution authorizing Congress to "Lay and collect taxes,
duties, imports and excises," &c. So that the power granted in the
clause, "To regulate commerce with foreign nations," has never
yet been exercised by Congress:--a neglect or omission, the more
remarkable as, besides the plain and obvious fairness and benefit
of the regulation intended, the power conferred by that clause was
the potential moving cause of forming the present constitution, and
creating the present Union.
The principle of the regulation was to be that of reciprocity--that
is, that trade was not to be free on one side, and fettered on the
other--that goods were not to be taken from a foreign country, free
of duty, or at a low rate, unless that country should take something
from us, also free, or at a low rate. And the mode of acting was
by discriminating in the imposition of duties between those which
had, and had not, commercial treaties with us--the object to be
accomplished by an act of Congress to that effect; which foreign
nations might meet either by legislation in their imposition of
duties; or, and which is preferable, by treaties of specified and
limited duration. My early study of the theory, and the working of
our government--so often different, and sometimes opposite--led me
to understand the regulation clause in the constitution, and to
admire and approve it: and as in the beginning of General Jackson's
administration, I foresaw the speedy extinction of the public debt,
and the consequent release of great part of our foreign imports
from duty, I wished to be ready to derive all the benefit from the
event which would result from the double process of receiving many
articles free which were then taxed, and of sending abroad many
articles free which were now met by heavy taxation. With this view,
I brought a bill into the Senate in the session 1829-'30, to revive
the policy of Mr. Madison's resolutions of 1793--without effect
then, but without despair of eventual success. And still wishing
to see that policy revived, and seeing near at hand a favorable
opportunity for it in the approaching extinction of our present
public debt--(and I wish I could add, a return to economy in the
administration of the government)--and consequent large room for the
reduction and abolition of duties, I here produce some passages from
the speech I delivered on my bill of 1830, preceded by some passages
from Mr. Madison's speech of 1793, in support of his resolutions,
and showing his view of their policy and operation--not of their
constitutionality, for of that there was no question: and his
complaint was that the identical clause in the constitution which
caused the constitution to be framed, had then remained four years
without execution. He said:
"Mr. Madison, after some general observations on the report,
entered into a more particular consideration of the subject.
He remarked that the commerce of the United States is not, at
this day, on that respectable footing to which, from its nature
and importance, it is entitled. He recurred to its situation
previous to the adoption of the constitution, when conflicting
systems prevailed in the different States. The then existing
state of things gave rise to that convention of delegates from
the different parts of the Union, who met to deliberate on some
general principles for the regulation of commerce, which might
be conducive, in their operation, to the general welfare, and
that such measures should be adopted as would conciliate the
friendship and good faith of those countries who were disposed
to enter into the nearest commercial connections with us. But
what has been the result of the system which has been pursued
ever since? What is the present situation of our commerce? From
the situation in which we find ourselves after four years'
experiment, he observed, that it appeared incumbent on the
United States to see whether they could not now take measures
promotive of those objects, for which the government was in a
great degree instituted. Measures of moderation, firmness and
decision, he was persuaded, were now necessary to be adopted, in
order to narrow the sphere of our commerce with those nations
who see proper not to meet us on terms of reciprocity.
"Mr. M. took a general view of the probable effects which the
adoption of something like the resolutions he had proposed,
would produce. They would produce, respecting many articles
imported, a competition which would enable countries who did not
now supply us with those articles, to do it, and would increase
the encouragement on such as we can produce within ourselves.
We should also obtain an equitable share in carrying our own
produce; we should enter into the field of competition on equal
terms, and enjoy the actual benefit of advantages which nature
and the spirit of our people entitle us to.
"He adverted to the advantageous situation this country is
entitled to stand in, considering the nature of our exports and
returns. Our exports are bulky, and therefore must employ much
shipping, which might be nearly all our own: our exports are
chiefly necessaries of life, or raw materials, the food for the
manufacturers of other nations. On the contrary, the chief of
what we receive from other countries, we can either do without,
or produce substitutes.
"It is in the power of the United States, he conceived, by
exerting her natural rights, without violating the rights, or
even the equitable pretensions of other nations--by doing no
more than most nations do for the protection of their interests,
and much less than some, to make her interests respected; for,
what we receive from other nations are but luxuries to us,
which, if we choose to throw aside, we could deprive part of the
manufacturers of those luxuries, of even bread, if we are forced
to the contest of self-denial. This being the case, our country
may make her enemies feel the extent of her power. We stand,
with respect to the nation exporting those luxuries, in the
relation of an opulent individual to the laborer, in producing
the superfluities for his accommodation; the former can do
without those luxuries, the consumption of which gives bread to
the latter.
"He did not propose, or wish that the United States should, at
present, go so far in the line which his resolutions point to,
as they might go. The extent to which the principles involved
in those resolutions should be carried, will depend upon
filling up the blanks. To go the very extent of the principle
immediately, might be inconvenient. He wished, only, that the
Legislature should mark out the ground on which we think we can
stand; perhaps it may produce the effect wished for, without
unnecessary irritation; we need not at first, go every length.
"Another consideration would induce him, he said, to be moderate
in filling up the blanks--not to wound public credit. He did
not wish to risk any sensible diminution of the public revenue.
He believed that if the blanks were filled with judgment, the
diminution of the revenue, from a diminution in the quantity of
imports, would be counterbalanced by the increase in the duties.
"The last resolution he had proposed, he said, is, in a manner,
distinct from the rest. The nation is bound by the most sacred
obligation, he conceived, to protect the rights of its citizens
against a violation of them from any quarter; or, if they cannot
protect, they are bound to repay the damage.
"It is a fact authenticated to this House by communications
from the Executive, that there are regulations established
by some European nations, contrary to the law of nations, by
which our property is seized and disposed of in such a way that
damages have accrued. We are bound either to obtain reparation
for the injustice, or compensate the damage. It is only in the
first instance, no doubt, that the burden is to be thrown upon
the United States. The proper department of government will,
no doubt, take proper steps to obtain redress. The justice
of foreign nations will certainly not permit them to deny
reparation when the breach of the law of nations evidently
appears; at any rate, it is just that the individual should
not suffer. He believed the amount of the damages that would
come within the meaning of this resolution, would not be very
considerable."
Reproducing these views of Mr. Madison, and with a desire to fortify
myself with his authority, the better to produce a future practical
effect, I now give the extract from my own speech of 1830:
"Mr. Benton said he rose to ask the leave for which he gave
notice on Friday last; and in doing so, he meant to avail
himself of the parliamentary rule, seldom followed here, but
familiar in the place from whence we drew our rules--the British
Parliament--and strictly right and proper, when any thing new
or unusual is to be proposed, to state the clauses, and make an
exposition of the principles of his bill, before he submitted
the formal motion for leave to bring it in.
"The tenor of it is, not to abolish, but to provide for the
abolition of duties. This phraseology announces, that something
in addition to the statute--some power in addition to that
of the legislature, is to be concerned in accomplishing the
abolition. Then the duties for abolition are described as
unnecessary ones; and under this idea is included the twofold
conception, that they are useless, either for the protection of
domestic industry, or for supplying the treasury with revenue.
The relief of the people from sixteen millions of taxes is based
upon the idea of an abolition of twelve millions of duties;
the additional four millions being the merchant's profit upon
the duty he advances; which profit the people pay as a part of
the tax, though the government never receives it. It is the
merchant's compensation for advancing the duty, and is the
same as his profit upon the goods. The improved condition of
the four great branches of national industry is presented as
the third object of the bill; and their relative importance,
in my estimation, classes itself according to the order of my
arrangement. Agriculture, as furnishing the means of subsistence
to man, and as the foundation of every thing else, is put
foremost; manufactures, as preparing and fitting things for our
use, stands second, commerce, as exchanging the superfluities of
different countries, comes next; and navigation, as furnishing
the chief means of carrying on commerce, closes the list of
the four great branches of national industry. Though classed
according to their respective importance, neither branch is
disparaged. They are all great interests--all connected--all
dependent upon each other--friends in their nature--for a long
time friends in fact, under the operations of our government:
and only made enemies to each other, as they now are by a
course of legislation, which the approaching extinguishment
of the public debt presents a fit opportunity for reforming
and ameliorating. The title of my bill declares the intention
of the bill to improve the condition of each of them. The
abolition of sixteen millions of taxes would itself operate a
great improvement in the condition of each; but the intention
of the bill is not limited to that incidental and consequential
improvement, great as it may be; it proposes a positive, direct,
visible, tangible, and countable benefit to each; and this I
shall prove and demonstrate, not in this brief illustration of
the title of my bill, but at the proper places, in the course
of the examination into its provisions and exposition of its
principles.
"I will now proceed with the bill, reading each section in its
order, and making the remarks upon it which are necessary to
explain its object and to illustrate its operation."
_The First Section._
"That, for the term of ten years, from and after the first day
of January, in the year 1832, or, as soon thereafter as may be
agreed upon between the United States and any foreign power,
the duties now payable on the importation of the following
articles, or such of them as may be agreed upon, shall cease and
determine, or be reduced, in favor of such countries as shall,
by treaty, grant equivalent advantages to the agriculture,
manufactures, commerce, and navigation, of the United States.
"This section contains the principle of abolishing duties by
the joint act of the legislative and executive departments. The
idea of equivalents, which the section also presents, is not
new, but has for its sanction high and venerated authority, of
which I shall not fail to avail myself. That we ought to have
equivalents for abolishing ten or twelve millions of duties on
foreign merchandise is most clear. Such an abolition will be an
advantage to foreign powers, for which they ought to compensate
us, by reducing duties to an equal amount upon our productions.
This is what no law, or separate act of our own, can command.
Amicable arrangements alone, with foreign powers, can effect it;
and to free such arrangements from serious, perhaps insuperable
difficulties, it would be necessary first to lay a foundation
for them in an act of Congress. This is what my bill proposes
to do. It proposes that Congress shall select the articles
for abolition of duty, and then leave it to the Executive to
extend the provisions of the act to such powers as will grant
us equivalent advantages. The articles enumerated for abolition
of duty are of kinds not made in the United States, so that my
bill presents no ground of alarm or uneasiness to any branch of
domestic industry.
"The acquisition of equivalents is a striking feature in the
plan which I propose, and for that I have the authority of him
whose opinions will never be invoked in vain, while republican
principles have root in our soil. I speak of Mr. Jefferson,
and of his report on the commerce and navigation of the United
States, in the year '93, an extract from which I will read."
_The Extract._
"Such being the restrictions on the commerce and navigation of
the United States, the question is, in what way they may best be
removed, modified, or counteracted?
"As to commerce, two methods occur: 1. By friendly arrangements
with the several nations with whom these restrictions exist:
or, 2. By the separate act of our own legislatures, for
countervailing their effects.
"There can be no doubt, but that, of these two, friendly
arrangements is the most eligible. Instead of embarrassing
commerce under piles of regulating laws, duties, and
prohibitions, could it be relieved from all its shackles, in
all parts of the world--could every country be employed in
producing that which nature has best fitted it to produce, and
each be free to exchange with others mutual surplusses, for
mutual wants, the greatest mass possible would then be produced,
of those things which contribute to human life and human
happiness, the numbers of mankind would be increased, and their
condition bettered.
"Would even a single nation begin with the United States this
system of free commerce, it would be advisable to begin it
with that nation; since it is one by one only that it can be
extended to all. Where the circumstances of either party render
it expedient to levy a revenue, by way of impost on commerce,
its freedom might be modified in that particular, by mutual and
equivalent measures, preserving it entire in all others.
"Some nations, not yet ripe for free commerce, in all its
extent, might be willing to mollify its restrictions and
regulations, for us, in proportion to the advantages which an
intercourse with us might offer. Particularly they may concur
with us in reciprocating the duties to be levied on each side,
or in compensating any excess of duty, by equivalent advantages
of another nature. Our commerce is certainly of a character to
entitle it to favor in most countries. The commodities we offer
are either necessaries of life, or materials for manufacture, or
convenient subjects of revenue; and we take in exchange either
manufactures, when they have received the last finish of art and
industry, or mere luxuries. Such customers may reasonably expect
welcome and friendly treatment at every market--customers, too,
whose demands, increasing with their wealth and population, must
very shortly give full employment to the whole industry of any
nation whatever, in any line of supply they may get into the
habit of calling for from it.
"But, should any nation, contrary to our wishes, suppose it
may better find its advantage by continuing its system of
prohibitions, duties, and regulations, it behooves us to
protect our citizens, their commerce and navigation, by counter
prohibitions, duties, and regulations, also. Free commerce and
navigation are not to be given in exchange for restrictions and
vexations; nor are they likely to produce a relaxation of them."
* * * * *
"The plan which I now propose adopts the idea of equivalents and
retaliation to the whole extent recommended by Mr. Jefferson.
It differs from his plan in two features: first, in the mode of
proceeding, by founding the treaties abroad upon a legislative
act at home; secondly, in combining protection with revenue, in
selecting articles of exception to the system of free trade.
This degree of protection he admitted himself, at a later period
of his life. It corresponds with the recommendation of President
Washington to Congress, in the year '90, and with that of our
present Chief Magistrate, to ourselves, at the commencement of
the present session of Congress.
"I will not now stop to dilate upon the benefit which will
result to every family from an abolition of duties which will
enable them to get all the articles enumerated in my bill for
about one third, or one half less, than is now paid for them.
Let any one read over the list of articles, and then look to
the sum total which he now pays out annually for them, and from
that sum deduct near fifty per cent., which is about the average
of the duties and merchant's profit included, with which they
now come charged to him. This deduction will be his saving
under one branch of my plan--the abolition clause. To this must
be added the gain under the clause to secure equivalents in
foreign markets, and the two being added together, the saving in
purchases at home being added to the gain in sales abroad, will
give the true measure of the advantages which my plan presents.
"Let us now see whether the agriculture and manufactures of
the United States do not require better markets abroad than
they possess at this time. What is the state of these markets?
Let facts reply. England imposes a duty of three shillings
sterling a pound upon our tobacco, which is ten times its value.
She imposes duties equivalent to prohibition on our grain and
provisions; and either totally excludes, or enormously taxes,
every article, except cotton, that we send to her ports. In
France, our tobacco is subject to a royal monopoly, which makes
the king the sole purchaser, and subjects the seller to the
necessity of taking the price which his agents will give. In
Germany, our tobacco, and other articles, are heavily dutied,
and liable to a transit duty, in addition, when they have to
ascend the Rhine, or other rivers, to penetrate the interior. In
the West Indies, which is our great provision market, our beef,
pork, and flour, usually pay from eight to ten dollars a barrel:
our bacon, from ten to twenty-five cents a pound; live hogs,
eight dollars each; corn, cornmeal, lumber, whiskey, fruit,
vegetables, and every thing else, in proportion; the duties in
the different islands, on an average, equalling or exceeding
the value of the articles in the United States. We export
about forty-five millions of domestic productions, exclusive
of manufactures, annually; and it may be safely assumed that
we have to pay near that sum in the shape of duties, for the
privilege of selling these exports in foreign markets. So much
for agriculture. Our manufactures are in the same condition.
In many branches they have met the home demand, and are going
abroad in search of foreign markets. They meet with vexatious
restrictions, peremptory exclusions, or oppressive duties,
wherever they go. The quantity already exported entitles them to
national consideration, in the list of exports. Their aggregate
value for 1828 was about five millions of dollars, comprising
domestic cottons, to the amount of a million of dollars; soap
and candles, to the value of nine hundred thousand dollars;
boots, shoes, and saddlery, five hundred thousand dollars;
hats, three hundred thousand dollars; cabinet, coach, and other
wooden work, six hundred thousand dollars; glass and iron, three
hundred thousand dollars; and numerous smaller items. This large
amount of manufactures pays their value, in some instances more,
for the privilege of being sold abroad; and, what is worse, they
are totally excluded from several countries from which we buy
largely. Such restrictions and impositions are highly injurious
to our manufactures; and it is incontestably true, the amount of
exports prove it, that what most of them now need is not more
protection at home, but a better market abroad; and it is one of
the objects of this bill to obtain such a market for them.
"It appears to me [said Mr. B.] to be a fair and practicable
plan, combining the advantages of legislation and negotiation,
and avoiding the objections to each. It consults the sense of
the people, in leaving it to their Representatives to say on
what articles duties shall be abolished for their relief; on
what they shall be retained for protection and revenue; it then
secures the advantage of obtaining equivalents, by referring
it to the Executive to extend the benefit of the abolition to
such nations as shall reciprocate the favor. To such as will
not reciprocate, it leaves every thing as it now stands. The
success of this plan can hardly be doubted. It addresses itself
to the two most powerful passions of the human heart--interest
and fear; it applies itself to the strongest principles of
human action--profit and loss. For, there is no nation with
whom we trade but will be benefited by the increased trade of
her staple productions, which will result from a free trade in
such productions; none that would not be crippled by the loss
of such a trade, which loss would be the immediate effect of
rejecting our system. Our position enables us to command the
commercial system of the globe; to mould it to our own plan,
for the benefit of the world and ourselves. The approaching
extinction of the public debt puts it into our power to abolish
twelve millions of duties, and to set free more than one-half
of our entire commerce. We should not forego, nor lose the
advantages of such a position. It occurs but seldom in the
life of a nation, and once missed, is irretrievably gone, to
the generation, at least, that saw and neglected the golden
opportunity. We have complained, and justly, of the burthens
upon our exports in foreign countries; a part of our tariff
system rests upon the principle of retaliation for the injury
thus done us. Retaliation, heretofore, has been our only
resource: but reciprocity of injuries is not the way to enrich
nations any more than individuals. It is an 'unprofitable
contest,' under every aspect. But the present conjuncture,
payment of the public debt, in itself a rare and almost
unprecedented occurrence in the history of nations, enables us
to enlarge our system; to present a choice of alternatives:
one fraught with relief, the other presenting a burthen to
foreign nations. The participation, or exclusion, from forty
millions of free trade, annually increasing, would not admit
of a second thought, in the head of any nation with which we
trade. To say nothing of her gains in the participation in
such a commerce, what would be her loss in the exclusion from
it? How would England, France, or Germany, bear the loss of
their linen, silk, or wine trade, with the United States? How
could Cuba, St. Domingo, or Brazil, bear the loss of their
coffee trade with us? They could not bear it at all. Deep and
essential injury, ruin of industry seditions, and bloodshed,
and the overthrow of administrations, would be the consequence
of such loss. Yet such loss would be inevitable (and not to the
few nations, or in the articles only which I have mentioned,
for I have put a few instances only by way of example), but to
every nation with whom we trade, that would not fall into our
system, and throughout the whole list of essential articles to
which our abolition extends. Our present heavy duties would
continue in force against such nations; they would be abolished
in favor of their rivals. We would say to them, in the language
of Mr. Jefferson, free trade and navigation is not to be given
in exchange for restrictions and vexations! But I feel entire
confidence that it would not be necessary to use the language
of menace or coercion. Amicable representations, addressed to
their sense of self-interest, would be more agreeable, and not
less effectual. The plan cannot fail! It is scarcely within the
limits of possibility that it should fail! And if it did, what
then? We have lost nothing. We remain as we were. Our present
duties are still in force, and Congress can act upon them one or
two years hence, in any way they please.
"Here, then, is the peculiar recommendation to my plan, that,
while it secures a chance, little short of absolute certainty,
of procuring an abolition of twelve millions of duties upon our
exports in foreign countries, in return for an abolition of
twelve millions of duties upon imports from them, it exposes
nothing to risk, the abolition of duty upon the foreign article
here being contingent upon the acquisition of the equivalent
advantage abroad.
"I close this exposition of the principles of my bill with the
single remark, that these treaties for the mutual abolition
of duties should be for limited terms, say for seven or ten
years, to give room for the modifications which time, and the
varying pursuits of industry, may show to be necessary. Upon
this idea, the bill is framed, and the period of ten years
inserted by way of suggestion and exemplification of the plan.
Another feature is too obvious to need a remark, that the time
for the commencement of the abolition of duties is left to the
Executive, who can accommodate it to the state of the revenue
and the extinction of the public debt."
The plan which I proposed in this speech adopted the principle
of Mr. Madison's resolutions but reversed their action. The
discrimination which he proposed was a levy of five or ten per cent.
_more_ on the imports from countries which did not enter into our
propositions for reciprocity: my plan, as being the same thing in
substance, and less invidious in form, was a levy of five or ten per
cent. less on the commerce of the reciprocating nations--thereby
holding out an inducement and a benefit, instead of a threat and a
penalty.
CHAPTER XLVIII.
ALUM SALT. THE ABOLITION OF THE DUTY UPON IT, AND REPEAL OF THE
FISHING BOUNTY AND ALLOWANCES FOUNDED ON IT.
I look upon a salt tax as a curse--as something worse than a
political blunder, great as that is--as an impiety, in stinting the
use, and enhancing the cost by taxation, of an article which God has
made necessary to the health and comfort, and almost to the life, of
every animated being--the poor dumb animal which can only manifest
its wants in mute signs and frantic actions, as well as the rational
and speaking man who can thank the Creator for his goodness, and
curse the legislator that mars its enjoyment. There is a mystery
in salt. It was used in holy sacrifice from the earliest day; and
to this time, in the Oriental countries, the stranger lodging in
the house, cannot kill or rob while in it, after he has tasted
the master's salt. The disciples of Christ were called by their
master the salt of the earth. Sacred and profane history abound in
instances of people refusing to fight against the kings who had
given them salt: and this mysterious deference for an article so
essential to man and beast takes it out of the class of ordinary
productions, and carries it up close to those vital elements--bread,
water, fire, air--which Providence has made essential to life, and
spread every where, that craving nature may find its supply without
stint, and without tax. The venerable Mr. Macon considered a salt
tax in a sacrilegious point of view--as breaking a sacred law--and
fought against ours as long as his public life lasted; and I, his
disciple, not disesteemed by him, commenced fighting by his side
against the odious imposition; and have continued it since his
death, and shall continue it until the tax ceases, or my political
life terminates. Many are my speeches, and reports, against it
in my senatorial life of thirty years; and among other speeches,
one limited to a particular kind of salt not made in the United
States, and indispensable to dried or pickled provisions. This is
the alum salt, made by solar evaporation out of sea water; and
being a kind not produced at home, indispensable and incapable of
substitute, it had a legitimate claim to exemption from the canons
of the American system. That system protected homemade fire-boiled
common salt, because it had a foreign rival: we had no sun-made
crystallized salt at home; and therefore had nothing to protect in
taxing the foreign article. I had failed--we had all failed--in our
attempts to abolish the salt tax generally: I determined to attempt
the abolition of the alum salt duty separately; and with it, the
fishing bounties and allowances founded upon it: and brought a bill
into the Senate to accomplish that object. The fishing bounties and
allowances being claimed by some, as a bounty to navigation (in
which point of view they would be as unconstitutional as unjust), I
was under the necessity of tracing their origin, as being founded
on the idea of a drawback of the duty paid on the salt put upon the
exported dried or pickled fish--commencing with the salt tax, and
adjusted to the amount of the tax--rising with its increase and
falling with its fall--and that, in the beginning allowed to the
exportation of pickled beef and pork, to the same degree, and upon
the same principle that the bounties and allowances were extended to
the fisheries. In the bill introduced for this purpose, I spoke as
follows:
"To spare any senator the supposed necessity of rehearsing me
a lecture upon the importance of the fisheries, I will premise
that I have some acquaintance with the subject--that I know
the fisheries to be valuable, for the food they produce, the
commerce they create, the mariners they perfect, the employment
they give to artisans in the building of vessels; and the
consumption they make of wood, hemp and iron. I also know that
the fishermen applied for the bounties, at the commencement
of our present form of government, which the British give to
their fisheries, for the encouragement of navigation; and that
they were denied them upon the report of the then Secretary of
State (Mr. Jefferson). I also know that our fishing bounties and
allowances go, in no part, to that branch of fishing to which
the British give most bounty--whaling--because it is the best
school for mariners; and the interests of navigation are their
principal object in promoting fishing. No part of our bounties
and allowances go to our whale ships, because they do not
consume foreign salt on which they have paid duty, and reclaim
it as drawback. I have also read the six dozen acts of Congress,
general and particular, passed in the last forty years--from
1789 to 1829 inclusively--giving the bounties and allowances
which it is my present purpose to abolish, with the alum salt
duty on which all this superstructure of legislative enactment
is built up. I say the salt tax, and especially the tax on alum
salt (which is the kind required for the fisheries), is the
foundation of all these bounties and allowances; and that, as
they grew up together, it is fair and regular that they should
sink and fall together. I recite a dozen of the acts: thus:
"1. Act of Congress, 1789, grants five cents a barrel on pickled
fish and salted provisions, and five cents a quintal on dried
fish, exported from the United States, in lieu of a drawback of
the duties imposed on the importation of the salt used in curing
such fish and provisions.
"N.B. Duty on salt, at that time, six cents a bushel.
"2. Act of 1790 increases the bounty in lieu of drawback to
ten cents a barrel on pickled fish and salted provisions, and
ten cents a quintal on dried fish. The duty on salt being then
raised to twelve cents a bushel.
"3. Act of 1792 repeals the bounty in lieu of drawback on dried
fish, and in lieu of that, and as a commutation and equivalent
therefor, authorizes an allowance to be paid to vessels in
the cod fishery (dried fish) at the rate of one dollar and
fifty cents a ton on vessels of twenty to thirty tons; with a
limitation of one hundred and seventy dollars for the highest
allowance to any vessel.
"4. A supplementary act, of the same year, adds twenty per cent.
to each head of these allowances.
"5. Act of 1797 increases the bounty on salted provisions to
eighteen cents a barrel; on pickled fish to twenty-two cents
a barrel; and adds thirty-three and a third per cent. to the
allowance in favor of the cod-fishing vessels. Duty on salt, at
the same time, being raised to twenty cents a bushel.
"6. Act of 1799 increases the bounty on pickled fish to thirty
cents a barrel, on salted provisions to twenty-five.
"7. Act of 1800 continues all previous acts (for bounties and
allowances) for ten years, and makes this proviso: That these
allowances shall not be understood to be continued for a longer
time than the correspondent duties on salt, respectively, for
which the said additional allowances were granted, shall be
payable.
"8. Act of 1807 repeals all laws laying a duty on imported
salt, and for paying bounties on the exportation of pickled
fish and salted provisions, and making allowances to fishing
vessels--Mr. Jefferson being then President.
"9. Act of 1813 gives a bounty of twenty cents a barrel on
pickled fish exported, and allows to the cod-fishing vessels
at the rate of two dollars and forty cents the ton for vessels
between twenty and thirty tons, four dollars a ton for vessels
above thirty, with a limitation of two hundred and seventy-two
dollars for the highest allowance; and a proviso, that no
bounty or allowance should be paid unless it was proved to the
satisfaction of the collector that the fish was wholly cured
with foreign salt, and the duty on it secured or paid. The salt
duty, at the rate of twenty cents a bushel, was revived as a war
tax at the same time. Bounties on salted provisions were omitted.
"10. Act of 1816 continued the act of 1813 in force, which,
being for the war only, would otherwise have expired.
"11. Act of 1819 increases the allowance to vessels in the cod
fishery to three dollars and fifty cents a ton on vessels from
five to thirty; to four dollars a ton on vessels above thirty
tons; with a limitation of three hundred and sixty dollars for
the maximum allowance.
"12. Act of 1828 authorizes the mackerel fishing vessels to take
out licenses like the cod-fishing vessels, under which it is
reported by the vigilant Secretary of the Treasury that money is
illegally drawn by the mackerel vessels--the newspapers say to
the amount of thirty to fifty thousand dollars per annum.
"These recitals of legislative enactments are sufficient to
prove that the fishing bounties and allowances are bottomed upon
the salt duty, and must stand or fall with that duty. I will now
give my reasons for proposing to abolish the duty on alum salt,
and will do it in the simplest form of narrative statement; the
reasons themselves being of a nature too weighty and obvious to
need, or even to admit, of coloring or exaggeration from arts of
speech.
"1. Because it is an article of indispensable necessity in
the provision trade of the United States. No beef or pork for
the army or navy, or for consumption in the South, or for
exportation abroad, can be put up except in this kind of salt.
If put up in common salt it is rejected absolutely by the
commissaries of the army and navy, and if taken to the South
must be repacked in alum salt, at an expense of one dollar
and twelve and a half cents a barrel, before it is exported,
or sold for domestic consumption. The quantity of provisions
which require this salt, and must have it, is prodigious, and
annually increasing. The exports of 1828 were, of beef sixty-six
thousand barrels, of pork fifty-four thousand barrels, of bacon
one million nine hundred thousand pounds weight, butter and
cheese two million pounds weight. The value of these articles
was two millions and a quarter of dollars. To this amount must
be added the supply for the army and navy, and all that was sent
to the South for home consumption, every pound of which had to
be cured in this kind of salt, for common salt will not cure
it. The Western country is the great producer of provisions;
and there is scarcely a farmer in the whole extent of that vast
region whose interest does not require a prompt repeal of the
duty on this description of salt.
"2. Because no salt of this kind is made in the United States,
nor any rival to it, or substitute for it. It is a foreign
importation, brought from various islands in the West Indies,
belonging to England, France, Spain, and Denmark; and from
Lisbon, St. Ubes, Gibraltar, the Bay of Biscay, and Liverpool.
The principles of the protecting system do not extend to it: for
no quantity of protection can produce a home supply. The present
duty, which is far beyond the rational limit of protection, has
been in force near thirty years, and has not produced a pound.
We are still thrown exclusively upon the foreign supply. The
principles of the protecting system can only apply to common
salt, the product of which is considerable in the United States;
and upon that kind, the present duty is proposed to be left in
full force.
"3. Because the duty is enormous, and quadruples the price of
the salt to the farmer. The original value of salt is about
fifteen cents the measured bushel of eighty-four pounds. But
the tariff substitutes weight for measure, and fixes that
weight at fifty-six pounds, instead of eighty-four. Upon that
fifty-six pounds, a duty of twenty cents is laid. Upon this
duty, the retail merchant has his profit of eight or ten cents,
and then reduces his bushel from fifty-six to fifty pounds. The
consequence of all these operations is, that the farmer pays
about three times as much for a weighed bushel of fifty pounds,
as he would have paid for a measured bushel of eighty-four
pounds, if this duty had never been imposed.
"4. Because the duty is unequal in its operation, and falls
heavily on some parts of the community, and produces profit
to others. It is a heavy tax on the farmers of the West, who
export provisions; and no tax at all, but rather a source of
profit, to that branch of the fisheries to which the allowances
of the vessels apply. Exporters of provisions have the same
claim to these allowances that exporters of fish have. Both
claims rest upon the same principle, and upon the principle of
all drawbacks, that of refunding the duty paid on the imported
salt, which is re-exported on salted fish and provisions. The
same principle covers the beef and pork of the farmer which
covers the fish of the fisherman; and such was the law, as I
have shown, for the first eighteen years that these bounties
and allowances were authorized. Fish and provisions fared alike
from 1789 to 1807. Bounties and allowances began upon them
together, and fell together, on the repeal of the salt tax,
in the second term of Mr. Jefferson's administration. At the
renewal of the salt tax, in 1813, at the commencement of the
late war, they parted company, and the law, to the exact sense
of the proverb, has made fish of one and flesh of the other ever
since. The fishing interest is now drawing about two hundred and
fifty thousand dollars annually from the treasury; the provision
raisers draw not a cent, while they export more than double as
much, and ought, upon the same principle, to draw more than
double as much money from the treasury.
"5. Because it is the means of drawing an undue amount of money
from the public treasury, under the idea of an equivalent for
the drawback of duty on the salt used in the curing of fish.
The amount of money actually drawn in that way is about four
millions seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars, and is now
going on at the rate of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars
per annum, and constantly augmenting. That this amount is more
than the legal idea recognizes, or contemplates, is proved in
various ways. 1. By comparing the quantity of salt supposed
to have been used, with the quantity of fish known to have
been exported, within a given year. This test, for the year
1828, would exhibit about seventy millions of pounds weight of
salt on about forty millions of pounds weight of fish. This
would suppose about a pound and three quarters of salt upon
each pound of fish. 2. By comparing the value of the salt
supposed to have been used, with the value of the fish known
to have been exported. This test would give two hundred and
forty-eight thousand dollars for the salt duty on about one
million of dollars' worth of fish; making the duty one fourth
of its value. On this basis, the amount of the duty on the
salt used on exported provisions would be near six hundred
thousand dollars. 3. By comparing the increasing allowances
for salt with the decreasing exportation of fish. This test,
for two given periods, the rate of allowance being the same,
would produce this result: In the year 1820, three hundred and
twenty-one thousand four hundred and nineteen quintals of dried
fish exported, and one hundred and ninety-eight thousand seven
hundred and twenty-four dollars paid for the commutation of the
salt drawback: in 1828, two hundred and sixty-five thousand two
hundred and seventeen quintals of dried fish exported, and two
hundred and thirty-nine thousand one hundred and forty-five
dollars paid for the commutation. These comparisons establish
the fact that money is unlawfully drawn from the treasury by
means of these fishing allowances, bottomed on the salt duty,
and that fact is expressly stated by the Secretary of the
Treasury (Mr. Ingham), in his report upon the finances, at the
commencement of the present session of Congress. [See page eight
of the report.]
"6. Because it has become a practical violation of one of
the most equitable clauses in the constitution of the United
States--the clause which declares that duties, taxes, and
excises, shall be uniform throughout the Union. There is no
uniformity in the operation of this tax. Far from it. It empties
the pockets of some, and fills the pockets of others. It returns
to some five times as much as they pay, and to others it returns
not a cent. It gives to the fishing interest two hundred and
fifty thousand dollars per annum, and not a cent to the farming
interest, which, upon the same principle, would be entitled to
six hundred thousand dollars per annum.
"7. Because this duty now rests upon a false basis--a basis
which makes it the interest of one part of the Union to keep
it up, while it is the interest of other parts to get rid of
it. It is the interest of the West to abolish this duty: it
is the interest of the Northeast to perpetuate it. The former
loses money by it; the latter makes money by it; and a tax
that becomes a money-making business is a solecism of the
highest order of absurdity. Yet such is the fact. The treasury
records prove it, and it will afford the Northeast a brilliant
opportunity to manifest their disinterested affection to the
West, by giving up their own profit in this tax, to relieve the
West from the burthen it imposes upon her.
"8. Because the repeal of the duty will not materially diminish
the revenue, nor delay the extinguishment of the public debt.
It is a tax carrying money out of the treasury, as well as
bringing it in. The issue is two hundred and fifty thousand
dollars, perhaps the full amount which accrues on the kind of
salt to which the abolition extends. The duty, and the fishing
allowances bottomed upon it, falling together as they did when
Mr. Jefferson was President, would probably leave the amount of
revenue unaffected.
"9. Because it belongs to an unhappy period in the history of
our government, and came to us, in its present magnitude, in
company with an odious and repudiated set of measures. The
maximum of twenty cents a bushel on salt was fixed in the year
'98, and was the fruit of the same system which produced the
alien and sedition laws, the eight per cent. loans, the stamp
act, the black cockade, and the standing army in time of peace.
It was one of the contrivances of that disastrous period for
extorting money from the people, for the support of that strong
and splendid government which was then the cherished vision of
so many exalted heads. The reforming hand of Jefferson overthrew
it, and all the superstructure of fishing allowances which was
erected upon it. The exigencies of the late war caused it to
be revived for the term of the war, and the interest of some,
and the neglect of others, have permitted it to continue ever
since. It is now our duty to sink it a second time. We profess
to be disciples of the Jeffersonian school; let us act up to our
profession, and complete the task which our master set us."
CHAPTER XLIX.
BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.
It has been already shown that General Jackson in his first annual
message to Congress, called in question both the constitutionality
and expediency of the national bank, in a way to show him averse to
the institution, and disposed to see the federal government carried
on without the aid of such an assistant. In the same message he
submitted the question to Congress, that, _if_ such an institution
is deemed essential to the fiscal operations of the government,
whether a national one, founded upon the credit of the government,
and its revenues, might not be devised, which would avoid all
constitutional difficulties, and at the same time secure all the
advantages to the government and country that were expected to
result from the present bank. I was not in Washington when this
message was prepared, and had had no conversation with the President
in relation to a substitute for the national bank, or for the
currency which it furnished, and which having a general circulation
was better entitled to the character of "national" than the issues
of the local or State banks. We knew each other's opinions on the
question of a bank itself: but had gone no further. I had never
mentioned to him the idea of reviving the gold currency--then, and
for twenty years--extinct in the United States: nor had I mentioned
to him the idea of an independent or sub-treasury--that is to say,
a government treasury unconnected with any bank--and which was
to have the receiving and disbursing of the public moneys. When
these ideas were mentioned to him, he took them at once; but it
was not until the Bank of the United States should be disposed of
that any thing could be done on these two subjects; and on the
latter a process had to be gone through in the use of local banks
as depositories of the public moneys which required several years
to show its issue and inculcate its lesson. Though strong in the
confidence of the people, the President was not deemed strong enough
to encounter all the banks of all the States at once. Temporizing
was indispensable--and even the conciliation of a part of them.
Hence the deposit system--or some years' use of local banks as
fiscal agents of the government--which gave to the institutions so
selected, the invidious appellation of "_pet banks_;" meaning that
they were government favorites.
In the mean time the question which the President had submitted to
Congress in relation to a government fiscal agent, was seized upon
as an admitted design to establish a government bank--stigmatized
at once as a "thousand times more dangerous" than an incorporated
national bank--and held up to alarm the country. Committees in
each House of Congress, and all the public press in the interest
of the existing Bank of the United States, took it up in that
sense, and vehemently inveighed against it. Under an instruction
to the Finance Committee of the Senate, to report upon a plan for
a uniform currency, and under a reference to the Committee of Ways
and Means of the House, of that part of the President's message
which related to the bank and its currency, most ample, elaborate
and argumentative reports were made--wholly repudiating all the
suggestions of the President, and sustaining the actual Bank of
the United States under every aspect of constitutionality and of
expediency: and strongly presenting it for a renewal of its charter.
These reports were multiplied without regard to expense, or numbers,
in all the varieties of newspaper and pamphlet publication and
lauded to the skies for their power and excellence, and triumphant
refutation of all the President's opinions. Thus was the "war of
the bank" commenced at once, in both Houses of Congress, and in
the public press; and openly at the instance of the bank itself,
which, forgetting its position as an institution of the government,
for the convenience of the government, set itself up for a power,
and struggled for a continued existence--in the shape of a new
charter--as a question of its own, and almost as a right. It
allied itself at the same time to the political party opposed to
the President, joined in all their schemes of protective tariff,
and national internal improvement: and became the head of the
American system. With its moneyed and political power, and numerous
interested affiliations, and its control over other banks, brokers
and money dealers, it was truly a power, and a great one: and, in
answer to a question put by General Smith, of Maryland, chairman
of the Finance Committee of the Senate already mentioned (and
appended with other questions and answers to that report), Mr.
Biddle, the president, showed a power in the national bank to save,
relieve or destroy the local banks, which exhibited it as their
absolute master; and, of course able to control them at will. The
question was put in a spirit of friendship to the bank, and with a
view to enable its president to exhibit the institution as great,
just and beneficent. The question was: "_Has the bank at any time
oppressed any of the State banks?_" and the answer: "_Never._" And,
as if that was not enough, Mr. Biddle went on to say: "_There are
very few banks which might not have been destroyed by an exertion
of the power of the bank. None have been injured. Many have been
saved. And more have been, and are constantly relieved, when it
is found that they are solvent but are suffering under temporary
difficulty._" This was proving entirely too much. A power to injure
and destroy--to relieve and to save the thousand banks of all the
States and Territories was a power over the business and fortunes
of nearly all the people of those States and Territories: and might
be used for evil as well as for good; and was a power entirely too
large to be trusted to any man, with a heart in his bosom--or to any
government, responsible to the people; much less to a corporation
without a soul, and irresponsible to heaven or earth. This was a
view of the case which the parties to the question had not foreseen;
but which was noted at the time; and which, in the progress of the
government struggle with the bank, received exemplifications which
will be remembered by the generation of that day while memory lasts;
and afterwards known as long as history has power to transmit to
posterity the knowledge of national calamities.
CHAPTER L.
REMOVALS FROM OFFICE.
I am led to give a particular examination of this head, from the
great error into which Tocqueville has fallen in relation to it,
and which he has propagated throughout Europe to the prejudice
of republican government; and also, because the power itself is
not generally understood among ourselves as laid down by Mr.
Jefferson; and has been sometimes abused, and by each party, but
never to the degree supposed by Mons. de Tocqueville. He says, in
his chapter 8 on American democracy: "Mr. Quincy Adams, on his
entry into office, discharged the majority of the individuals who
had been appointed by his predecessor; and I am not aware that
General Jackson allowed a single removable functionary employed in
the public service to retain his place beyond the first year which
succeeded his election." Of course, all these imputed sweeping
removals were intended to be understood to have been made on account
of party politics--for difference of political opinion--and not for
misconduct, or unfitness for office. To these classes of removal
(unfitness and misconduct), there could be no objection: on the
contrary, it would have been misconduct in the President not to
have removed in such cases. Of political removals, for difference
of opinion, then, it only remains to speak; and of those officials
appointed by his predecessor, it is probable that Mr. Adams did not
remove one for political cause; and that M. de Tocqueville, with
respect to him, is wrong to the whole amount of his assertion.
I was a close observer of Mr. Adams's administration, and belonged
to the opposition, which was then keen and powerful, and permitted
nothing to escape which could be rightfully (sometimes wrongfully)
employed against him; yet I never heard of this accusation,
and have no knowledge or recollection at this time of a single
instance on which it could be founded. Mr. Adams's administration
was not a case, in fact, in which such removals--for difference
of political opinion--could occur. They only take place when the
presidential election is a revolution of parties; and that was
not the case when Mr. Adams succeeded Mr. Monroe. He belonged to
the Monroe administration, had occupied the first place in the
cabinet during its whole double term of eight years; and of course,
stood in concurrence with, and not in opposition to, Mr. Monroe's
appointments. Besides, party lines were confused, and nearly
obliterated at that time. It was called "the era of good feeling."
Mr. Adams was himself an illustration of that feeling. He had been
of the federal party--brought early into public life as such--a
minister abroad and a senator at home as such; but having divided
from his party in giving support to several prominent measures of
Mr. Jefferson's administration, he was afterwards several times
nominated by Mr. Madison as minister abroad; and on the election of
Mr. Monroe he was invited from London to be made his Secretary of
State--where he remained till his own election to the Presidency.
There was, then, no case presented to him for political removals;
and in fact none such were made by him; so that the accusation of
M. de Tocqueville, so far as it applied to Mr. Adams, is wholly
erroneous, and inexcusably careless.
With respect to General Jackson, it is about equally so in the main
assertion--the assertion that he did not allow a single removable
functionary to remain in office beyond the first year after his
election. On the contrary, there were entire classes--all those
whose functions partook of the judicial--which he never touched.
Boards of commissioners for adjudicating land titles; commissioners
for adjudicating claims under indemnity treaties; judges of the
territorial courts; justices of the District of Columbia; none
of these were touched, either in the first or in any subsequent
year of his administration, except a solitary judge in one of
the territories; and he not for political cause, but on specific
complaint, and after taking the written and responsible opinion of
the then Attorney General, Mr. Grundy. Of the seventeen diplomatic
functionaries abroad, only four (three ministers and one chargé des
affaires) were recalled in the first year of his administration.
In the departments at Washington, a majority of the incumbents
remained opposed to him during his administration. Of the near
eight thousand deputy postmasters in the United States, precisely
four hundred and ninety-one were removed in the time mentioned by
Mons. de Tocqueville, and they for all causes--for every variety
of causes. Of the whole number of removable officials, amounting
to many thousands, the totality of removals was about six hundred
and ninety and they for all causes. Thus the government archives
contradict Mons. de Tocqueville, and vindicate General Jackson's
administration from the reproach cast upon it. Yet he came into
office under circumstances well calculated to excite him to make
removals. In the first place, none of his political friends, though
constituting a great majority of the people of the United States,
had been appointed to office during the preceding administration;
and such an exclusion could not be justified on any consideration.
His election was, in some degree, a revolution of parties, or
rather a re-establishment of parties on the old line of federal and
democratic. It was a change of administration, in which a change
of government functionaries, to some extent, became a right and a
duty; but still the removals actually made, when political, were
not merely for opinions, but for conduct under these opinions;
and, unhappily, there was conduct enough in too many officials to
justify their removal. A large proportion of them, including all
the new appointments, were inimical to General Jackson, and divided
against him on the re-establishment of the old party lines; and many
of them actively. Mr. Clay, holding the first place in Mr. Adams's
cabinet, took the field against him, travelled into different
States, declaimed against him at public meetings; and deprecated
his election as the greatest of calamities. The subordinates of
the government, to a great degree, followed his example, if not in
public speeches, at least in public talk and newspaper articles;
and it was notorious that these subordinates were active in the
presidental election. It was a great error in them. It changed
their position. By their position all administrations were the
same to them. Their duties were ministerial, and the same under
all Presidents. They were noncombatants. By engaging in the
election they became combatant, and subjected themselves to the
law of victory and defeat--reward and promotion in one case, loss
of place in the other. General Jackson, then, on his accession to
the Presidency, was in a new situation with respect to parties,
different from that of any President since the time of Mr.
Jefferson, whom he took for his model, and whose rule he followed.
He made many removals, and for cause, but not so many as not to
leave a majority in office against him--even in the executive
departments in Washington City.
Mr. Jefferson had early and anxiously studied the question of
removals. He was the first President that had occasion to make them,
and with him the occasion was urgent. His election was a complete
revolution of parties, and when elected, he found himself to be
almost the only man of his party in office. The democracy had been
totally excluded from federal appointment during the administration
of his predecessor; almost all offices were in the hands of his
political foes. I recollect to have heard an officer of the army
say that there was but one field officer in the service favorable
to him. This was the type of the civil service. Justice to himself
and his party required this state of things to be altered; required
his friends to have a share proportionate to their numbers in the
distribution of office; and required him to have the assistance
of his friends in the administration of the government. The four
years' limitation law--the law which now vacates within the cycle
of every Presidential term the great mass of the offices--was not
then in force. Resignations then, as now, were few. Removals were
indispensable, and the only question was the principle upon which
they should be made. This question, Mr. Jefferson studied anxiously,
and under all its aspects of principle and policy, of national and
of party duty; and upon consultation with his friends, settled
it to his and their satisfaction. The fundamental principle was,
that each party was to have a share in the ministerial offices,
the control of each branch of the service being in the hands of
the administration; that removals were only to be made for cause;
and, of course, that there should be inquiry into the truth of
imputed delinquencies. "Official misconduct," "personal misconduct,"
"negligence," "incapacity," "inherent vice in the appointment,"
"partisan electioneering beyond the fair exercise of the elective
franchise;" and where "the heads of some branches of the service
were politically opposed to his administration"--these, with Mr.
Jefferson, constituted the law of removals, and was so written
down by him immediately after his inauguration. Thus, March 7th,
1801--only four days after his induction into office--he wrote to
Mr. Monroe:
"Some removals, I know, must be made. They must be as few as
possible, done gradually, and bottomed on some malversation,
or inherent disqualification. Where we should draw the line
between retaining all and none, is not yet settled, and will
not be until we get our administration together; and, perhaps,
even then we shall proceed _à tatons_, balancing our measures
according to the impression we perceive them to make."
On the 23d of March, 1801, being still in the first month of his
administration, Mr. Jefferson wrote thus to Gov. Giles, of Virginia:
"Good men, to whom there is no objection but a difference
of political opinion, practised on only so far as the right
of a private citizen will justify, are not proper subjects
of removal, except in the case of attorneys and marshals.
The courts being so decidedly federal and irremovable, it is
believed that republican attorneys and marshals, being the doors
of entrance into the courts, are indispensably necessary as a
shield to the republican part of our fellow-citizens; which, I
believe, is the main body of the people."
Six days after, he wrote to Elbridge Gerry, afterwards
Vice-President, thus:
"Mr. Adams's last appointments, when he knew he was appointing
counsellors and aids for me, not for himself, I set aside as
fast as depends on me. Officers who have been guilty of gross
abuse of office, such as marshals packing juries, &c., I shall
now remove, as my predecessors ought in justice to have done.
The instances will be few, and governed by strict rule, and not
party passion. The right of opinion shall suffer no invasion
from me. Those who have acted well have nothing to fear, however
they may have differed from me in opinion: those who have
done ill, however, have nothing to hope; nor shall I fail to
do justice, lest it should be ascribed to that difference of
opinion."
To Mr. Lincoln, his Attorney-General, still writing in the first
year of his administration, he says:
"I still think our original idea as to office is best; that
is, to depend, for obtaining a just participation, on deaths,
resignations and delinquencies. This will least affect the
tranquillity of the people, and prevent their giving into the
suggestion of our enemies--that ours has been a contest for
office, not for principle. This is rather a slow operation, but
it is sure, if we pursue it steadily, which, however, has not
been done with the undeviating resolution I could have wished.
To these means of obtaining a just share in the transaction of
the public business, shall be added one more, to wit, removal
for electioneering activity, or open and industrious opposition
to the principles of the present government, legislative
and executive. Every officer of the government may vote at
elections according to his conscience; but we should betray the
cause committed to our care, were we to permit the influence
of official patronage to be used to overthrow that cause.
Your present situation will enable you to judge of prominent
offenders in your State in the case of the present election.
I pray you to seek them, to mark them, to be quite sure of
your ground, that we may commit no errors or wrongs; and leave
the rest to me. I have been urged to remove Mr. Whittemore,
the surveyor of Gloucester, on grounds of neglect of duty and
industrious opposition; yet no facts are so distinctly charged
as to make the step sure which we should take in this. Will you
take the trouble to satisfy yourself on the point?"
This was the law of removals as laid down by Mr. Jefferson, and
practised upon by him, but not to the extent that his principle
required, or that public outcry indicated. He told me himself, not
long before his death (Christmas, 1824), that he had never done
justice to his own party--had never given them the share of office
to which their numbers entitled them--had failed to remove many
who deserved it, but who were spared through the intercession of
friends and concern for their distressed families. General Jackson
acted upon the rule of Mr. Jefferson, but no doubt was often misled
into departures from the rule; but never to the extent of giving to
the party more than their due proportion of office, according to
their numbers. Great clamor was raised against him, and the number
of so-called "removals" was swelled by an abuse of the term, every
case being proclaimed a "removal," where he refused to reappoint an
ex-incumbent whose term had expired under the four years' limitation
act. Far from universal removals for opinion's sake, General
Jackson, as I have already said, left the majority of his opponents
in office, and re-appointed many such whose terms had expired, and
who had approved themselves faithful officers.
Having vindicated General Jackson and Mr. Adams from the reproach
of Mons. de Tocqueville, and having shown that it was neither a
principle nor a practice of the Jefferson school to remove officers
for political opinions, I now feel bound to make the declaration,
that the doctrine of that school has been too much departed from of
late, and by both parties, and to the great detriment of the right
and proper working of the government.
The practice of removals for opinion's sake is becoming too
common, and is reducing our presidential elections to what Mr.
Jefferson deprecated, "a contest of office instead of principle,"
and converting the victories of each party, so far as office is
concerned, into the political extermination of the other; as it was
in Great Britain between the whigs and tories in the bitter contests
of one hundred years ago, and when the victor made a "clean sweep"
of the vanquished, leaving not a wreck behind. Mr. Macaulay thus
describes one of those "sweepings:"
"A persecution, such as had never been known before, and has
never been known since, raged in every public department.
Great numbers of humble and laborious clerks were deprived of
their bread, not because they had neglected their duties, not
because they had taken an active part against the ministry, but
merely because they had owed their situations to some (whig)
nobleman who was against the peace. The proscription extended
to tidewaiters, to doorkeepers. One poor man, to whom a pension
had been given for his gallantry in a fight with smugglers, was
deprived of it because he had been befriended by the (whig) Duke
of Grafton. An aged widow, who, on account of her husband's
services in the navy, had, many years before, been made
housekeeper in a public office, was dismissed from her situation
because she was distantly connected by marriage with the (whig)
Cavendish family."
This, to be sure, was a tory proscription of whigs, and therefore
the less recommendable as an example to either party in the United
States, but too much followed by both--to the injury of individuals,
the damage of the public service, the corruption of elections, and
the degradation of government. De Tocqueville quotes removals as
a reproach to our government, and although untrue to the extent
he represented, the evil has become worse since, and is true to
a sufficient extent to demand reform. The remedy is found in Mr.
Jefferson's rule, and in the four years' limitation act which has
since been passed; and under which, with removals for cause, and
some deaths, and a few resignations, an ample field would be found
for new appointments, without the harshness of general and sweeping
removals.
I consider "sweeping" removals, as now practised by both parties, a
great political evil in our country, injurious to individuals, to
the public service, to the purity of elections, and to the harmony
and union of the people. Certainly, no individual has a right to an
office: no one has an estate or property in a public employment; but
when a mere ministerial worker in a subordinate station has learned
its duties by experience, and approved his fidelity by his conduct,
it is an injury to the public service to exchange him for a novice,
whose only title to the place may be a political badge or a partisan
service. It is exchanging experience for inexperience, tried ability
for untried, and destroying incentive to good conduct by destroying
its reward. To the party displaced it is an injury, having become a
proficient in that business, expecting to remain in it during good
behavior, and finding it difficult, at an advanced age, and with
fixed habits, to begin a new career in some new walk of life. It
converts elections into scrambles, for office, and degrades the
government into an office for rewards and punishments; and divides
the people of the Union into two adverse parties--each in its turn,
and as it becomes dominant, to strip and proscribe the other.
Our government is a Union. We want a united _people_, as well as
united _States_--united for benefits as well as for burdens, and
in feeling as well as in compact; and this cannot be while one
half (each in its turn) excludes the other from all share in the
administration of the government. Mr. Jefferson's principle is
perfect, and reconciled public and private interest with party
rights and duties. The party in power is responsible for the
well-working of the government, and has a right, and is bound by
duty to itself, to place its friends at the head of the different
branches of the public service. After that, and in the subordinate
places, the opposite party should have its share of employment;
and this Mr. Jefferson's principle gives to it. But as there are
offices too subordinate for party proscription, so there are others
too elevated and national for it. This is now acknowledged in the
army and navy, and formerly was acknowledged in the diplomatic
department; and should be again. To foreign nations we should, at
least, be one people--an undivided people, and that in peace as
well as in war. Mr. Jefferson's principle reached this case, and
he acted upon it. His election was not a signal gun, fired for the
recall of all the ministers abroad, to be succeeded incontinently
by partisans of its own. Mr. Rufus King, the most eminent of the
federal ministers abroad, and at the most eminent court of Europe,
that of St. James, remained at his post for two years after the
revolution of parties in 1800; and until he requested his own
recall, treated all the while with respect and confidence, and
intrusted with a negotiation which he conducted to its conclusion.
Our early diplomatic policy, eschewing all foreign entanglement,
rejected the office of "minister resident." That early republican
policy would have no permanent representation at foreign courts. The
"envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary," called out on
an emergent occasion, and to return home as soon as the emergency
was over, was the only minister known to our early history;
and then the mission was usually a mixed one, composed of both
parties. And so it should be again. The present permanent supply
and perpetual succession of "envoys extraordinary and ministers
plenipotentiary" is a fraud upon the name, and a breach of the old
policy of the government, and a hitching on American diplomacy to
the tail of the diplomacy of Europe. It is the actual keeping up
of "ministers resident" under a false name, and contrary to a wise
and venerable policy; and requires the reform hand of the House of
Representatives. But this point will require a chapter of its own,
and its elucidation must be adjourned to another and a separate
place.
Mons. de Tocqueville was right in the principle of his reproach,
wrong in the extent of his application, but would have been less
wrong if he had written of events a dozen years later. I deprecate
the effect of such sweeping removals at each revolution of parties,
and believe it is having a deplorable effect both upon the purity
of elections and the distribution of office, and taking both out
of the hands of the people, and throwing the management of one and
the enjoyment of the other into most unfit hands. I consider it as
working a deleterious change in the government, making it what Mr.
Jefferson feared: and being a disciple of his school, and believing
in the soundness and nationality of the rule which he laid down, I
deem it good to recall it solemnly to public recollection--for the
profit, and hope, of present and of future times.
CHAPTER LI.
INDIAN SOVEREIGNTIES WITHIN THE STATES
A political movement on the part of some of the southern tribes
of Indians, brought up a new question between the States and
those Indians, which called for the interposition of the federal
government. Though still called Indians, their primitive and equal
government had lost its form, and had become an oligarchy, governed
chiefly by a few white men, called half-breeds, because there was a
tincture of Indian blood in their veins. These, in some instances,
set up governments within the States, and claimed sovereignty
and dominion within their limits. The States resisted this claim
and extended their laws and jurisdiction over them. The federal
government was appealed to; and at the commencement of the session
of 1829-'30, in his first annual message, President Jackson brought
the subject before the two Houses of Congress, thus:
"The condition and ulterior destiny of the Indian tribes within
the limits of some of our States, have become objects of
much interest and importance. It has long been the policy of
government to introduce among them the arts of civilization,
in the hope of gradually reclaiming them from a wandering
life. This policy has, however, been coupled with another,
wholly incompatible with its success. Professing a desire to
civilize and settle them, we have, at the same time, lost no
opportunity to purchase their lands and thrust them further
into the wilderness. By this means they have not only been
kept in a wandering state, but been led to look upon us as
unjust, and indifferent to their fate. Thus, though lavish in
its expenditures upon the subject, government has constantly
defeated its own policy, and the Indians, in general, receding
further and further to the West, have retained their savage
habits. A portion, however, of the southern tribes, having
mingled much with the whites, and made some progress in the
arts of civilized life, have lately attempted to erect an
independent government within the limits of Georgia and Alabama.
These States, claiming to be the only sovereigns within their
territories, extended their laws over the Indians; which induced
the latter to call upon the United States for protection.
"Under these circumstances, the question presented was, whether
the general government had a right to sustain those people in
their pretensions? The constitution declares, that "no new
States shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any
other State," without the consent of its legislature. If the
general government is not permitted to tolerate the erection of
a confederate State within the territory of one of the members
of this Union, against her consent, much less could it allow a
foreign and independent government to establish itself there.
Georgia became a member of the confederacy which eventuated
in our federal union, as a sovereign State, always asserting
her claim to certain limits; which, having been originally
defined in her colonial charter, and subsequently recognized
in the treaty of peace, she has ever since continued to enjoy,
except as they have been circumscribed by her own voluntary
transfer of a portion of her territory to the United States,
in the articles of cession of 1802. Alabama was admitted into
the Union on the same footing with the original States, with
boundaries which were prescribed by Congress. There is no
constitutional, conventional, or legal provision, which allows
them less power over the Indians within their borders, than
is possessed by Maine or New-York. Would the people of Maine
permit the Penobscot tribe to erect an independent government
within their State? and, unless they did, would it not be the
duty of the general government to support them in resisting such
a measure? Would the people of New-York permit each remnant
of the Six Nations within her borders, to declare itself an
independent people, under the protection of the United States?
Could the Indians establish a separate republic on each of their
reservations in Ohio? And if they were so disposed, would it be
the duty of this government to protect them in the attempt? If
the principle involved in the obvious answer to these questions
be abandoned, it will follow that the objects of this government
are reversed; and that it has become a part of its duty to aid
in destroying the States which it was established to protect.
"Actuated by this view of the subject, I informed the Indians
inhabiting parts of Georgia and Alabama, that their attempt to
establish an independent government would not be countenanced by
the Executive of the United States; and advised them to emigrate
beyond the Mississippi, or submit to the laws of those States."
Having thus refused to sustain these southern tribes in their
attempt to set up independent governments within the States of
Alabama and Georgia, and foreseeing an unequal and disagreeable
contest between the Indians and the States, the President
recommended the passage of an act to enable him to provide for
their removal to the west of the Mississippi. It was an old policy,
but party spirit now took hold of it, and strenuously resisted the
passage of the act. It was one of the closest, and most earnestly
contested questions of the session; and finally carried by an
inconsiderable majority. The sum of $500,000 was appropriated to
defray the expenses of treating with them for an exchange, or sale
of territory; and under this act, and with the ample means which
it placed at the disposal of the President, the removals were
eventually effected; but with great difficulty, chiefly on account
of a foreign, or outside influence from politicians and intrusive
philanthropists. Georgia was the State where this question took
its most serious form. The legislature of the State laid off the
Cherokee country into counties, and prepared to exercise her laws
within them. The Indians, besides resisting through their political
friends in Congress, took counsel and legal advice, with a view to
get the question into the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr.
Wirt, the late Attorney General of the United States, was retained
in their cause, and addressed a communication to the Governor of
the State, apprising him of the fact; and proposing that an "agreed
case" should be made up for the decision of the court. Gov. Gilmer
declined this proposal, and in his answer gave as the reason why
the State had taken the decided step of extending her jurisdiction,
that the Cherokee tribe had become merged in its management in the
"half breeds," or descendants of white men, who possessed wealth and
intelligence, and acting under political and fanatical instigations
from without, were disposed to perpetuate their residence within the
State,--(the part of them still remaining and refusing to join their
half tribe beyond the Mississippi). The governor said: "So long as
the Cherokees retained their primitive habits, no disposition was
shown by the States under the protection of whose government they
resided, to make them subject to their laws. Such policy would have
been cruel; because it would have interfered with their habits of
life, the enjoyments peculiar to Indian people, and the kind of
government which accorded with those habits and enjoyments. It was
the power of the whites, and of their children among the Cherokees,
that destroyed the ancient laws, customs and authority of the
tribe, and subjected the nation to the rule of that most oppressive
of governments--an oligarchy. There is nothing surprising in this
result. From the character of the people, and the causes operating
upon them, it could not have been otherwise. It was this state of
things that rendered it obligatory upon Georgia to vindicate the
rights of her sovereignty by abolishing all Cherokee government
within its limits. Whether of the intelligent, or ignorant class,
the State of Georgia has passed no laws violative of the liberty,
personal security, or private property of any Indian. It has been
the object of humanity, and wisdom, to separate the two classes (the
ignorant, and the informed Indians) among them, giving the rights of
citizenship to those who are capable of performing its duties and
properly estimating its privileges; and increasing the enjoyment and
the probability of future improvement to the ignorant and idle, by
removing them to a situation where the inducements to action will be
more in accordance with the character of the Cherokee people."
With respect to the foreign interference with this question, by
politicians of other States and pseudo philanthropists, the only
effect of which was to bring upon subaltern agents the punishment
which the laws inflicted upon its violators, the governor said: "It
is well known that the extent of the jurisdiction of Georgia, and
the policy of removing the Cherokees and other Indians to the west
of the Mississippi, have become party questions. It is believed that
the Cherokees in Georgia, had determined to unite with that portion
of the tribe who had removed to the west of the Mississippi, if
the policy of the President was sustained by Congress. To prevent
this result, as soon as it became highly probable that the Indian
bill would pass, the Cherokees were persuaded that the right of
self-government could be secured to them by the power of the Supreme
Court of the United States, in defiance of the legislation of the
general and State governments. It was not known, however, until the
receipt of your letter, that the spirit of resistance to the laws of
the State, and views of the United States, which has of late been
evident among the Indians, had in any manner been occasioned by your
advice." Mr. Wirt had been professionally employed by the Cherokees
to bring their case before the Supreme Court; but as he classed
politically with the party, which took sides with the Indians
against Georgia, the governor was the less ceremonious, or reserved
in his reply to him.
Judge Clayton, in whose circuit the Indian counties fell, at his
first charge to the grand jury assured the Indians of protection,
warned the intermeddlers of the mischief they were doing, and of
the inutility of applying to the Supreme Court. He said: "My other
purpose is to apprise the Indians that they are not to be oppressed,
as has been sagely foretold: that the same justice which will be
meted to the citizen shall be meted to them." With respect to
intermeddlers he said: "Meetings have been held in all directions,
to express opinions on the conduct of Georgia, and Georgia
alone--when her adjoining sister States had lately done precisely
the same thing; and which she and they had done, in the rightful
exercise of their State sovereignty." The judge even showed that
one of these intrusive philanthropists had endeavored to interest
European sympathy, in behalf of the Cherokees; and quoted from the
address of the reverend Mr. Milner, of New-York, to the Foreign
Missionary Society in London: "That if the cause of the negroes
in the West Indias was interesting to that auditory--and deeply
interesting it ought to be--if the population in Ireland, groaning
beneath the degradation of superstition--excited their sympathies,
he trusted the Indians of North America would also be considered
as the objects of their Christian regard. He was grieved, however,
to state that there were those in America, who acted towards them
in a different spirit; and he lamented to say that, at this very
moment, the State of Georgia was seeking to subjugate and destroy
the liberties both of the Creeks and the Cherokees; the former of
whom possessed in Georgia, ten millions of acres of land, and the
latter three millions." In this manner European sympathies were
sought to be brought to bear upon the question of removal of the
Indians--a political and domestic question, long since resolved upon
by wise and humane American statesmen--and for the benefit of the
Indians themselves, as well as of the States in which they were. If
all that the reverend missionary uttered had been true, it would
still have been a very improper invocation of European sympathies in
an American domestic question, and against a settled governmental
policy: but it was not true. The Creeks, with their imputed ten
millions of acres, owned not one acre in the State; and had not in
five years--not since the treaty of cession in 1825: which shows
the recklessness with which the reverend suppliant for foreign
sympathy, spoke of the people and States of his own country. The few
Cherokees who were there, instead of subjugation and destruction of
their liberties, were to be paid a high price for their land, if
they chose to join their tribe beyond the Mississippi; and if not,
they were to be protected like the white inhabitants of the counties
they lived in. "With respect to the Supreme Court, the judge
declared that he should pay no attention to its mandate--holding
no writ of error to lie from the Supreme Court of the United
States to his State Court--but would execute the sentence of the
law, whatever it might be, in defiance of the Supreme Court; and
such was the fact. Instigated by foreign interference, and relying
upon its protection, one George Tassels, of Indian descent,
committed a homicide in resisting the laws of Georgia--was tried
for murder--convicted--condemned--and sentenced to be hanged on a
given day. A writ of error, to bring the case before itself, was
obtained from the Supreme Court of the United States; and it was
proposed by the counsel, Mr. Wirt, to try the whole question of
the right of Georgia, to exercise jurisdiction over the Indians
and Indian country within her limits, by the trial of this writ
of error at Washington; and for that purpose, and to save the
tedious forms of judicial proceedings, he requested the governor
to consent to make up an "agreed case" for the consideration and
decision of that high court. This proposition Governor Gilmer
declined, in firm but civil terms, saying: "Your suggestion that
it would be convenient and satisfactory if yourself, the Indians,
and the governor would make up a law case to be submitted to the
Supreme Court for the determination of the question, whether the
legislature of Georgia has competent authority to pass laws for
the government of the Indians residing within its limits, however
courteous the manner, and conciliatory the phraseology, cannot but
be considered as exceedingly disrespectful to the government of the
State. No one knows better than yourself, that the governor would
grossly violate his duty, and exceed his authority, by complying
with such a suggestion; and that both the letter and the spirit of
the powers conferred by the constitution upon the Supreme Court
forbid its adjudging such a case. It is hoped that the efforts
of the general government to execute its contract with Georgia
(the compact of 1802), to secure the continuance and advance the
happiness of the Indian tribes, and to give quiet to the country,
may be so effectually successful as to prevent the necessity of any
further intercourse upon the subject." And there was no further
intercourse. The day for the execution of Tassels came round: he was
hanged: and the writ of the Supreme Court was no more heard of. The
remaining Cherokees afterwards made their treaty, and removed to
the west of the Mississippi; and that was the end of the political,
and intrusive philanthropical interference in the domestic policy
of Georgia. One Indian hanged, some missionaries imprisoned, the
writ of the Supreme Court disregarded, the Indians removed: and
the political and pseudo-philanthropic intermeddlers left to the
reflection of having done much mischief in assuming to become the
defenders and guardians of a race which the humanity of our laws and
people were treating with parental kindness.
CHAPTER LII.
VETO ON THE MAYSVILLE ROAD BILL.
This was the third veto on the subject of federal internal
improvements within the States, and by three different Presidents.
The first was by Mr. Madison, on the bill "to set apart, and pledge
certain funds for constructing roads and canals, and improving the
navigation of watercourses, in order to facilitate, promote, and
give security to internal commerce among the several States; and
to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions of
the common defence"--a very long title, and even argumentative--as
if afraid of the President's veto--which it received in a message
with the reasons for disapproving it. The second was that of Mr.
Monroe on the Cumberland Road bill, which, with an abstract of his
reasons and arguments, has already been given in this View. This
third veto on the same subject, and from President Jackson, and
at a time when internal improvement by the federal government had
become a point of party division, and a part of the American system,
and when concerted action on the public mind had created for it a
degree of popularity: this third veto under such circumstances was
a killing blow to the system--which has shown but little, and only
occasional vitality since. Taken together, the three vetoes, and
the three messages sustaining them, and the action of Congress upon
them (for in no instance did the House in which they originated pass
the bills, or either of them, in opposition to the vetoes), may be
considered as embracing all the constitutional reasoning upon the
question; and enough to be studied by any one who wishes to make
himself master of the subject.
CHAPTER LIII.
RUPTURE BETWEEN PRESIDENT JACKSON, AND VICE-PRESIDENT CALHOUN.
With the quarrels of public men history has no concern, except as
they enter into public conduct, and influence public events. In
such case, and as the cause of such events, these quarrels belong
to history, which would be an empty tale, devoid of interest or
instruction, without the development of the causes, and consequences
of the acts which it narrates. Division among chiefs has always been
a cause of mischief to their country; and when so, it is the duty of
history to show it. That mischief points the moral of much history,
and has been made the subject of the greatest of poems:
"Achille's wrath, to Greece the direful spring
Of woes unnumbered----"
About the beginning of March, in the year 1831, a pamphlet
appeared in Washington City, issued by Mr. Calhoun, and addressed
to the people of the United States, to explain the cause of a
difference which had taken place between himself and General
Jackson, instigated as the pamphlet alleged by Mr. Van Buren, and
intended to make mischief between the first and second officers
of the government, and to effect the political destruction of
himself (Mr. Calhoun) for the benefit of the contriver of the
quarrel--the then Secretary of State; and indicated as a candidate
for the presidential succession upon the termination of General
Jackson's service. It was the same pamphlet of which Mr. Duncanson,
as heretofore related, had received previous notice from Mr.
Duff Green, as being in print in his office, but the publication
delayed for the maturing of the measures which were to attend its
appearance; namely: the change in the course of the _Telegraph_; its
attacks upon General Jackson and Mr. Van Buren; the defence of Mr.
Calhoun; and the chorus of the affiliated presses, to be engaged "in
getting up the storm which even the popularity of General Jackson
could not stand."
The pamphlet was entitled, "Correspondence between General Andrew
Jackson and John C. Calhoun, President and Vice-President of the
United States, on the subject of the course of the latter in the
deliberations of the cabinet of Mr. Monroe on the occurrences
of the Seminole war;" and its contents consisted of a prefatory
address, and a number of letters, chiefly from Mr. Calhoun himself,
and his friends--the General's share of the correspondence being
a few brief notes to ascertain if Mr. Crawford's statement was
true and, being informed that, substantially, it was, to decline
any further correspondence with Mr. Calhoun, and to promise a full
public reply when he had the leisure for the purpose and access to
the proofs. His words were: "In your and Mr. Crawford's dispute
I have no interest whatever; but it may become necessary for me
hereafter, when I shall have more leisure and the documents at hand,
to place the subject in its proper light--to notice the historical
facts and references in your communication--which will give a very
different view to the subject.... Understanding you now, no further
communication with you on this subject is necessary."... And none
further appears from General Jackson.
But the general did what he had intimated he would--drew up a
sustained reply, showing the subject in a different light from
that in which Mr. Calhoun's letters had presented it; and quoting
vouchers for all that he said. The case, as made out in the
published pamphlet, stood before the public as that of an intrigue
on the part of Mr. Van Buren to supplant a rival--of which the
President was the dupe--Mr. Calhoun the victim--and the country the
sufferer: and the _modus operandi_ of the intrigue was, to dig up
the buried proceedings in Mr. Monroe's cabinet, in relation to a
proposed court of inquiry on the general (at the instance of Mr.
Calhoun), for his alleged, unauthorized, and illegal operations in
Florida during the Seminole war. It was this case which the general
felt himself bound to confront--and did; and in confronting which
he showed that Mr. Calhoun himself was the sole cause of breaking
their friendship; and, consequently, the sole cause of all the
consequences which resulted from that breach. Up to that time--up to
the date of the discovery of Mr. Calhoun's now admitted part in the
proposed measure of the court of inquiry--that gentleman had been
the general's _beau ideal_ of a statesman and a man--"the noblest
work of God," as he publicly expressed it in a toast: against whom
he would believe nothing, to whose friends he gave an equal voice in
the cabinet, whom he consulted as if a member of his administration;
and whom he actually preferred for his successor. This reply to the
pamphlet, entitled "_An exposition of Mr. Calhoun's course towards
General Jackson_," though written above twenty years ago, and
intended for publication, has never before been given to the public.
Its publication becomes essential now. It belongs to a dissension
between chiefs which has disturbed the harmony, and loosened the
foundations of the Union; and of which the view, on one side, was
published in pamphlet at the time, registered in the weeklies and
annuals, printed in many papers, carried into the Congress debates,
especially on the nomination of Mr. Van Buren; and so made a part of
the public history of the times--to be used as historical material
in after time. The introductory paragraph to the "Exposition"
shows that it was intended for immediate publication, but with a
feeling of repugnance to the exhibition of the chief magistrate
as a newspaper writer: which feeling in the end predominated, and
delayed the publication until the expiration of his office--and
afterwards, until his death. But it was preserved to fulfil its
original purpose, and went in its manuscript form to Mr. Francis
P. Blair, the literary legatee of General Jackson; and by him was
turned over to me (with trunks full of other papers) to be used
in this Thirty Years' View. It had been previously in the hands
of Mr. Amos Kendall, as material for a life of Jackson, which he
had begun to write, and was by him made known to Mr. Calhoun, who
declined "_furnishing any further information on the subject_."[3]
It is in the fair round-hand writing of a clerk, slightly interlined
in the general's hand, the narrative sometimes in the first and
sometimes in the third person; vouchers referred to and shown for
every allegation; and signed by the general in his own well-known
hand. Its matter consists of three parts: 1. The justification of
himself, under the law of nations and the treaty with Spain of 1795,
for taking military possession of Florida in 1818. 2. The same
justification, under the orders of Mr. Monroe and his Secretary
at War (Mr. Calhoun). 3. The Statement of Mr. Calhoun's conduct
towards him (the general) in all that affair of the Seminole war,
and in the movements in the cabinet, and in the two Houses of
Congress, to which it gave rise. All these parts belong to a life of
Jackson, or a history of the Seminole war; but only the two latter
come within the scope of this View. To these two parts, then, this
publication of the Exposition is confined--omitting the references
to the vouchers in the appendix--which having been examined (the
essential ones) are found in every particular to sustain the text;
and also omitting a separate head of complaint against Mr. Calhoun
on account of his representations in relation to South Carolina
claims.
[3] Mr. Kendall's letter to the author is in these words:
"December 29, 1853.--In reply to your note just received, I have to
state that, wishing to do exact justice to all men in my Life of
General Jackson, I addressed a note to Mr. Calhoun stating to him in
substance, that I was in possession of the evidences on which the
general based his imputation of duplicity touching his course in
Mr. Monroe's cabinet upon the Florida war question, and inquiring
whether it was his desire to furnish any further information on the
subject, or rest upon that which was already before the public (in
his publication). A few days afterwards, the Hon. Dixon H. Lewis
told me that Mr. Calhoun had received my letter, and had requested
him to ask me what was the nature of the evidences among General
Jackson's papers to which I alluded. I stated them to him, as
embodied in General Jackson's 'Exposition,' to which you refer. Mr.
Lewis afterwards informed me that Mr. Calhoun had concluded to let
the matter rest as it was. This is all the answer I ever received
from Mr. Calhoun."
"EXPOSITION.
"It will be recollected that in my correspondence with Mr.
Calhoun which he has published, I engaged, when the documents
should be at hand, to give a statement of facts respecting my
conduct in the Seminole campaign, which would present it in a
very different light from the one in which that gentleman has
placed it.
"Although the time I am able to devote to the subject, engrossed
as I am in the discharge of my public duties, is entirely
inadequate to do it justice, yet from the course pursued by Mr.
Calhoun, from the frequent misrepresentations of my conduct
on that occasion, from the misapprehension of my motives for
entering upon that correspondence, from the solicitations of
numerous friends in different parts of the country, and in
compliance with that engagement, I present to my fellow-citizens
the following statement, with the documents on which it rests.
"I am aware that there are some among us who deem it unfit
that the chief magistrate of this nation should, under any
circumstances, appear before the public in this manner, to
vindicate his conduct. These opinions or feelings may result
from too great fastidiousness, or from a supposed analogy
between his station and that of the first magistrate of other
countries, of whom it is said they can do no wrong, or they
may be well founded. I, however, entertain different opinions
on this subject. It seems to me that the course I now take of
appealing to the judgment of my fellow-citizens, if not in exact
conformity with past usage, at least springs from the spirit
of our popular institutions, which requires that the conduct
and character of every man, how elevated soever may be his
station should be fairly and freely submitted to the discussion
and decision of the people. Under this conviction I have acted
heretofore, and now act, not wishing this or any other part of
my public life to be concealed. I present my whole conduct in
connection with the subject of that correspondence in this form
to the indulgent but firm and enlightened consideration of my
fellow citizens.
[Here follows a justification of Gen. Jackson's conduct under the
law of nations, and under the orders to Gen. Gaines, his predecessor
in the command.]
"Such was the gradation of orders issued by the government. At
first they instructed their general '_not to pass the line_.'
He is next instructed to '_exercise a sound discretion as to
the necessity of crossing the line_.' He is then directed to
_consider himself 'at liberty to march across the Florida
line_,' but to halt, and report to the department in case the
Indians '_should shelter themselves under a Spanish fort_.'
Finally, after being informed of the atrocious massacre of the
men, women and children constituting the party of Lieutenant
Scott, they order a new general into the field, and direct
him to '_adopt the necessary measures to put an end to the
conflict_, without regard to territorial "_lines_," or "_Spanish
forts_."' Mr. Calhoun's own understanding of the order issued
by him, is forcibly and clearly explained in a letter written
by him in reply to the inquiries of Governor Bibb, of Alabama,
dated the 13th of May, 1818, in which he says:--'_General
Jackson is vested with full power to conduct the war as he may
think best._'
"These orders were received by General Jackson at Nashville,
on the night of the 12th January, 1818, and he instantly took
measures to carry them into effect.
"In the mean time, however, he had received copies of the orders
to General Gaines, to take possession of Amelia Island, and to
enter Florida, but halt and report to the department, in case
the Indians sheltered themselves under a Spanish fort. Approving
the policy of the former, and perceiving in the latter, dangers
to the army, and injury to the country, on the 6th of January
he addressed a confidential letter to the President, frankly
disclosing his views on both subjects. The following is a copy
of that letter, viz.:--
"NASHVILLE, _6th Jan._, 1818.
"SIR:--a few days since, i received a letter from the Secretary
of War, of the 17th ult., with inclosures. Your order of the
19th ult. through him to Brevet Major General Gaines to enter
the territory of Spain, and chastise the ruthless savages who
have been depredating on the property and lives of our citizens,
will meet not only the approbation of your country, but the
approbation of heaven. Will you however permit me to suggest
the catastrophe that might arise by General Gaines's compliance
with the last clause of your order? Suppose the case that the
Indians are beaten: they take refuge either in Pensacola or
St. Augustine, which open their gates to them: to profit by
his victory, General Gaines pursues the fugitives, and has to
halt before the garrison until he can communicate with his
government. In the mean time the militia grow restless, and he
is left to defend himself by the regulars. The enemy, with the
aid of their Spanish friends, and Woodbine's British partisans,
or, if you please with Aurey's force, attacks him. What may not
be the result? Defeat and massacre. Permit me to remark that the
arms of the United States must be carried to any point within
the limits of East Florida, where an enemy is permitted and
protected, or disgrace attends.
"The Executive Government have ordered, and, as I conceive,
very properly, Amelia Island to be taken possession of. This
order ought to be carried into execution at all hazards, and
simultaneously the whole of East Florida seized, and held as an
indemnity for the outrages of Spain upon the property of our
citizens. This done, it puts all opposition down, secures our
citizens a complete indemnity, and saves us from a war with
Great Britain, or some of the continental powers combined with
Spain. This can be done without implicating the government. _Let
it be signified to me through any channel (say Mr. J. Rhea),
that the possession of the Floridas would be desirable to the
United States, and in sixty days it will be accomplished._
"The order being given for the possession of Amelia Island, it
ought to be executed, or our enemies, internal and external,
will use it to the disadvantage of the government. If our troops
enter the territory of Spain in pursuit of our Indian enemy, all
opposition that they meet with must be put down, or we will be
involved in danger and disgrace.
"I have the honor, &c.
"ANDREW JACKSON.
"JAMES MONROE, _President U. S._
"The course recommended by General Jackson in this letter relative
to the occupation of the Floridas accords with the policy which
dictated the secret act of Congress. He recommended no more than
the President had a right to do. In consequence of the occupation
of Amelia Island by the officers of the Colombian and Mexican
governments, and the attempt to occupy the whole province, the
President had a right, under the act of Congress, to order General
Jackson to take possession of it in the name of the United States.
He would have been the more justifiable in doing so, because the
inhabitants of the province, the Indian subjects of the King of
Spain, whom he was bound not only by the laws of nations, but by
treaty to restrain, were in open war with the United States.
"Mr. Calhoun, the Secretary of War, was the first man who read this
letter after its reception at Washington. In a letter from Mr.
Monroe to General Jackson, dated 21st December, 1818, published in
the Calhoun correspondence, page 44, is the following account of the
reception, opening and perusal of this letter, viz.: 'Your letter
of January 6th, was received while I was seriously indisposed.
Observing that it was from you, I handed it to Mr. Calhoun to read,
after reading one or two lines only myself. The order to you to take
command in that quarter had before been issued. He remarked after
perusing the letter, that it was a confidential one relating to
Florida, _which I must answer_.'
"In accordance with the advice of Mr. Calhoun, and availing himself
of the suggestion contained in the letter, Mr. Monroe sent for Mr.
John Rhea (then a member of Congress), showed him the confidential
letter, and requested him to answer it. In conformity with this
request Mr. Rhea did answer the letter, and informed General Jackson
that the President had shown him the confidential letter, and
requested him to state that he approved of its suggestions. This
answer was received by the general on the second night he remained
at Big Creek, which is four miles in advance of Hartford, Georgia,
and before his arrival at Fort Scott, to take command of the troops
in that quarter.
"General Jackson had already received orders, vesting him with
discretionary powers in relation to the measures necessary to put an
end to the war. He had informed the President in his confidential
letter, that in his judgment it was necessary to seize and occupy
the whole of Florida. This suggestion had been considered by Mr.
Calhoun and the President, and approved. From this confidential
correspondence before he entered Florida, it was understood on _both
sides_, that under the order received by him he would occupy the
whole province, if an occasion to do so should present itself; as
Mr. Calhoun wrote to Governor Bibb, he was 'authorized to conduct
the war as he thought best;' and how he 'thought best' to conduct it
was then made known to the Executive, and approved, before he struck
a blow.
"In the approval given by Mr. Monroe upon the advice of Mr. Calhoun
to the suggestions of General Jackson, he acted in strict obedience
to the laws of his country. By the secret act of Congress, the
President was authorized, under circumstances then existing, to
seize and occupy all Florida. Orders had been given which were
sufficiently general in their terms to cover that object. The
confidential correspondence, and private understanding, made them,
so far as regarded the parties, as effectually orders _to take and
occupy the Province of Florida as if that object had been declared
on their face_.
"Under these circumstances General Jackson entered Florida with
a _perfect right_, according to international law, and the
constitution and laws of his country, to take possession of the
whole territory. He was clothed with all the power of the President,
and authorized 'to conduct the war as he thought best.' He had
orders as general and comprehensive as words could make them: he had
the confidential approbation of the President to his confidential
recommendation to seize Florida: and he entered the province with
the full knowledge that not only justice and policy but the laws
of his country, and the orders of the President as publicly and
privately explained and understood, would justify him in expelling
every Spanish garrison, and extending the jurisdiction of the United
States over every inch of its territory.
"'Nevertheless, General Jackson, from his knowledge of the situation
of affairs in Florida, expected to find a justification for himself
in the conduct of the Spanish authorities. On the contrary, had
he found on entering the province that the agents and officers
of Spain, instead of instigating, encouraging and supplying the
Indians, had used all the means in their power to prevent and put an
end to hostilities, he would not have incurred the responsibility of
seizing their fortresses and expelling them from the country. But
he wrote to the President, and entered upon the campaign with other
expectations, and in these he was not disappointed.
"As he approached St. Marks it was ascertained that it was a place
of rendezvous and a source of supply for the Indians. Their councils
had been held within its walls: its storehouses were appropriated
to their use: they had there obtained supplies of ammunition: there
they had found a market for their plunder: and in the commandant's
family resided Alexander Arbuthnot, the chief instigator of the
war. Moreover, the negroes and Indians under Ambrister threatened
to drive out the feeble Spanish garrison and take entire possession
of the fort, as a means of protection for themselves and annoyance
to the United States. In these circumstances General Jackson found
enough to justify him in assuming the responsibility of seizing and
occupying that post with an American garrison.
"The Indians had been dispersed, and St. Marks occupied. No facts
had as yet appeared which would justify General Jackson in assuming
the responsibility of occupying the other Spanish posts in Florida.
He considered the war as at an end, and was about to discharge a
considerable portion of his force, when he was informed that a
portion of the hostile Indians had been received, fed and supplied
by the Spanish authorities in Pensacola. He therefore directed his
march upon that point. On his advance he received a letter from the
governor, denouncing his entry into Florida as a violent outrage
on the rights of Spain, requiring his immediate retreat from the
Territory, and threatening in case of refusal to use force to expel
him. This declaration of hostilities on the part of the Spanish
authorities, instead of removing, tended to increase the necessity
for the General's advance, because it was manifest to both parties
that if the American army then left Florida, the Indians, under
the belief that there they would always find a safe retreat, would
commence their bloody incursions upon our frontiers with redoubled
fury; and General Jackson was warned that if he left any portion of
his army to restrain the Indians, and retired with his main force,
the Spaniards would be openly united with the Indians to expel the
whole, and thus it became as necessary in order to terminate the war
to destroy or capture the Spanish force at Pensacola as the Indians
themselves. In this attitude of the Spanish governor, and in the
fact that the hostile Indians were received, fed, clothed, furnished
with munitions of war, and that their plunder was purchased in
Pensacola, General Jackson found a justification for seizing that
post also, and holding it in the name of the United States.
"St. Augustine was still in the hands of the Spaniards, and no act
of the authorities or people of that place was known to General
Jackson previous to his return to Tennessee, which would sustain
him in assuming the responsibility of occupying that city. However,
about the 7th of August, 1818, he received information that the
Indians were there also received and supplied. On that day,
therefore, he issued an order to General Gaines, directing him to
collect the evidences of these facts, and if they were well founded,
to take possession of that place. The following is an extract from
that order:
"'I have noted with attention Major Twiggs' letter marked No. 5.
I contemplated that the agents of Spain or the officers of Fort
St. Augustine would excite the Indians to hostility and furnish
them with the means. It will be necessary to obtain evidence
substantiating this fact, and that the hostile Indians have been
fed and furnished from the garrison of St. Augustine. This being
obtained, should you deem your force sufficient, you will proceed
to take and garrison with American troops, Fort St. Augustine, and
hold the garrison prisoners until you hear from the President of the
United States, or transport them to Cuba, as in your judgment under
existing circumstances you may think best.'
"An order had some time before been given to the officer of ordnance
at Charleston, to have in readiness a battery train, and to him
General Gaines was referred.
"The order to take St. Augustine has often been adduced as evidence
of General Jackson's determination to do as he pleased, without
regard to the orders or wishes of his government. Though justifiable
on the ground of self-defence, it would never have been issued but
for the confidential orders given to General Gaines and Colonel
Bankhead, to take possession of Amelia Island forcibly, if not
yielded peaceably, and when possessed, to retain and fortify it;
and the secret understanding which existed between him and the
government, in consequence of which he never doubted that he was
acting in compliance with the wishes, and in accordance with the
orders and expectations of the President and Secretary of War.
"To show more conclusively the impressions under which General
Jackson acted, reference should be had to the fact that, after the
capture of the Spanish forts, he instructed Captain Gadsden to
prepare and report a plan for the permanent defence of Florida,
which was agreeable to the confidential orders to General Gaines and
Col. Bankhead before referred to. Of this he informed the Secretary
of War in a dispatch dated 2d June, 1818, of which the following is
an extract:--
"'Captain Gadsden is instructed to prepare and report on the
necessary defences as far as the military reconnoissances he has
taken will permit, accompanied with plans of existing works; what
additions or improvements are necessary, and what new works should,
in his opinion, be erected to _give permanent security to this
important territorial addition to our republic_. As soon as the
report is prepared, Captain Gadsden will receive orders to repair
to Washington City with some other documents which I may wish to
confide to his charge.'
"This plan was completed and forwarded to Mr. Calhoun on the 10th
of the succeeding August, by Captain Gadsden himself, with a letter
from General Jackson, urging the necessity not only of retaining
possession of St. Marks, but Pensacola. The following is a part of
that letter:
"'Captain Gadsden will also deliver you his report made in pursuance
of my order, accompanied with the plans of the fortifications
thought necessary for the defence of the Floridas, in connection
with the line of defence on our Southern frontier.
"'This was done under the belief that the government will never
jeopardize the safety of the Union, or the security of our frontier,
by surrendering those posts, and the possession of the Floridas,
unless upon a sure guaranty agreeable to the stipulations of
the articles of capitulation, that will insure permanent peace,
tranquillity and security to our Southern frontier. It is believed
that Spain can never furnish this guaranty. As long as there are
Indians in Florida, and it is possessed by Spain, they will be
excited to war, and the indiscriminate murder of our citizens, by
foreign agents combined with the officers of Spain. The duplicity
and conduct of Spain for the last six years fully prove this. It was
on a belief that the Floridas would be held that my order was given
to Captain Gadsden to make the report he has done.'
"Again: 'By Captain Gadsden you will receive some letters lately
inclosed to me, detailing the information that the Spaniards at Fort
St. Augustine are again exciting the Indians to war against us, and
a copy of my order to General Gaines on this subject. It is what
I expected, and proves the justice and sound policy of not only
holding the posts we are now in possession of, but of possessing
ourselves of St. Augustine. This, and this alone can give us peace
and security on "our Southern frontier."'
"It is thus clearly shown that in taking possession of St. Marks and
Pensacola, and giving orders to take St. Augustine, I was acting
within the letter as well as spirit of my orders, and in accordance
with the secret understanding between the government and myself,
and under a full persuasion that these fortresses would never
again be permitted by our government to pass under the dominion of
Spain. From the time of writing my confidential letter of the 6th
of January to the date of this dispatch, the 10th of August, 1818,
I never had an intimation that the wishes of the government had
changed, or that less was expected of me, if the occasion should
prove favorable, than the occupation of the whole of Florida. On the
contrary, either by their direct approval of my measures, or their
silence, the President and Mr. Calhoun gave me reason to suppose
that I was to be sustained, and that the Floridas after being
occupied were to be held for the benefit of the United States. Upon
receiving my orders on the 11th of January, I took instant measures
to bring into the field a sufficient force to accomplish all the
objects suggested in my confidential letter of the 6th, of which I
informed the War Department, and Mr. Calhoun in his reply dated 29th
January, 1818, after the receipt of my confidential letter, and a
full knowledge and approbation of my views says:--
"'The measures you have taken to bring an efficient force into the
field are approbated, and a confident hope is entertained that a
speedy and successful termination of the Indian war will follow your
exertions.'
"Having received further details of my preparations, not only to
terminate the Seminole war, but, as the President and his Secretary
well knew, _to occupy Florida also_, Mr. Calhoun on the 6th
February, writes as follows:--
"'I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the
20th ult., and to acquaint you with the entire approbation of the
President of all the measures you have adopted to terminate the
rupture with the Indians.'
"On the 13th of May following, with a full knowledge that I intended
if a favorable occasion presented itself to occupy Florida, and
that the design had the approbation of the President, Mr. Calhoun
wrote to Governor Bibb, of Alabama, the letter already alluded to,
concluding as follows:--
"'General Jackson is vested with full powers to conduct the war in
the manner he may deem best.'
"On the 25th of March, 1818, I informed Mr. Calhoun that I intended
to occupy St. Marks, and on the 8th of April I informed him that it
was done.
"Not a whisper of disapprobation or of doubt reached me from the
government.
"On the 5th May I wrote to Mr. Calhoun that I was about to move upon
Pensacola with a view of occupying that place.
"Again, no reply was ever given disapproving or discountenancing
this movement.
"On the 2d of June I informed Mr. Calhoun that I had on the 24th May
entered Pensacola, and on the 28th had received the surrender of the
Barrancas.
"Again no reply was given to this letter expressing any disapproval
of these acts.
"In fine, from the receipt of the President's reply to my
confidential letter of 6th January, 1818, through Mr. Rhea, until
the receipt of the President's private letter, dated 19th July,
1818, I received no instructions or intimations from the government
public or private that my operations in Florida were other than such
as the President and Secretary of War expected and approved. I had
not a doubt that I had acted in every respect in strict accordance
with their views, and that without publicly avowing that they had
authorized my measures they were ready at all times and under all
circumstances to sustain me; and that as there were sound reasons
and justifiable cause for taking possession of Florida, they would
in pursuance of their private understanding with me retain it as
indemnity for the spoliations committed by Spanish subjects on our
citizens, and as security for the peace of our Southern frontier.
I was willing to rest my vindication for taking the posts on the
hostile conduct of their officers and garrisons, bearing all the
responsibility myself: but I expected my government would find in
their claims upon Spain, and the danger to which our frontier would
again be exposed, sufficient reasons for not again delivering them
into the possession of Spain.
"It was late in August before I received official information of
the decision of the government to restore the posts, and about the
same time I saw it stated in the Georgia Journal that the cabinet
had been divided in relation to the course pursued by me in Florida;
and also an extract of a letter in a Nashville paper, alleging
that a movement had been made in the cabinet against me which was
attributed to Mr. Crawford, in which extract it is expressly stated
that I had been triumphantly vindicated by _Mr. Calhoun_ and Mr.
Adams. Being convinced that the course I had pursued was justified
by considerations of public policy, by the laws of nations, by the
state of things to which I have referred, and by the instructions,
intimations, and acquiescence of the government, and believing that
the latter had been communicated to all the members of the cabinet,
I considered that such a movement by Mr. Crawford was founded on
considerations foreign to the public interests, and personally
inimical to me; and therefore, after these public and explicit
intimations of what had occurred in the cabinet, I was prepared
to, and did believe that Mr. Crawford was bent on my destruction,
and was the author of the movement in the cabinet to which they
referred. I the more readily entertained this belief in relation to
him (in which I am rejoiced to avail myself of this public occasion
to say I did him injustice) because it was impossible that I should
suspect that any proposition to punish or censure me could come
from either the President or Mr. Calhoun, as I well knew that I
had expressed to the President my opinion that Florida ought to be
taken, and had offered to take it if he would give me an intimation
through Mr. Rhea that it was desirable to do so, which intimation
was given; that they had given me orders broad enough to sanction
all that was done; that Mr. Calhoun had expressly interpreted
those orders vesting me 'with full power to conduct the war as he
(I) might think best;' that they had expressly approved of all my
preparations, and in silence witnessed all my operations. Under
these circumstances it was impossible for me to believe, whatever
change might have taken place in their views of public policy,
that either the President or Mr. Calhoun could have originated or
countenanced any proposition tending to cast censure upon me, much
less to produce my arrest, trial, and punishment.
"If these facts and statements could have left room for a doubt
in relation to Mr. Calhoun's approval of my conduct and of his
friendship for me, I had other evidence of a nature perfectly
conclusive. In August, 1818, Colonel A. P. Hayne, Inspector General
of the Southern Division, who had served in this campaign, came to
Washington to settle his accounts, and resign his staff appointment
in the army. He was the fellow-citizen and friend of Mr. Calhoun
and held constant personal interviews with him for some weeks in
settling his accounts. On the 24th September he addressed a letter
to me, stating that he had closed his public accounts entirely to
his satisfaction, and in relation to public affairs among other
things remarks:--
"'The course the administration has thought proper to adopt is to
me _inexplicable_. They _retain St. Marks_, and in the same breath
_give up_ Pensacola. Who can comprehend this? The American nation
possesses discernment, and will judge for themselves. Indeed, sir,
I fear that Mr. Monroe has on the present occasion yielded to the
opinion of those about him. I cannot believe that it is the result
of his own honest convictions. Mr. Calhoun certainly thinks with you
altogether, although after the decision of the cabinet, he must of
course nominally support what has been done.' And in another letter,
dated 21st January, 1819, he says: 'Since I last saw you I have
travelled through West and East Tennessee, through Kentucky, through
Ohio, through the western and eastern part of Pennsylvania, and the
whole of Virginia--have been much in Baltimore and Philadelphia, and
the united voice of the people of those States and towns (and I have
taken great pains to inform myself) approve of your conduct in every
respect. And the people of the United States at large entertain
precisely the same opinion with the people of those States. So does
the administration, to wit: Mr. Monroe, _Mr. Calhoun_, and Mr.
Adams. Mr. Monroe is your _friend_. He has _identified_ you with
himself. After the most mature reflection and deliberation upon all
of your operations, he has covered your conduct. But I am candid
to confess that he did not adopt this line of conduct (in my mind)
as soon as he ought to have done. Mr. Adams has done honor to his
country and himself.'
"Colonel Hayne is a man of honor, and did not intend to deceive; I
had no doubt, and have none now, that he derived his impressions
from conversations with Mr. Calhoun himself; nor have I any
doubt that Mr. Calhoun purposely conveyed those impressions that
they might be communicated to me. Without other evidence than
this letter, how could I have understood Mr. Calhoun otherwise
than as approving my whole conduct, and as having defended me in
the cabinet? How could I have understood any seeming dissent in
his official communications otherwise than as arising from his
obligation to give a 'nominal support' to the decision of the
cabinet which in reality he disapproved?
"The reply to my confidential letter, the approval of my
preparations, the silence of Mr. Calhoun during the campaign, the
enmity of Mr. Crawford, the language of the newspapers, the letters
of Colonel Hayne, and other letters of similar import from other
gentlemen who were on familiar terms with the Secretary of War,
left no doubt on my mind that Mr. Calhoun approved of my conduct in
the Seminole war 'altogether;' had defended me against an attack
of Mr. Crawford in the cabinet, and was, throughout the struggle
in Congress so deeply involving my character and fame, my devoted
and zealous friend. This impression was confirmed by the personal
kindness of Mr. Calhoun towards me, during my visit to this city,
pending the proceedings of Congress relative to the Seminole war,
and on every after occasion. Nor was such conduct confined to me
alone, for however inconsistent with his proposition in the cabinet,
that I should 'be punished in some form,' or in the language of
Mr. Adams, as to what passed there 'that General Jackson should be
brought to trial,' in several conversations with Colonel Richard M.
Johnson, while he was preparing the counter report of the Military
Committee of the House of Representatives, Mr. Calhoun always spoke
of me with respect and kindness, _and approved of my course_.
"So strong was my faith in Mr. Calhoun's friendship that the
appointment of Mr. Lacock, shortly after he had made his report upon
the Seminole war in the Senate, to an important office, although
inexplicable to me, did not shake it.
"I was informed by Mr. Rankin (member of the House of
Representatives from Mississippi), and others in 1823 and 1824,
once in the presence of Colonel Thomas H. Williams (of Mississippi)
of the Senate, that I had blamed Mr. Crawford unjustly and that
Mr. Calhoun was the instigator of the attacks made upon me: yet in
consequence of the facts and circumstances already recapitulated
tending to prove Mr. Calhoun's approval of my course, I could not
give the assertion the least credit.
"Again in 1825 Mr. Cobb told me that I blamed Mr. Crawford
wrongfully both for the attempt to injure me in the cabinet, and
for having an agency in framing the resolutions which he (Mr.
Cobb) offered in Congress censuring my conduct in the Seminole
war. He stated on the contrary that Mr. Crawford was opposed to
those resolutions and always asserted that '_General Jackson had
a sufficient defence whenever he chose to make it, and that the
attempt to censure him would do him good, and recoil upon its
authors_;' yet it was impossible for me to believe that Mr. Calhoun
had been my enemy; on the contrary I did not doubt that he had been
my devoted friend, not only through all those difficulties, but in
the contest for the Presidency which ended in the election of Mr.
Adams.
"In the Spring of 1828 the impression of Mr. Calhoun's rectitude
and fidelity towards me was confirmed by an incident which occurred
during the progress of an effort to reconcile all misunderstanding
between him and Mr. Crawford and myself. Colonel James A. Hamilton
of New-York inquired of Mr. Calhoun himself, at Washington,
'whether at any meeting of Mr. Monroe's cabinet the propriety of
arresting General Jackson for any thing done during the Seminole
war had been at any time discussed?' Mr. Calhoun replied, 'Never:
such a measure was not thought of, much less discussed. The only
point before the cabinet was the answer to be given to the Spanish
government.' In consequence of this conversation Colonel Hamilton
wrote to Major Lewis, a member of the Nashville committee, that
'the Vice-President, who you know was the member of the cabinet
best acquainted with the subject, told me General Jackson's arrest
was never thought of, much less discussed.' Information of this
statement renewed and strengthened the impression relative to the
friendship of Mr. Calhoun, which I had entertained from the time of
the Seminole war.
"In a private letter to Mr. Calhoun dated 25th May, 1828, written
after the conversation with Colonel Hamilton had been communicated
to me, I say in relation to the Seminole war:
"'I can have no wish at this day to obtain an explanation of the
orders under which I acted whilst charged with the campaign against
the Seminole Indians in Florida. I viewed them when received as
plain and explicit, and called for by the situation of the country.
I executed them faithfully, and was happy in reply to my reports to
the Department of War to receive your approbation for it.'
"Again: 'The fact is, I never had the least ground to believe
(previous to the reception of Mr. Monroe's letter of 19th July,
1818) that any difference of opinion between the government and
myself existed on the subject of my powers. So far from this, to the
communications which I made showing the construction which I placed
upon them, there was not only no difference of opinion indicated in
the replies of the Executive but as far as I received replies, an
entire approval of the measures which I had adopted.'
"This was addressed directly from me to Mr. Calhoun, in May, 1828.
In his reply Mr. Calhoun does not inform me that I was in error.
He does not tell me that he disapproved my conduct, and thought I
ought to have been punished for a violation of orders. He does not
inform me that he or any other had proposed in the cabinet council a
court of inquiry, or any other court. He says nothing inconsistent
with the impression already made upon my mind--nothing which might
not have been expected from one who had been obliged to give a
'nominal support' to a decision which he disapproved. His reply,
dated 10th July, 1828, is in these words:
"'Any discussion of them' (the orders) 'now, I agree with you,
would be unnecessary. They are matters of history, and must be
left to the historian as they stand. In fact I never did suppose
that the justification of yourself or the government depended on a
critical construction of them. It is sufficient for both that they
were honestly issued, and honestly executed, without involving the
question whether they were executed strictly in accordance with the
intention that they were issued. Honest and patriotic motives are
all that can be required, and I never doubted that they existed on
both sides.'
"It was certainly impossible for me to conceive that Mr. Calhoun
had urged in cabinet council a court of inquiry with a view to my
ultimate punishment for violation of orders which he admitted were
'_honestly executed_,' especially as he _never doubted_ that my
'motives' were '_honest and patriotic_.' After this letter I could
not have doubted, if I had before, that Mr. Calhoun had zealously
vindicated my 'honest and patriotic' acts in Mr. Monroe's cabinet
against the supposed attacks of Mr. Crawford, as had long before
been announced. I could not have doubted that Mr. Calhoun 'thought
with me altogether,' as I had been informed by Colonel Hayne. I
could not have conceived that Mr. Calhoun had _ever_ called in
question my compliance with my orders, when he says he '_never
did suppose_' that my '_justification_ depended on a critical
construction of them,' and 'that it was sufficient that they were
honestly executed.'
"By the unlimited authority conferred on me by my orders; by the
writing and reception of my confidential letter and the answer
thereto advised by Mr. Calhoun; by the positive approval of all my
preparatory measures and the silence of the government during my
operations; by uncontradicted publications in the newspapers; by
positive assurances received through the friends of Mr. Calhoun; by
Mr. Calhoun's declaration to Colonel Hamilton; and finally by his
own assurance that he never doubted the honesty or patriotism with
which I executed my orders, which he '_deemed sufficient_' without
inquiring '_whether they were executed strictly in accordance with
the intention that they were issued_,' I was authorized to believe
and did believe that Mr. Calhoun had been my devoted friend,
defending on all occasions, public and private, my whole conduct
in the Seminole war. With these impressions I entered upon the
discharge of the duties of President, in March, 1829.
"Recent disclosures prove that these impressions were entirely
erroneous, and that Mr. Calhoun himself was the author of the
proposition made in the cabinet to subject me to a court of inquiry
with a view to my ultimate punishment for a violation of orders.
"My feelings towards Mr. Calhoun continued of the most friendly
character until my suspicions of his fairness were awakened by the
following incident. The late Marshal of the District of Columbia
(Mr. Tench Ringold), conversing with a friend of mine in relation to
the Seminole war, spoke in strong terms of Mr. Monroe's support of
me; and upon being informed that I had always regarded Mr. Calhoun
as my firm and undeviating friend and supporter, and particularly
on that occasion, Mr. Ringold replied that _Mr. Calhoun was the
first man to move in the cabinet for my punishment, and that he
was against me on that subject_. Informed of this conversation,
and recurring to the repeated declarations that had been made to
me by different persons and at different times, that Mr. Calhoun,
and not Mr. Crawford, was the person who had made that movement
against me in the cabinet, and observing the mysterious opposition
that had shown itself, particularly among those who were known to
be the friends and partisans of Mr. Calhoun, and that the measures
which I had recommended to the consideration of Congress, and
which appeared to have received the approbation of the people,
were neglected or opposed in that quarter whence I had a right to
believe they would have been brought forward and sustained, I felt
a desire to see the written statement which I had been informed Mr.
Crawford had made, in relation to the proceedings of the cabinet,
that I might ascertain its true character. I sought and obtained
it, in the manner heretofore stated, and immediately sent it to
Mr. Calhoun, and asked him frankly whether it was possible that
the information given in it was correct? His answer, which he has
given to the world, indeed, as I have before stated, surprised, nay,
astonished me. I had always refused to believe, notwithstanding
the various assurances I had received, that Mr. Calhoun could be
so far regardless of that duty which the plainest principles of
justice and honor imposed upon him, as to propose the punishment
of a subordinate officer for the violation of orders which were so
evidently discretionary as to permit me as he (Mr. Calhoun) informed
Governor Bibb, 'to conduct the war as he may think best.' But the
fact that he so acted has been affirmed by all who were present on
the occasion, and admitted by himself.[4]
[4] Mr. Calhoun in his conversation with Colonel Hamilton,
substantially denied that such a proposition as that which he now
admits he made, was ever submitted to the cabinet. He is asked
"whether at any meeting of Mr. Monroe's cabinet the propriety of
arresting General Jackson for any thing done during the Seminole
war had been at any time discussed." He replies "Never; such a
measure was not thought of, much less discussed: _the only point
before the cabinet was the answer to be given to the Spanish
government._" By the last branch of the answer the denial is made
to embrace the whole subject in any form it might have assumed,
and therefore deprives Mr. Calhoun of all grounds of cavil or
escape by alleging that he only proposed a military inquiry, and
not an arrest, and that he did not therefore answer the inquiry
in the negative. But again when Colonel Hamilton submitted to Mr.
Calhoun his recollection of the conversation that Mr. Calhoun might
correct it if erroneous, and informed him that he did so because
he intended to communicate in to Major Lewis, Mr. Calhoun did not
question the correctness of Colonel Hamilton's recollection of the
conversation; he does not qualify or alter it; he does not say, as
in frankness he was bound to do--"It is true, the proposition to
arrest General Jackson was not discussed, but an inquiry into his
conduct in that war was discussed on a proposition to that end made
by me." He does not say that the answer to the Spanish government
was not the only point before the cabinet, but he endeavors, without
denying as was alleged by Colonel Hamilton that this part of the
conversation was understood between them to be confidential, to
prevent him from making it public, and to that end and that alone
he writes a letter of ten pages on the sacredness of cabinet
deliberations. Why, let us ask, did Mr. Calhoun upon reflection feel
so much solicitude to prevent a disclosure of his answer to Colonel
Hamilton, which if true could not injure him? At first, although put
upon his guard, he admits that this part of the conversation was
not confidential, although it referred to what was, as well as what
was not done in cabinet council. The reason is to be found in his
former involutions, and in the fact that the answer was not true,
and in his apprehension that if that answer was made public, Mr.
Crawford, who entertained the worst opinions of Mr. Calhoun, and who
had suffered in General Jackson's opinion on this subject, would
immediately disclose the whole truth, as he has since done; and that
thus the veil worn out, of the sacredness of cabinet deliberations
under which Mr. Calhoun upon second thought had endeavored to
conceal himself, would be raised, and he would be exposed to public
indignation and scorn. This could alone be the motive for his
extreme anxiety to prevent Colonel Hamilton from communicating the
result of an inquiry made by him from the best and purest motives,
to the persons who had prompted that inquiry from like motives.
"That Mr. Calhoun, with his knowledge of facts and
circumstances, should have dared to make such a proposition, can
only be accounted for from the sacredly confidential character
which he attaches to the proceedings of a cabinet council. His
views of this subject are strongly expressed in his printed
correspondence, page 15. 'I am not at all surprised,' says he,
'that Mr. Crawford should feel that he stands in need of an
apology for betraying the deliberations of the cabinet. It is,
I believe, not only the first instance in our country, but one
of a very few instances in any country, or any age, that an
individual has felt himself absolved from the high obligations
which honor and duty impose on one situated as he was.' It was
under this veil, which he supposed to be for ever impenetrable,
that Mr. Calhoun came forward and denounced those measures which
he knew were not only impliedly, but positively authorized by
the President himself. He proposed to take preparatory steps for
the punishment of General Jackson, whose '_honest and patriotic
motives he never doubted_,' for the violation of orders which he
admits were '_honestly executed_.' That he expected to succeed
with his proposition so long as there was a particle of honor,
honesty, or prudence left to President Monroe, is not to be
imagined. The movement was intended for some future contingency,
which perhaps Mr. Calhoun himself only can certainly explain.
"The shape in which this proposition was made is variously
stated. Mr. Calhoun, in the printed correspondence, page 15,
says: 'I was of the impression that you had exceeded your
orders, and acted on your own responsibility, but I neither
questioned your patriotism nor your motives. Believing that
where orders were transcended, investigation as a matter of
course ought to follow, as due in justice to the government and
the officer, unless there be strong reasons to the contrary,
I came to the [cabinet] meeting under the impression that the
usual course ought to be pursued in this case, which I supported
by presenting fully and freely all the arguments that occurred
to me.'
"Mr. Crawford, in his letter to Mr. Forsyth, published in the
same correspondence, page 9, says: 'Mr. Calhoun's proposition in
the cabinet was, that General Jackson should be punished in some
form, or reprehended in some form, I am not positively certain
which.'
"Mr. Adams, in a letter to Mr. Crawford, dated 30th July, 1830,
says: 'The main point upon which it was urged that General
Jackson should be _brought to trial_, was, that he had violated
his orders by taking St. Marks and Pensacola.'
"Mr. Crowninshield, in a letter to Mr. Crawford, dated 25th
July, 1830, says: 'I remember too, that Mr. Calhoun was severe
upon the conduct of General Jackson, but the words particularly
spoken have slipped my memory.'
"From the united testimony it appears that Mr. Calhoun made a
proposition for a court of inquiry upon the conduct of General
Jackson, upon the charge of having violated his orders in
taking St. Marks and Pensacola, with a view to his ultimate
trial and punishment, and that he was severe in his remarks
upon that conduct. But the President would listen to no such
proposition. Mr. Crawford, in his letter to Mr. Calhoun, dated
2d October, 1830, says: 'You remembered the excitement which
your proposition produced in the mind and on the feelings of the
President, and did not dare to ask him any question tending to
revive his recollection of that proposition.' This excitement
was very natural. Hearing the very member of his cabinet whom he
had consulted upon the subject of General Jackson's confidential
letter, and who had advised the answer which had approved
beforehand the capture of St. Marks and Pensacola and who on the
8th September, 1818, wrote to General Jackson, that 'St. Marks
will be retained till Spain shall be ready to garrison it with
a sufficient force, and Fort Gadsden, and any other position
in East or West Florida within the Indian country, which may
be deemed eligible, will be retained so long as there is any
danger, which, it is hoped, will afford the desired security,'
make a proposition which went to stamp his character with
treachery, by the punishment of General Jackson for those very
acts, it was impossible that Mr. Monroe should not be excited.
He must have been more than human, or less, to have beheld Mr.
Calhoun uttering violent philippics against General Jackson for
those acts, without the strongest emotion.
"Mr. Calhoun's proposition was rejected, as he knew it would be,
and he came from behind the veil of cabinet secrecy all smiles
and professions of regard and friendship for General Jackson!
It was then that by his deceitful conversations he induced
Colonel Hayne and others to inform General Jackson, that so
far from thinking that he had violated his orders and ought to
be punished, he disapproved and only nominally supported the
more friendly decision of the cabinet, and thought with him
altogether! There was no half-way feeling in his friendship!
So complete and entire was the deception, that while General
Jackson was passing through Virginia the next winter on his way
to Washington, he toasted '_John C. Calhoun_,' as '_an honest
man, the noblest work of God._' Who can paint the workings of
the guilty Calhoun's soul when he read that toast!!
"But Mr. Calhoun was not content with the attack made by him
upon General Jackson's character and fame in the dark recesses
of Mr. Monroe's cabinet. At the next session of Congress
the same subject was taken in hand in both houses. Mr. Cobb
came forward with his resolutions of censure in the House of
Representatives, where, after a long discussion, the assailants
were signally defeated. Mr. Lacock headed a committee in the
Senate which was engaged in the affair from the 18th December,
1818, to the 24th February, 1819, when they made a report
full of bitterness against General Jackson. It charged him
with a violation of the laws and constitution of his country;
disobedience of orders; disregard of the principles of humanity,
and almost every crime which a military man can commit.
"It was not suspected at the time that this report owed any of
its bitterness to Mr. Calhoun, yet that such was the fact is now
susceptible of the strongest proof!
"While the attacks upon General Jackson were in progress in
Congress his presence in the city was thought to be necessary by
his friends. Colonel Robert Butler, then in Washington, wrote to
him to that effect. A few days afterwards Mr. Calhoun accosted
him, and asked him in an abrupt manner why he had written to
General Jackson to come to the city. Colonel Butler answered,
'that he might see that justice was done him in person.' Mr.
Calhoun turned from him without speaking another word with an
air of anger and vexation which made an indelible impression
on the colonel's mind. It was obvious enough that he did not
desire, but rather feared General Jackson's presence in the
city. Colonel Butler's letter to General Jackson, dated the 9th
June, 1831, is in these words:
"'When in Washington in the winter of 1818-'19, finding the
course which Congress appeared to be taking on the Seminole
question, I wrote you that I esteemed it necessary that you
should be present at Washington. Having done so, I communicated
this fact to our friend Bronaugh, who held the then Secretary
of War in high estimation. The succeeding evening, while at
the French Minister's, he came to me and inquired in a tone
somewhat abrupt, what could induce me to write for General
Jackson to come to the city--(Bronaugh having informed him that
I had done so)--to which I replied, perhaps as sternly, "_that
he may in person have justice done him_." The Secretary turned
on his heel, and so ended the conversation; but there was a
something inexplicable in the countenance that subsequent events
have given meaning to. After your arrival at Washington, we
were on a visit at the Secretary's, and examining a map--(the
Yellow Stone expedition of the Secretary's being the subject of
conversation)--Mr. Lacock, of the Senate, was announced to the
Secretary, who remarked--"Do not let him come in now, General
Jackson is here, but will soon be gone, when I can see him."
There was nothing strange in all this; but the whispered manner
and apparent agitation fastened on my mind the idea that Mr.
Calhoun and Lacock understood each other on the Seminole matter.
Such were my impressions at the time.'
"On my arrival, however, in January, 1819, Mr. Calhoun treated
me with marked kindness. The latter part of Colonel Butler's
letter, as to Mr. Lacock, is confirmed by my own recollection
that one day when Mr. Calhoun and myself were together in the
War Department, the messenger announced Mr. Lacock at the door:
Mr. Calhoun, in a hurried manner, pronounced the name of General
Jackson, and Mr. Lacock did not come in. This circumstance
indicated an intimacy between them, but I inferred nothing from
it unfavorable to Mr. Calhoun.
"In speaking of my confidential letter to Mr. Monroe (printed
correspondence, page 19), Mr. Calhoun states, that after
reading it when received, 'I thought no more of it. Long after,
I think it was at the commencement of the next session of
Congress, I heard some allusion which brought that letter to my
recollection. It was from a quarter which induced me to believe
that it came from Mr. Crawford. I called and mentioned it to Mr.
Monroe, and found that he had entirely forgotten the letter.
After searching some time he found it among some other papers,
and read it, as he told me, for the first time.'
"The particular '_quarter_' whence the '_allusion_' which
called up the recollection of this confidential letter came,
Mr. Calhoun has not thought proper to state. Probably it was
Mr. Lacock, who was the friend of Mr. Crawford. Probably he
applied to Mr. Calhoun for information, and Mr. Calhoun went
to the President, and requested a sight of that letter that he
might communicate its contents to Mr. Lacock. Mr. Lacock was
appointed upon the committee on the Seminole war, on the 18th
December. On the 21st of that month the recollection of the
confidential letter was first in the mind of Mr. Monroe, for on
that day, in a letter to General Jackson, he gives an account
of its reception, and the disposition made of it. Probably,
therefore, it was about the time that Mr. Lacock undertook the
investigation of this affair in the Senate, and that it was for
his information that Mr. Calhoun called on Mr. Monroe to inquire
about this letter.
"Nay, it is _certain_ that the existence and contents of this
letter _were_ about that time _communicated to Mr. Lacock: that
he conversed freely and repeatedly with Mr. Calhoun upon the
whole subject: that he was informed of all that had passed: the
views of the President, of Mr. Calhoun, and the cabinet, and
that Mr. Calhoun coincided with Mr. Lacock in all his views_.
"These facts are stated _upon the authority of Mr. Lacock
himself_.
"The motives of these secret communications to Mr. Lacock by Mr.
Calhoun cannot be mistaken. By communicating the contents of the
confidential letter, and withholding the fact that an approving
answer had been returned, he wished to impress Mr. Lacock with
the belief that General Jackson had predetermined before he
entered Florida, to seize the Spanish posts, right or wrong,
with orders or without. Acting under this impression, he would
be prepared to discredit and disbelieve all General Jackson's
explanations and defences, and put the worst construction upon
every circumstance disclosed in the investigation. By this
perfidy General Jackson was deprived of all opportunity to make
an effectual defence. To him Mr. Calhoun was all smiles and
kindness. He believed him his friend, seeking by all proper
means, in public and private, to shield him from the attacks
of his enemies. Having implicit confidence in Mr. Calhoun and
the President, he would sooner have endured the tortures of
the inquisition than have disclosed their answer to his letter
through Mr. Rhea. The tie which he felt, Mr. Calhoun felt
not. He did not scruple to use one side of a correspondence
to destroy a man, his friend, who confided in him with the
faith and affection of a brother--when he knew that man felt
bound by obligations from which no considerations short of a
knowledge of his own perfidy could absolve him, to hold the
other side in eternal silence. General Jackson had no objection
to a disclosure of the whole correspondence. There was nothing
in it of which he was ashamed, or which on his own account he
wished to conceal. Public policy made it inexpedient that the
world should know at that time how far the government had
approved beforehand of his proceedings. But had he known that
Mr. Calhoun was attempting to destroy him by secretly using
one side of the correspondence, he would have been justified
by the laws of self-defence in making known the other. He saw
not, heard not, imagined not, that means so perfidious and
dishonorable were in use to destroy him. It never entered his
confiding heart that the hand he shook with the cordiality of a
warm friend was secretly pointing out to his enemies the path by
which they might ambuscade and destroy him. He was incapable of
conceiving that the honeyed tongue, which to him spake nothing
but kindness, was secretly conveying poison into the ears of Mr.
Lacock, and other members of Congress. It could not enter his
mind that his confidential letters, the secrets of the cabinet,
and the opinions of its members, were all secretly arrayed
against him by the friend in whom he implicitly confided,
misinterpreted and distorted, without giving him an opportunity
for self-defence or explanation.
"Mr. Calhoun's object was accomplished. Mr. Lacock made a
report far transcending in bitterness any thing which even in
the opinion of General Jackson's enemies the evidence seemed
to justify. This extraordinary and unaccountable severity is
now explained. It proceeded from the secret and perfidious
representations of Mr. Calhoun, based on General Jackson's
confidential letter. Mr. Lacock ought to be partially excused,
and stand before the world comparatively justified. For most of
the injustice done by his report to the soldier who had risked
all for his country, Mr. Calhoun _is the responsible man_.
"As dark as this transaction is, a shade is yet to be added.
It was not enough that General Jackson had been deceived and
betrayed by a professing friend; that the contents of his
confidential correspondence had been secretly communicated
to his open enemies, while all information of the reply was
withheld: it was not enough that an official report overflowing
with bitterness had gone out to the world to blast his fame,
which must stand for ever recorded in the history of his
country. Lest some accident might expose the evidences of the
understanding under which he acted, and the duplicity of his
secret accuser, means must be taken to procure the destruction
of the answer to the confidential letter through Mr. Rhea. They
were these. About the time Mr. Lacock made his report General
Jackson and Mr. Rhea were both in the city of Washington. Mr.
Rhea called on General Jackson, as he said, at the request
of Mr. Monroe, and begged him on his return home to burn his
reply. He said the President feared that by the death of General
Jackson, or some other accident, it might fall into the hands
of those who would make an improper use of it. He therefore
conjured him by the friendship which had always existed between
them (and by his obligations as a brother mason) to destroy it
on his return to Nashville. Believing Mr. Monroe and Mr. Calhoun
to be his devoted friends, and not deeming it _possible_ that
any incident could occur which would require or justify its use,
he gave Mr. Rhea the promise he solicited, and accordingly after
his return to Nashville he burnt Mr. Rhea's letter, and on his
letter-book opposite the copy of his confidential letter to Mr.
Monroe made this entry:--
"_'Mr. Rhea's letter in answer is burnt this 12th April, 1819.'_
"Mr. Calhoun's management was thus far completely triumphant.
He had secretly assailed General Jackson in cabinet council,
and caused it to be publicly announced that he was his friend.
While the confiding soldier was toasting him as 'an honest man,
the noblest work of God,' he was betraying his confidential
correspondence to his enemy, and laying the basis of a document
which was intended to blast his fame and ruin his character in
the estimation of his countrymen. Lest accident should bring the
truth to light, and expose his duplicity, he procures through
the President and Mr. Rhea the destruction of the approving
answer to the confidential letter. Mr. Rhea was an old man and
General Jackson's health feeble. In a few years all who were
supposed to have any knowledge of the reply would be in their
graves. Every trace of the approval given beforehand by the
government to the operations of General Jackson would soon be
obliterated, and the undivided responsibility would forever
rest on his head. At least, should accident or policy bring to
light the duplicity of Mr. Calhoun, he might deny all knowledge
of this reply, and challenge its production. He might defend
his course in the cabinet and extenuate his disclosures to Mr.
Lacock, by maintaining before the public that he had always
believed General Jackson violated his orders and ought to have
been punished. At the worst, the written reply if once destroyed
could never be recalled from the flames; and should General
Jackson still be living, his assertion might not be considered
more conclusive than Mr. Calhoun's denial. In any view it was
desirable to him that this letter should be destroyed, and
through his management, as is verily believed, it was destroyed.
"Happily however for the truth of history and the cause of
public justice, the writer of the reply is still alive; and
from a journal kept at the time, is able to give an accurate
account of this transaction. He testifies directly to the
writing of the letter, to its contents, and the means taken to
secure its destruction. Judge Overton, to whom the letter was
confidentially shown, testifies directly to the existence of the
letter, and to the fact that General Jackson afterwards told him
it was destroyed.
"These, with the statement of General Jackson himself, and the
entry in his letter-book which was seen by several persons many
years ago, fix these facts beyond a doubt.
"Certainly the history of the world scarcely presents a parallel
to this transaction. It has been seen with what severity
Mr. Calhoun denounced Mr. Crawford for revealing the secret
proceedings of the cabinet: with what justice may a retort of
tenfold severity be made upon him, when he not only reveals to
Mr. Lacock the proceedings of the cabinet, but the confidential
letter of a confiding friend, not for the benefit of that
friend, but through misrepresentation of the transaction and
concealment of the reply, to aid his enemies in accomplishing
his destruction. It was doubtless expected that Mr. Lacock would
produce a document which would overwhelm General Jackson and
destroy him in public estimation. In that event the proceedings
of the cabinet would no longer have been held sacred. The
erroneous impression made on the public mind would have been
corrected, and the world have been informed that Mr. Calhoun
not only disapproved the acts of General Jackson, but had in
the cabinet attempted in vain to procure his punishment. As
the matter stood, the responsibility of attacking the General
rested on Mr. Crawford, and had the decision of the people been
different, the responsibility of _defending_ him would have
been thrown exclusively upon Mr. Adams, and Mr. Calhoun would
have claimed the merit of the attack. But until the public
should decide, it was not prudent to lose the friendship of
General Jackson, which might be of more service to Mr. Calhoun
than the truth. It was thus at the sacrifice of every principle
of honor and friendship that Mr. Calhoun managed to throw all
responsibility on his political rivals, and profit by the result
of these movements whatever it might be. It cannot be doubted,
however, that Mr. Calhoun expected the entire prostration of
General Jackson, and managed to procure the destruction of Mr.
Rhea's letter, for the purpose of disarming the friend he had
betrayed, that he might, with impunity when the public should
have pronounced a sentence of condemnation, have come forward
and claimed the merit of having been the first to denounce him.
"The people however sustained General Jackson against the
attacks of all his enemies, public and private, open and secret,
and therefore it became convenient for Mr. Calhoun to retain
his mask, to appear as the friend of one whom the people had
pronounced their friend, and to let Mr. Crawford bear the unjust
imputation of having assailed him in the cabinet.
"It must be confessed that the mask was worn with consummate
skill. Mr. Calhoun was understood by all of General Jackson's
friends to be his warm and able defender. When, in 1824, Mr.
Calhoun was withdrawn from the lists as a candidate for the
Presidency, the impression made on the friends of General
Jackson was that he did it to favor the election of their
favorite, when it is believed to be susceptible of proof that he
secretly flattered the friends of Mr. Adams with the idea that
he was with them. It is certain that for the Vice-Presidency
he continued to secure nearly all the Adams votes, most of the
Jackson votes, and even half of the Clay votes in Kentucky. But
never did the friends of General Jackson doubt his devotion
to their cause in that contest, until the publication of his
correspondence with General Jackson. In a note, page 7, he
undeceives them by saying:
"'When my name was withdrawn from the list of presidential
candidates, I assumed a perfectly neutral position between
General Jackson and Mr. Adams. I was decidedly opposed to a
congressional caucus, as both those gentlemen were also, and as
I bore very friendly personal and political relations to both, I
would have been well satisfied with the election of either.'
"I have now given a faithful detail of the circumstances and
facts which transpired touching my movements in Florida, during
the Seminole campaign.
"When Mr. Calhoun was secretly misinterpreting my views and
conduct through Mr. Speer to the citizens of South Carolina,
I had extended to him my fullest confidence, inasmuch as I
consulted him as if he were one of my cabinet, showed him the
written rules by which my administration was to be governed,
which he apparently approved, received from him the strongest
professions of friendship, so much so that I would have scorned
even a suggestion that he was capable of such unworthy conduct.
"ANDREW JACKSON."
Such is the paper which General Jackson left behind him for
publication, and which is so essential to the understanding of
the events of the time. From the rupture between General Jackson
and Mr. Calhoun (beginning to open in 1830, and breaking out in
1831), dates calamitous events to this country, upon which history
cannot shut her eyes, and which would be a barren relation without
the revelation of their cause. Justice to Mr. Monroe (who seemed
to hesitate in the cabinet about the proposition to censure or
punish Gen. Jackson), requires it to be distinctly brought out
that he had either never read, or had entirely forgotten General
Jackson's confidential letter, to be answered through the venerable
representative from Tennessee (Mr. John Rhea), and the production of
which in the cabinet had such a decided influence on Mr. Calhoun's
proposition--and against it. This is well told in the letter of
Mr. Crawford to Mr. Forsyth--is enforced in the "Exposition," and
referred to in the "correspondence," but deserves to be reproduced
in Mr. Crawford's own words. He says: "Indeed, my own views on the
subject had undergone a material change after the cabinet had been
convened. Mr. Calhoun made some allusion to a letter the General had
written to the President, who had forgotten that he had received
such a letter, but said if he had received such an one, he could
find it; and went directly to his cabinet and brought the letter
out. In it General Jackson approved of the determination of the
government to break up Amelia Island and Galveston; and gave it
also as his opinion that the Floridas should be taken by the United
States. He added it might be a delicate matter for the Executive to
decide; but if the President approved of it, he had only to give a
hint to some confidential member of Congress, say Mr. Johnny Ray
(Rhea), and he would do it, and take the responsibility of it on
himself. I asked the President if the letter had been answered. He
replied, No; for that he had no recollection of having received it.
I then said that I had no doubt that General Jackson, in taking
Pensacola, believed he was doing what the Executive wished. After
that letter was produced unanswered I should have opposed the
infliction of punishment upon the General, who had considered the
silence of the President as a tacit consent. Yet it was after this
letter was produced and read that Mr. Calhoun made his proposition
to the cabinet for punishing the General. You may show this letter
to Mr. Calhoun, if you please." It was shown to him by General
Jackson, as shown in the "correspondence," and in the "Exposition;"
and is only reproduced here for the sake of doing justice to Mr.
Monroe.
CHAPTER LIV.
BREAKING UP OF THE CABINET, AND APPOINTMENT OF ANOTHER.
The publication of Mr. Calhoun's pamphlet was quickly followed by
an event which seemed to be its natural consequence--that of a
breaking up, and reconstructing the President's cabinet. Several
of its members classed as the political friends of Mr. Calhoun,
and could hardly expect to remain as ministers to General Jackson
while adhering to that gentleman. The Secretary of State, Mr.
Van Buren, was in the category of future presidential aspirants;
and in that character obnoxious to Mr. Calhoun, and became the
cause of attacks upon the President. He determined to resign; and
that determination carried with it the voluntary, or obligatory
resignations of all the others--each one of whom published his
reasons for his act. Mr. Eaton, Secretary at War, placed his
upon the ground of original disinclination to take the place,
and a design to quit it at the first suitable moment--which he
believed had now arrived. Mr. Ingham, Secretary of the Treasury,
Mr. Branch, of the Navy, and Mr. Berrien, Attorney General, placed
theirs upon the ground of compliance with the President's wishes.
Of the three latter, the two first classed as the friends of Mr.
Calhoun; the Attorney General, on this occasion, was considered
as favoring him, but not of his political party. The unpleasant
business was courteously conducted--transacted in writing as well
as in personal conversations, and all in terms of the utmost
decorum. Far from attempting to find an excuse for his conduct in
the imputed misconduct of the retiring Secretaries, the President
gave them letters of respect, in which he bore testimony to their
acceptable deportment while associated with him, and placed the
required resignations exclusively on the ground of a determination
to reorganize his cabinet. And, in fact, that determination became
unavoidable after the appearance of Mr. Calhoun's pamphlet. After
that Mr. Van Buren could not remain, as being viewed under the
aspect of "Mordecai, the Jew, sitting at the king's gate." Mr.
Eaton, as his supporter, found a reason to do what he wished, in
following his example. The supporters of Mr. Calhoun, howsoever
unexceptionable their conduct had been, and might be, could neither
expect, nor desire, to remain among the President's confidential
advisers after the broad rupture with that gentleman. Mr. Barry,
Postmaster General, and the first of that office who had been called
to the cabinet councils, and classing as friendly to Mr. Van Buren,
did not resign, but soon had his place vacated by the appointment
of minister to Spain. Mr. Van Buren's resignation was soon followed
by the appointment of minister to London; and Mr. Eaton was made
Governor of Florida; and, on the early death of Mr. Barry, became
his successor at Madrid.
The new cabinet was composed of Edward Livingston of Louisiana,
Secretary of State; Louis McLane of Delaware (recalled from the
London mission for that purpose), Secretary of the Treasury; Lewis
Cass of Ohio, Secretary at War; Levi Woodbury of New Hampshire,
Secretary of the Navy; Amos Kendall of Kentucky, Postmaster General;
Roger Brooke Taney of Maryland, Attorney General. This change in
the cabinet made a great figure in the party politics of the day,
and filled all the opposition newspapers, and had many sinister
reasons assigned for it--all to the prejudice of General Jackson,
and Mr. Van Buren--to which neither of them replied, though having
the easy means of vindication in their hands--the former in the then
prepared "Exposition" which is now first given to the public--the
latter in the testimony of General Jackson, also first published
in this THIRTY YEARS' VIEW, and in the history of the real cause
of the breach between General Jackson and Mr. Calhoun, which the
"Exposition" contains. Mr. Crawford was also sought to be injured
in the published "correspondence," chiefly as the alleged divulger,
and for a wicked purpose, of the proceedings in Mr. Monroe's
cabinet in relation to the proposed military court on General
Jackson. Mr. Calhoun arraigned him as the divulger of that cabinet
secret, to the faithful keeping of which, as well as of all the
cabinet proceedings, every member of that council is most strictly
enjoined. Mr. Crawford's answer to this arraignment was brief and
pointed. He denied the divulgation--affirmed that the disclosure
had been made immediately after the cabinet consultation, in a
letter sent to Nashville, Tennessee, and published in a paper of
that city, in which the facts were reversed--Mr. Crawford being
made the mover of the court of inquiry proposition, and Mr. Calhoun
the defender of the General; and he expressed his belief that Mr.
Calhoun procured that letter to be written and published, for the
purpose of exciting General Jackson against him; (which belief the
Exposition seems to confirm)--and declaring that he only spoke of
the cabinet proposition after the publication of that letter, and
for the purpose of contradicting it, and telling the fact, that Mr.
Calhoun made the proposition for the court, and that Mr. Adams and
himself resisted, and defeated it. His words were: "My apology for
having disclosed what passed in a cabinet meeting, is this: In the
summer after that meeting, an extract of a letter from Washington
was published in a Nashville paper, in which it was stated that I
had proposed to arrest General Jackson, but that he was triumphantly
defended by Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Adams. This letter I have always
believed was written by Mr. Calhoun, or by his direction. It had
the desired effect. General Jackson became extremely inimical to
me, and friendly to Mr. Calhoun. In stating the arguments of Mr.
Adams to induce Mr. Monroe to support General Jackson's conduct
throughout, adverting to Mr. Monroe's apparent admission, that if a
young officer had acted so, he might be safely punished, Mr. Adams
said--that if General Jackson had acted so, that if he had been a
subaltern officer, _shooting was too good for him_. This, however,
was said with a view of driving Mr. Monroe to an unlimited support
of what General Jackson had done, and not with an unfriendly view
to the General. Mr. Calhoun's proposition in the cabinet was,
that General Jackson should be punished in some form, I am not
positive which. As Mr. Calhoun did not propose to _arrest_ General
Jackson, I feel confident that I could not have made use of _that_
word in my relation to you of the circumstances which transpired
in the cabinet." This was in the letter to Mr. Forsyth, of April
30th, 1830, and which was shown to General Jackson, and by him
communicated to Mr. Calhoun; and which was the second thing that
brought him to suspect Mr. Calhoun, having repulsed all previous
intimations of his hostility to the General, or been quieted by Mr.
Calhoun's answers. The Nashville letter is strongly presented in the
"Exposition" as having come from Mr. Calhoun, as believed by Mr.
Crawford.
Upon the publication of the "correspondence," the _Telegraph_,
formerly the Jackson organ, changed its course, as had been revealed
to Mr. Duncanson--came out for Mr. Calhoun, and against General
Jackson and Mr. Van Buren, followed by all the affiliated presses
which awaited its lead. The _Globe_ took the stand for which it was
established; and became the faithful, fearless, incorruptible, and
powerful supporter of General Jackson and his administration, in
the long, vehement, and eventful contests in which he became engaged.
CHAPTER LV.
MILITARY ACADEMY.
The small military establishment of the United States seemed to be
almost in a state of dissolution about this time, from the frequency
of desertion; and the wisdom of Congress was taxed to find a remedy
for the evil. It could devise no other than an increase of pay to
the rank and file and non-commissioned officers; which upon trial,
was found to answer but little purpose. In an army of 6000 the
desertions were 1450 in the year; and increasing. Mr. Macon from his
home in North Carolina, having his attention directed to the subject
by the debates in Congress, wrote me a letter, in which he laid his
finger upon the true cause of these desertions, and consequently
showed what should be the true remedy. He wrote thus:
"Why does the army, of late years, desert more than formerly?
Because the officers have been brought up at West Point, and
not among the people. Soldiers desert because not attached to
the service, or not attached to the officers. West Point cadets
prevent the promotion of good sergeants, and men cannot like
a service which denies them promotion, nor like officers who
get all the commissions. The increase of pay will not cure the
evil, and nothing but promotion will. In the Revolutionary army,
we had many distinguished officers, who entered the army as
privates."
This is wisdom, and besides carrying conviction for the truth of
all it says, it leads to reflections upon the nature and effects of
our national military school, which extend beyond the evil which
was the cause of writing it. Since the act of 1812, which placed
this institution upon its present footing, giving its students a
legal right to appointment (as constructed and practised), it may be
assumed that there is not a government in Europe, and has been none
since the commencement of the French revolution (when the nobles
had pretty nearly a monopoly of army appointments), so unfriendly
to the rights of the people, and giving such undue advantages to
some parts of the community over the rest. Officers can now rise
from the ranks in all the countries of Europe--in Austria, Russia,
Prussia, as well as in Great Britain, of which there are constant
and illustrious examples. Twenty-three marshals of the empire rose
from the ranks--among them Key, Massena, Oudinot, Murat, Soult,
Bernadotte. In Great Britain, notwithstanding her Royal Military
College, the largest part of the commissions are now given to
citizens in civil life, and to non-commissioned officers. A return
lately made to parliament shows that in eighteen years--from
1830 to 1847--the number of citizens who received commissions,
was 1,266; the number of non-commissioned officers promoted, was
446; and the number of cadets appointed from the Royal Military
College was 473. These citizen appointments were exclusive of those
who purchased commissions--another mode for citizens to get into
the British army, and which largely increases the number in that
class of appointments--sales of commissions, with the approbation
of the government, being there valid. But exclusive of purchased
commissions during the same period of eighteen years, the number
of citizens appointed, and of non-commissioned officers promoted,
were, together, nearly four times the number of government cadets
appointed. Now, how has it been in our service during any equal
number of years, or all the years, since the Military Academy got
into full operation under the act of 1812? I confine the inquiry
to the period subsequent to the war of 1812, for during that war
there were field and general officers in service who came from
civil life, and who procured the promotion of many meritorious
non-commissioned officers; the act not having at first been
construed to exclude them. How many? Few or none, of citizens
appointed, or non-commissioned officers promoted--only in new or
temporary corps--the others being held to belong to the government
cadets.
I will mention two instances coming within my own knowledge, to
illustrate the difficulty of obtaining a commission for a citizen
in the regular regiments--one the case of the late Capt. Hermann
Thorn, son of Col. Thorn, of New-York. The young man had applied for
the place of cadet at West Point; and not being able to obtain it,
and having a strong military turn, he sought service in Europe, and
found it in Austria; and admitted into a hussar regiment on the
confines of Turkey, without commission, but with the pay, clothing,
and ration of a corporal; with the privilege of associating with
officers, and a right to expect a commission if he proved himself
worthy. These are the exact terms, substituting sergeant for
corporal, on which cadets were received into the army, and attached
to companies, in Washington's time. Young Thorn proved himself to
be worthy; received the commission; rose in five years to the rank
of first lieutenant; when, the war breaking out between the United
States and Mexico, he asked leave to resign, was permitted to do
so, and came home to ask service in the regular army of the United
States. His application was made through Senator Cass and others,
he only asking for the lowest place in the gradation of officers,
so as not to interfere with the right of promotion in any one. The
application was refused on the ground of illegality, he not having
graduated at West Point. Afterwards I took up the case of the young
man, got President Polk to nominate him, sustained the nomination
before the Senate; and thus got a start for a young officer who soon
advanced himself, receiving two brevets for gallant conduct and
several wounds in the great battles of Mexico; and was afterwards
drowned, conducting a detachment to California, in crossing his men
over the great Colorado of the West.
Thus Thorn was with difficulty saved. The other case was that of
the famous Kit Carson also nominated by President Polk. I was not
present to argue his case when he was rejected, and might have done
no good if I had been, the place being held to belong to a cadet
that was waiting for it. Carson was rejected because he did not come
through the West Point gate. Being a patriotic man, he has since led
many expeditions of his countrymen, and acted as guide to the United
States officers, in New Mexico, where he lives. He was a guide to
the detachment that undertook to rescue the unfortunate Mrs. White,
whose fate excited so much commiseration at the time; and I have the
evidence that if he had been commander, the rescue would have been
effected, and the unhappy woman saved from massacre.
This rule of appointment (the graduates of the academy to take
all) may now be considered the law of the land, so settled by
construction and senatorial acquiescence; and consequently that
no American citizen is to enter the regular army except through
the gate of the United States Military Academy; and few can reach
that gate except through the weight of a family connection, a
political influence, or the instrumentality of a friend at court.
Genius in obscurity has no chance; and the whole tendency of the
institution is to make a governmental, and not a national army.
Appointed cadet by the President, nominated officer by him, promoted
upon his nomination, holding commission at his pleasure, receiving
his orders as law, looking to him as the fountain of honor, the
source of preferment, and the dispenser of agreeable and profitable
employment--these cadet officers must naturally feel themselves
independent of the people, and dependent upon the President; and be
irresistibly led to acquire the habits and feelings which, in all
ages, have rendered regular armies obnoxious to popular governments.
The instinctive sagacity of the people has long since comprehended
all this, and conceived an aversion to the institution which has
manifested itself in many demonstrations against it--sometimes in
Congress, sometimes in the State legislatures, always to be met,
and triumphantly met, by adducing Washington as the father and
founder of the institution.--No adduction could be more fallacious.
Washington is no more the father of the present West Point than he
is of the present Mount Vernon. The West Point of his day was a
school of engineering and artillery, and nothing more; the cadet of
his day was a young soldier, attached to a company, and serving with
it in the field and in the camp, "with the pay, clothing, and ration
of sergeant" (act of 1794); and in the intervals of active service,
if he had shown an inclination for the profession, and a capacity
for its higher branches, then he was sent, in the "discretion" of
the President, to West Point, to take instruction in those higher
branches, namely, artillery and engineering, and nothing more. All
the drills both of officer and private--all the camp duty--all
the trainings in the infantry, the cavalry, and the rifle--were
then left to be taught in the field and the camp--a better school
than any academy; and under officers who were to lead them into
action--better teachers than any school-room professors. And all
without any additional expense to the United States.
All was right in the time of Washington, and afterwards, up to the
act of 1812. None became cadets then but those who had a stomach for
the hardships, as well as taste for the pleasures of a soldier's
life--who, like the Young Norval on the Grampian Hills, had felt
the soldier's blood stir in their veins, and longed to be off to
the scene of war's alarms, instead of standing guard over flocks
and herds. Cadets were not then sent to a superb school, with the
emoluments of officers, to remain four years at public expense,
receiving educations for civil as well as military life, with the
right to have commissions and be provided for by the government; or
with the secret intent to quit the service as soon as they could
do better--which most of them soon do. The act of 1812 did the
mischief and that insidiously and by construction, while ostensibly
keeping up the old idea of cadets serving with their companies,
and only detached when the President pleased, to get instruction
at the academy. It runs thus: "The cadets heretofore appointed in
the service of the United States, whether of artillery, cavalry,
riflemen, or infantry, or may be in future appointed or hereinafter
provided, shall at no time exceed 250; that they may be attached, at
the discretion of the President of the United States as students to
the Military Academy; and be subject to the established regulations
thereof."
The deception of this clause is in keeping up the old idea of
these cadets being with their companies, and by the judgment of
the President detached from their companies, and attached, as
students, to the Military Academy. The President is to exercise a
"discretion," by which the cadet is transferred for a while from
his company to the school, to be there as a student; that is to
say, like a student, but still retaining his original character of
_quasi_ officer in his company. This change from camp to school,
upon the face of the act, was to be, as formerly, a question for the
President to decide, dependent for its solution upon the military
indications of the young man's character, and his capacity for the
higher branches of the service; and this only permissive in the
President. He "may" attach, &c. Now, all this is illusion. Cadets
are not sent to companies, whether of artillery, infantry, cavalry,
or riflemen. The President exercises no "discretion" about detaching
them from their company and attaching them as students. They are
appointed as students, and go right off to school, and get four
years' education at the public expense, whether they have any taste
for military life, or not. That is the first large deception under
the act: others follow, until it is all deception. Another clause
says, the cadet shall "sign articles, with the consent of his parent
or guardian, to serve five years, unless sooner discharged." This
is deceptive, suggesting a service which has no existence, and
taking a bond for what is not to be performed. It is the language
of a soldier's enlistment, where there is no enlistment; and was a
fiction invented to constitutionalize the act. The language makes
the cadet an enlisted soldier, bound to serve the United States
the usual soldier's term, when this paper soldier--this apparent
private in the ranks--is in reality a gentleman student, with the
emoluments of an officer, obtaining education at public expense,
instead of carrying a musket in the ranks. The whole clause is an
illusion, to use no stronger term, and put in for a purpose which
the legislative history of the day well explains; and that was,
to make the act constitutional on its face, and enable it to get
through the forms, and become a law. There were members who denied
the constitutional right of Congress to establish this national
eleemosynary university; and others who doubted the policy and
expediency of officering the army in this manner. To get over these
objections, the selection of the students took the form, in the
statute, of a soldier's enlistment; and in fact they sign articles
of enlistment, like recruits, but only to appease the constitution
and satisfy scruples; and I have myself, in the early periods of
my service in the Senate, seen the original articles brought into
secret session and exhibited, to prove that the student was an
enlisted soldier, and not a student, and therefore constitutionally
in service. The term of five years being found to be no term of
service at all, as the student might quit the service within a year
after his education, which many of them did, it was extended to
eight; but still without effect, except in procuring a few years of
unwilling service from those who mean to quit; as the greater part
do. I was told by an officer in the time of the Mexican war that,
of thirty-six cadets who had graduated and been commissioned at the
same time with himself, there were only about half a dozen then
in service; so that this great national establishment is mainly a
school for the gratuitous education of those who have influence to
get there. The act provides that these students are to be instructed
in the lower as well as the higher branches of the military art;
they are to be "trained and taught all the duties incident to a
regular camp." Now, all this training and teaching, and regular camp
duty, was done in Washington's time in the regular camp itself, and
about as much better done as substance is better than form, and
reality better than imitation, with the advantage of training each
officer to the particular arm of the service to which he was to
belong, and in which he would be expected to excel.
Gratuitous instruction to the children of the living is a vicious
principle, which has no foundation in reason or precedent. Such
instruction, to the children of those who have died for their
country, is as old as the first ages of the Grecian republics, as
we learn from the oration which Thucydides puts into the mouth of
Pericles at the funeral of the first slain of the Peloponnesian war:
and as modern as the present British Military Royal Academy; which,
although royal, makes the sons of the living nobility and gentry
pay; and only gives gratuitous instruction and support to the sons
of those who have died in the public service. And so, I believe, of
other European military schools.
These are vital objections to the institution; but they do not
include the high practical evil which the wisdom of Mr. Macon
discerned, and with which this chapter opened--namely, a monopoly
of the appointments. That is effected in the fourth section, not
openly and in direct terms (for that would have rendered the act
unconstitutional on its face), but by the use of words which admit
the construction and the practice, and therefore make the law,
which now is, the legal right of the cadet to receive a commission
who has received the academical diploma for going through all the
classes. This gives to these cadets a monopoly of the offices, to
the exclusion of citizens and non-commissioned officers; and it
deprives the Senate of its constitutional share in making these
appointments. By a "regulation," the academic professors are to
recommend at each annual examination, five cadets in each class,
on account of their particular merit, whom the President is to
attach to companies. This expunges the Senate, opens the door to
that favoritism which natural parents find it hard to repress among
their own children, and which is proverbial among teachers. By the
constitution, and for a great public purpose, and not as a privilege
of the body, the Senate is to have an advising and consenting power
over the army appointments: by practice and construction it is
not the President and Senate, but the President and the academy
who appoint the officers. The President sends the student to the
academy: the academy gives a diploma, and that gives him a right
to the commission--the Senate's consent being an obligatory form.
The President and the academy are the real appointing power, and
the Senate nothing but an office for the registration of their
appointments. And thus the Senate, by construction of a statute
and its own acquiescence, has ceased to have control over these
appointments: and the whole body of army officers is fast becoming
the mere creation of the President and of the military academy. The
effect of this mode of appointment will be to create a governmental,
instead of a national army; and the effect of this exclusion of
non-commissioned officers and privates from promotion, will be
to degrade the regular soldier into a mercenary, serving for pay
without affection for a country which dishonors him. Hence the
desertions and the correlative evil of diminished enlistments on the
part of native-born Americans.
Courts of law have invented many fictions to facilitate trials, but
none to give jurisdiction. The jurisdiction must rest upon fact,
and so should the constitutionality of an act of Congress; but this
act of 1812 rests its constitutionality upon fictions. It is a
fiction to suppose that the cadet is an enlisted soldier--a fiction
to suppose that he is attached to a company and thence transferred,
in the "discretion" of the President, to the academy--a fiction
to suppose that he is constitutionally appointed in the army by
the President and Senate. The very title of the act is fictitious,
giving not the least hint, not even in the convenient formula of
"other purposes" of the great school it was about to create.
It is entitled, "An act making further provision for the corps of
engineers;" when five out of the six sections which it contains go
to make further provision for two hundred and fifty students at
a national military and civil university. As now constituted, our
academy is an imitation of the European military schools, which
create governmental and not national officers--which make routine
officers, but cannot create military genius--and which block up
the way against genius--especially barefooted genius--such as this
country abounds in, and which the field alone can develope. "My
children,"--the French generals were accustomed to say to the young
conscripts during the Revolution--"My children, there are some
captains among you, and the first campaign will show who they are,
and they shall have their places." And such expressions, and the
system in which they are founded, have brought out the military
genius of the country in every age and nation, and produced such
officers as the schools can never make.
The adequate remedy for these evils is to repeal the act of 1812,
and remit the academy to condition in Washington's time, and as
enlarged by several acts up to 1812. Then no one would wish to
become a cadet but he that had the soldier in him, and meant to
stick to his profession, and work his way up from the "pay, ration,
and clothing of a sergeant," to the rank of field-officer or
general. Struggles for West Point appointments would then cease,
and the boys on the "Grampian Hills" would have their chance.
This is the adequate remedy. If that repeal cannot be had, then a
subordinate and half-way remedy may be found in giving to citizens
and non-commissioned officers a share of the commissions, equal to
what they get in the British service, and restoring the Senate to
its constitutional right of rejecting as well as confirming cadet
nominations.
These are no new views with me. I have kept aloof from the
institution. During the almost twenty years that I was at the head
of the Senate's Committee on Military Affairs, and would have been
appropriately a "visitor" at West Point at some of the annual
examinations, I never accepted the function, and have never even
seen the place. I have been always against the institution as now
established, and have long intended to bring my views of it before
the country; and now fulfil that intention.
CHAPTER LVI.
BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.--NON-RENEWAL OF CHARTER.
From the time of President Jackson's intimations against the
recharter of the Bank, in the annual message of 1829, there had
been a ceaseless and pervading activity in behalf of the Bank in
all parts of the Union, and in all forms--in the newspapers, in
the halls of Congress, in State legislatures, even in much of the
periodical literature, in the elections, and in the conciliation
of presses and individuals--all conducted in a way to operate most
strongly upon the public mind, and to conclude the question in the
forum of the people before it was brought forward in the national
legislature. At the same time but little was done, or could be done
on the other side. The current was all setting one way. I determined
to raise a voice against it in the Senate, and made several efforts
before I succeeded--the thick array of the Bank friends throwing
every obstacle in my way, and even friends holding me back for the
regular course, which was to wait until the application for the
renewed charter to be presented; and then to oppose it. I foresaw
that, if this course was followed, the Bank would triumph without
a contest--that she would wait until a majority was installed in
both Houses of Congress--then present her application--hear a few
barren speeches in opposition;--and then gallop the renewed charter
through. In the session of 1830, '31, I succeeded in creating
the first opportunity of delivering a speech against it; it was
done a little irregularly by submitting a negative resolution
against the renewal of the charter, and taking the opportunity
while asking leave to introduce the resolution, to speak fully
against the re-charter. My mind was fixed upon the character of
the speech which I should make--one which should avoid the beaten
tracks of objection, avoid all settled points, avoid the problem of
constitutionality--and take up the institution in a practical sense,
as having too much power over the people and the government,--over
business and politics--and too much disposed to exercise that power
to the prejudice of the freedom and equality which should prevail
in a republic, to be allowed to exist in our country. But I knew
it was not sufficient to pull down: we must build up also. The men
of 1811 had committed a fatal error, when most wisely refusing to
re-charter the institution of that day, they failed to provide a
substitute for its currency, and fell back upon the local banks,
whose inadequacy speedily made a call for the re-establishment of
a national bank. I felt that error must be avoided--that another
currency of general circulation must be provided to replace its
notes; and I saw that currency in the gold coin of the constitution,
then an ideal currency in the United States, having been totally
banished for many years by the erroneous valuation adopted in the
time of Gen. Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury. I proposed to
revive that currency, and brought it forward at the conclusion of my
first speech (February, 1831) against the Bank, thus:
"I am willing to see the charter expire, without providing
any substitute for the present bank. I am willing to see the
currency of the federal government left to the hard money
mentioned and intended in the constitution; I am willing to have
a hard money government, as that of France has been since the
time of _assignats_ and _mandats_. Every species of paper might
be left to the State authorities, unrecognized by the federal
government, and only touched by it for its own convenience when
equivalent to gold and silver. Such a currency filled France
with the precious metals, when England, with her overgrown
bank, was a prey to all the evils of unconvertible paper. It
furnished money enough for the imperial government when the
population of the empire was three times more numerous, and the
expense of government twelve times greater, than the population
and expenses of the United States; and, when France possessed
no mines of gold or silver, and was destitute of the exports
which command the specie of other countries. The United States
possess gold mines, now yielding half a million per annum, with
every prospect of equalling those of Peru. But this is not the
best dependence. We have what is superior to mines, namely,
the exports which command the money of the world; that is to
say, the food which sustains life and the raw materials which
sustain manufactures. Gold and silver is the best currency for
a republic; it suits the men of middle property and the working
people best; and if I was going to establish a working man's
party, it should be on the basis of hard money:--a hard money
party, against a paper party."
In the speech which I delivered, I quoted copiously from British
speakers--not the brilliant rhetoricians, but the practical,
sensible, upright business men, to whom countries are usually
indebted for all beneficial legislation: the Sir Henry Parnells, the
Mr. Joseph Humes, the Mr. Edward Ellices, the Sir William Pulteneys;
and men of that class, legislating for the practical concerns of
life, and merging the orator in the man of business.
THE SPEECH--EXTRACTS.
"Mr. Benton commenced his speech in support of the application
for the leave he was about to ask, with a justification of
himself for bringing forward the question of renewal at this
time, when the charter had still five years to run; and bottomed
his vindication chiefly on the right he possessed, and the
necessity he was under to answer certain reports of one of
the committee of the Senate, made in opposition to certain
resolutions relative to the bank, which he had submitted to
the Senate at former sessions, and which reports he had not
had an opportunity of answering. He said it had been his
fortune, or chance, some three years ago, to submit a resolution
in relation to the undrawn balances of public money in the
hands of the bank, and to accompany it with some poor remarks
of unfavorable implication to the future existence of that
institution. My resolution [said Mr. B.] was referred to the
Committee on Finance, who made a report decidedly adverse to
all my views, and eminently favorable to the bank, both as a
present and future institution. This report came on the 13th of
May, just fourteen days before the conclusion of a six months'
session, when all was hurry and precipitation to terminate the
business on hand, and when there was not the least chance to
engage the attention of the Senate in the consideration of any
new subject. The report was, therefore, laid upon the table
unanswered, but was printed by order of the Senate, and that in
extra numbers, and widely diffused over the country by means of
the newspaper press. At the commencement of the next session,
it being irregular to call for the consideration of the past
report, I was under the necessity to begin anew, and accordingly
submitted my resolution a second time, and that quite early in
the session; say on the first day of January. It was my wish
and request that this resolution might be discussed in the
Senate, but the sentiment of the majority was different, and
a second reference of it was made to the Finance Committee. A
second report of the same purport with the first was a matter
of course; but what did not seem to me to be a matter of course
was this; that this second report should not come in until the
20th day of February, just fourteen days again before the end of
the session, for it was then the short session, and the Senate
as much pinched as before for time to finish the business on
hand. No answer could be made to it, but the report was printed,
with the former report appended to it; and thus, united like
the Siamese twins, and with the apparent, but not real sanction
of the Senate, they went forth together to make the tour of
the Union in the columns of the newspaper press. Thus, I was a
second time out of court; a second time nonsuited for want of a
replication, when there was no time to file one. I had intended
to begin _de novo_, and for the third time, at the opening
of the ensuing session; but, happily, was anticipated and
prevented by the annual message of the new President [General
Jackson], which brought this question of renewing the bank
charter directly before Congress. A reference of this part of
the message was made, of course, to the Finance Committee: the
committee, of course, again reported, and with increased ardor,
in favor of the bank. Unhappily this third report, which was an
amplification and reiteration of the two former, did not come in
until the session was four months advanced, and when the time of
the Senate had become engrossed, and its attention absorbed, by
the numerous and important subjects which had accumulated upon
the calendar. Printing in extra numbers, general circulation
through the newspaper press, and no answer, was the catastrophe
of this third reference to the Finance Committee. Thus was I
nonsuited for the third time. The fourth session has now come
round; the same subject is again before the same committee on
the reference of the part of the President's second annual
message which relates to the bank; and, doubtless, a fourth
report of the same import with the three preceding ones, may be
expected. But when? is the question. And, as I cannot answer
that question, and the session is now two thirds advanced, and
as I have no disposition to be cut off for the fourth time, I
have thought proper to create an occasion to deliver my own
sentiments, by asking leave to introduce a joint resolution,
adverse to the tenor of all the reports, and to give my reasons
against them, while supporting my application for the leave
demanded; a course of proceeding which is just to myself and
unjust to no one, since all are at liberty to answer me. These
are my personal reasons for this step, and a part of my answer
to the objection that I have begun too soon. The conduct of
the bank, and its friends, constitutes the second branch of my
justification. It is certainly not 'too soon' for them, judging
by their conduct, to engage in the question of renewing the bank
charter. In and out of Congress, they all seem to be of one
accord on this point. Three reports of committees in the Senate,
and one from a committee of the House of Representatives, have
been made in favor of the renewal; and all these reports,
instead of being laid away for future use--instead of being
stuck in pigeon holes, and labelled for future attention, as
things coming forth prematurely, and not wanted for present
service--have, on the contrary, been universally received by the
bank and its friends, in one great tempest of applause; greeted
with every species of acclamation; reprinted in most of the
papers, and every effort made to give the widest diffusion, and
the highest effect, to the arguments they contain. In addition
to this, and at the present session, within a few days past,
three thousand copies of the exposition of the affairs of the
Bank have been printed by order of the two Houses, a thing never
before done, and now intended to blazon the merits of the bank.
[Mr. Smith, of Maryland, here expressed some dissent to this
statement; but Mr. B. affirmed its correctness in substance if
not to the letter, and continued.] This does not look as if
the bank advocates thought it was _too soon_ to discuss the
question of renewing the charter; and, upon this exhibition of
their sentiments, I shall rest the assertion and the proof,
that they do not think so. The third branch of my justification
rests upon a sense of public duty; upon a sense of what is just
and advantageous to the people in general, and to the debtors
and stockholders of the bank in particular. The renewal of the
charter is a question which concerns the people at large; and if
they are to have any hand in the decision of this question--if
they are even to know what is done before it is done, it is high
time that they and their representatives in Congress should
understand each other's mind upon it. The charter has but five
years to run; and if renewed at all, will probably be at some
short period, say two or three years, before the time is out,
and at any time sooner that a chance can be seen to gallop the
renewal through Congress. The people, therefore, have no time
to lose, if they mean to have any hand in the decision of this
great question. To the bank itself, it must be advantageous, at
least, if not desirable, to know its fate at once, that it may
avoid (if there is to be no renewal) the trouble and expense
of multiplying branches upon the eve of dissolution, and the
risk and inconvenience of extending loans beyond the term of
its existence. To the debtors upon mortgages, and indefinite
accommodations, it must be also advantageous, if not desirable,
to be notified in advance of the end of their indulgences:
so that, to every interest, public and private, political
and pecuniary, general and particular, full discussion, and
seasonable decision, is just and proper.
"I hold myself justified, Mr. President, upon the reasons
given, for proceeding in my present application; but, as
example is sometimes more authoritative than reason, I will
take the liberty to produce one, which is as high in point of
authority as it is appropriate in point of application, and
which happens to fit the case before the Senate as completely
as if it had been made for it. I speak of what has lately been
done in the Parliament of Great Britain. It so happens, that
the charter of the Bank of England is to expire, upon its own
limitation, nearly about the same time with the charter of the
Bank of the United States, namely, in the year 1833; and as far
back as 1824, no less than nine years before its expiration,
the question of its renewal was debated, and that with great
freedom, in the British House of Commons. I will read some
extracts from that debate, as the fairest way of presenting the
example to the Senate, and the most effectual mode of securing
to myself the advantage of the sentiments expressed by British
statesman.
_The Extracts._
"'Sir Henry Parnell.--The House should no longer delay to turn
its attention to the expediency of renewing the charter of the
Bank of England. Heretofore, it had been the regular custom to
renew the charter several years before the existing charter had
expired. The last renewal was made when the existing charter
had eleven years to run: the present charter had nine years
only to continue, and he felt very anxious to prevent the
making of any agreement between the government and the bank for
a renewal, without a full examination of the policy of again
conferring upon the Bank of England any exclusive privilege. The
practice had been for government to make a secret arrangement
with the bank; to submit it immediately to the proprietors of
the bank for their approbation, and to call upon the House the
next day to confirm it, without affording any opportunity of
fair deliberation. So much information had been obtained upon
the banking trade, and upon the nature of currency in the last
fifteen years, that it was particularly necessary to enter upon
a full investigation of the policy of renewing the bank charter
before any negotiation should be entered upon between the
government and the bank; and he trusted the government would not
commence any such negotiation until the sense of Parliament had
been taken on this important subject.'
"'Mr. Hume said it was of very great importance that his
majesty's ministers should take immediate steps to free
themselves from the trammels in which they had long been held
by the bank. As the interest of money was now nearly on a level
with what it was when the bank lent a large sum to government,
he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not listen to any
application for a renewal of the bank charter, but would pay off
every shilling that had been borrowed from the bank. * * * * *
Let the country gentlemen recollect that the bank was now acting
as pawn-broker on a large scale, and lending money on estates,
a system entirely contrary to the original intention of that
institution. * * * * * * He hoped, before the expiration of the
charter, that a regular inquiry would be made into the whole
subject.'
"'Mr. Edward Ellice. It (the Bank of England) is a great
monopolizing body, enjoying privileges which belonged to no
other corporation, and no other class of his majesty's subjects.
* * * * * * * He hoped that the exclusive charter would never
again be granted; and that the conduct of the bank during the
last ten or twelve years would make government very cautious
how they entertained any such propositions. The right honorable
Chancellor of the Exchequer [Mr. Robinson] had protested against
the idea of straining any point to the prejudice of the bank; he
thought, however, that the bank had very little to complain of,
when their stock, after all their past profits, was at 238.'
"'The Chancellor of the Exchequer deprecated the discussion, as
leading to no practical result.'
"'Mr. Alexander Baring objected to it as premature and
unnecessary.'
"'Sir William Pulteney (in another debate). The prejudices in
favor of the present bank have proceeded from the long habit of
considering it as a sort of pillar which nothing can shake. * *
* * * * * The bank has been supported, and is still supported,
by the fear and terror which, by means of its monopoly, it has
had the power to inspire. It is well known, that there is hardly
an extensive trader, a manufacturer, or a banker, either in
London, or at a distance from it, to whom the bank could not do
a serious injury, and could often bring on even insolvency. * *
* * * I consider the power given by the monopoly to be of the
nature of all other despotic power, which corrupts the despot as
much as it corrupts the slave. * * * * * * It is in the nature
of man, that a monopoly must necessarily be ill-conducted. *
* * * * * * Whatever language the [private] bankers may feel
themselves obliged to hold, yet no one can believe that they
have any satisfaction in being, and continuing, under a dominion
which has proved so grievous and so disastrous. * * * * * * I
can never believe that the merchants and bankers of this country
will prove unwilling to emancipate themselves, if they can do
it without risking the resentment of the bank. No man in France
was heard to complain, openly, of the Bastile while it existed.
The merchants and bankers of this country have the blood of
Englishmen, and will be happy to relieve themselves from a
situation of perpetual terror, if they could do it consistently
with a due regard to their own interest.'
"Here is authority added to reason--the force of a great example
added to the weight of unanswerable reasons, in favor of early
discussion; so that, I trust, I have effectually put aside that
old and convenient objection to the 'time,' that most flexible
and accommodating objection, which applies to all seasons, and
all subjects, and is just as available for cutting off a late
debate, because it is too late, as it is for stifling an early
one, because it is too early.
"But, it is said that the debate will injure the stockholders;
that it depreciates the value of their property, and that
it is wrong to sport with the vested rights of individuals.
This complaint, supposing it to come from the stockholders
themselves, is both absurd and ungrateful. It is absurd,
because the stockholders, at least so many of them as are not
foreigners, must have known when they accepted a charter of
limited duration, that the approach of its expiration would
renew the debate upon the propriety of its existence; that
every citizen had a right, and every public man was under an
obligation, to declare his sentiments freely; that there was
nothing in the charter, numerous as its peculiar privileges
were, to exempt the bank from that freedom of speech and
writing, which extends to all our public affairs; and that the
charter was not to be renewed here, as the Bank of England
charter had formerly been renewed, by a private arrangement
among its friends, suddenly produced in Congress, and galloped
through without the knowledge of the country. The American part
of the stockholders (for I would not reply to the complaints
of the foreigners) must have known all this; and known it
when they accepted the charter. They adapted it, subject to
this known consequence; and, therefore, the complaint about
injuring their property is absurd. That it is ungrateful, must
be apparent to all who will reflect upon the great privileges
which these stockholders will have enjoyed for twenty years, and
the large profits they have already derived from their charter.
They have been dividing seven per cent. per annum, unless when
prevented by their own mismanagement; and have laid up a real
estate of three millions of dollars for future division; and
the money which has done these handsome things, instead of
being diminished or impaired in the process, is still worth
largely upwards of one hundred cents to the dollar: say, one
hundred and twenty-five cents. For the peculiar privileges which
enabled them to make these profits, the stockholders ought to
be grateful: but, like all persons who have been highly favored
with undue benefits, they mistake a privilege for a right--a
favor for a duty--and resent, as an attack upon their property,
a refusal to prolong their undue advantages. There is no ground
for these complaints, but for thanks and benedictions rather,
for permitting the bank to live out its numbered days! That
institution has forfeited its charter. It may be shut up at any
hour. It lives from day to day by the indulgence of those whom
it daily attacks; and, if any one is ignorant of this fact, let
him look at the case of the Bank of the United States against
Owens and others, decided in the Supreme Court, and reported in
the 2d Peters.
"[Here Mr. B. read a part of this case, showing that it was
a case of usury at the rate of forty-six per cent. and that
Mr. Sergeant, counsel for the bank, resisted the decision of
the Supreme Court, upon the ground that it would expose the
charter of the bank to forfeiture; and that the decision was,
nevertheless, given upon that ground; so that the bank, being
convicted of taking usury, in violation of its charter, was
liable to be deprived of its charter, at any time that a _scire
facias_ should issue against it.]
"Mr. B. resumed. Before I proceed to the consideration of
the resolution, I wish to be indulged in adverting to a rule
or principle of parliamentary practice, which it is only
necessary to read now in order to avoid the possibility of any
necessity for recurring to it hereafter. It is the rule which
forbids any member to be present--which, in fact, requires him
to withdraw--during the discussion of any question in which
his private interest may be concerned; and authorizes the
expurgation from the Journal of any vote which may have been
given under the predicament of an interested motive. I demand
that the Secretary of the Senate may read the rule to which I
allude.
"[The Secretary read the following rule:]
"'Where the private interests of a member are concerned in
a bill or question, he is to withdraw. And where such an
interest has appeared, his voice has been disallowed, even
after a division. In a case so contrary, not only to the laws
of decency, but to the fundamental principles of the social
compact, which denies to any man to be a judge in his own cause,
it is for the honor of the House that this rule, of immemorial
observance, should be strictly adhered to.'
"_First_: Mr. President, I object to the renewal of the charter
of the Bank of the United States, because I look upon the bank
as an institution too great and powerful to be tolerated in a
government of free and equal laws. Its power is that of the
purse; a power more potent than that of the sword; and this
power it possesses to a degree and extent that will enable this
bank to draw to itself too much of the political power of this
Union; and too much of the individual property of the citizens
of these States. The money power of the bank is both direct and
indirect.
"[The Vice-President here intimated to Mr. Benton that he was
out of order, and had not a right to go into the merits of the
bank upon the motion which he had made. Mr. Benton begged pardon
of the Vice-President, and respectfully insisted that he was in
order, and had a right to proceed. He said he was proceeding
upon the parliamentary rule of asking leave to bring in a joint
resolution, and, in doing which, he had a right to state his
reasons, which reasons constituted his speech; that the motion
was debatable, and the whole Senate might answer him. The
Vice-President then directed Mr. Benton to proceed.]
"Mr. B. resumed. The direct power of the bank is now prodigious,
and in the event of the renewal of the charter, must speedily
become boundless and uncontrollable. The bank is now authorized
to own effects, lands inclusive, to the amount of fifty-five
millions of dollars, and to issue notes to the amount of
thirty-five millions more. This makes ninety millions; and, in
addition to this vast sum, there is an opening for an unlimited
increase: for there is a dispensation in the charter to issue
as many more notes as Congress, by law, may permit. This
opens the door to boundless emissions; for what can be more
unbounded than the will and pleasure of successive Congresses?
The indirect power of the bank cannot be stated in figures;
but it can be shown to be immense. In the first place, it has
the keeping of the public moneys, now amounting to twenty-six
millions per annum (the Post Office Department included), and
the gratuitous use of the undrawn balances, large enough to
constitute, in themselves, the capital of a great State bank.
In the next place, its promissory notes are receivable, by law,
in purchase of all property owned by the United States, and in
payment of all debts due them; and this may increase its power
to the amount of the annual revenue, by creating a demand for
its notes to that amount. In the third place, it wears the
name of the United States, and has the federal government for
a partner; and this name, and this partnership, identifies the
credit of the bank with the credit of the Union. In the fourth
place, it is armed with authority to disparage and discredit
the notes of other banks, by excluding them from all payments
to the United States; and this, added to all its other powers,
direct and indirect, makes this institution the uncontrollable
monarch of the moneyed system of the Union. To whom is all this
power granted? To a company of private individuals, many of
them foreigners, and the mass of them residing in a remote and
narrow corner of the Union, unconnected by any sympathy with the
fertile regions of the Great Valley, in which the natural power
of this Union--the power of numbers--will be found to reside
long before the renewed term of a second charter would expire.
By whom is all this power to be exercised? By a directory of
seven (it may be), governed by a majority, of four (it may be);
and none of these elected by the people, or responsible to
them. Where is it to be exercised? At a single city, distant a
thousand miles from some of the States, receiving the produce of
none of them (except one); no interest in the welfare of any of
them (except one); no commerce with the people; with branches
in every State; and every branch subject to the secret and
absolute orders of the supreme central head: thus constituting
a system of centralism, hostile to the federative principle of
our Union, encroaching upon the wealth and power of the States,
and organized upon a principle to give the highest effect to
the greatest power. This mass of power, thus concentrated, thus
ramified, and thus directed, must necessarily become, under
a prolonged existence, the absolute monopolist of American
money, the sole manufacturer of paper currency, and the sole
authority (for authority it will be) to which the federal
government, the State governments, the great cities, corporate
bodies, merchants, traders, and every private citizen, must,
of necessity apply, for every loan which their exigencies may
demand. 'The rich ruleth the poor, and the borrower is the
servant of the lender.' Such are the words of Holy Writ; and
if the authority of the Bible admitted of corroboration, the
history of the world is at hand to give it. But I will not
cite the history of the world, but one eminent example only,
and that of a nature so high and commanding, as to include all
others; and so near and recent, as to be directly applicable to
our own situation. I speak of what happened in Great Britain,
in the year 1795, when the Bank of England, by a brief and
unceremonious letter to Mr. Pitt, such as a miser would write to
a prodigal in a pinch, gave the proof of what a great moneyed
power could do, and would do, to promote its own interest, in a
crisis of national alarm and difficulty. I will read the letter.
It is exceedingly short; for after the compliments are omitted,
there are but three lines of it. It is, in fact, about as long
as a sentence of execution, leaving out the prayer of the judge.
It runs thus:
"'It is the wish of the Court of Directors that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer would settle his arrangements of finances for
the present year, in such manner as not to depend upon any
further assistance from them, beyond what is already agreed for.'
"Such were the words of this memorable note, sufficiently
explicit and intelligible; but to appreciate it fully, we must
know what was the condition of Great Britain at that time?
Remember it was the year 1795, and the beginning of that year,
than which a more portentous one never opened upon the British
empire. The war with the French republic had been raging for
two years; Spain had just declared war against Great Britain;
Ireland was bursting into rebellion; the fleet in the Nore was
in open mutiny; and a cry for the reform of abuses, and the
reduction of taxes, resounded through the land. It was a season
of alarm and consternation, and of imminent actual danger to
Great Britain; and this was the moment which the Bank selected
to notify the minister that no more loans were to be expected!
What was the effect of this notification? It was to paralyze
the government, and to subdue the minister to the purposes of
the bank. From that day forth Mr. Pitt became the minister of
the bank; and, before two years were out, he had succeeded in
bringing all the departments of government, King, Lords, and
Commons, and the Privy Council, to his own slavish condition.
He stopped the specie payments of the bank, and made its
notes the lawful currency of the land. In 1797 he obtained an
order in council for this purpose; in the same year an act of
parliament to confirm the order for a month, and afterwards a
series of acts to continue it for twenty years. This was the
reign of the bank. For twenty years it was a dominant power in
England; and, during that disastrous period, the public debt
was increased about £400,000,000 sterling, equal nearly to two
thousand millions of dollars, and that by paper loans from
a bank which, according to its own declarations, had not a
shilling to lend at the commencement of the period! I omit the
rest. I say nothing of the general subjugation of the country
banks, the rise in the price of food, the decline in wages, the
increase of crimes and taxes, the multiplication of lords and
beggars, and the frightful demoralization of society. I omit all
this. I only seize the prominent figure in the picture, that
of a government arrested in the midst of war and danger by the
veto of a moneyed corporation; and only permitted to go on upon
condition of assuming the odium of stopping specie payments, and
sustaining the promissory notes of an insolvent bank, as the
lawful currency of the land. This single feature suffices to
fix the character of the times; for when the government becomes
the 'servant of the lender,' the people themselves become its
slaves. Cannot the Bank of the United States, if re-chartered,
act in the same way? It certainly can, and just as certainly
will, when time and opportunity shall serve, and interest may
prompt. It is to no purpose that gentlemen may come forward, and
vaunt the character of the United States Bank, and proclaim it
too just and merciful to oppress the state. I must be permitted
to repudiate both the pledge and the praise. The security is
insufficient, and the encomium belongs to Constantinople. There
were enough such in the British Parliament the year before,
nay, the day before the bank stopped; yet their pledges and
praises neither prevented the stoppage, nor made good the damage
that ensued. There were gentlemen in our Congress to pledge
themselves in 1810 for the then expiring bank, of which the one
now existing is a second and deteriorated edition; and if their
securityship had been accepted, and the old bank re-chartered,
we should have seen this government greeted with a note, about
August, 1814--about the time the British were burning this
capitol--of the same tenor with the one received by the younger
Pitt in the year 1795; for, it is incontestable, that that bank
was owned by men who would have glorified in arresting the
government, and the war itself, for want of money. Happily, the
wisdom and patriotism of Jefferson, under the providence of God,
prevented that infamy and ruin, by preventing the renewal of the
old bank charter.
"_Secondly._ I object to the continuance of this bank, because
its tendencies are dangerous and pernicious to the government
and the people.
"What are the tendencies of a great moneyed power, connected
with the government, and controlling its fiscal operations?
Are they not dangerous to every interest, public and
private--political as well as pecuniary? I say they are; and
briefly enumerate the heads of each mischief.
"1. Such a bank tends to subjugate the government, as I have
already shown in the history of what happened to the British
minister in the year 1795.
"2. It tends to collusions between the government and the
bank in the terms of the loans, as has been fully experienced
in England in those frauds upon the people, and insults upon
the understating, called three per cent. loans, in which the
government, for about £50 borrowed, became liable to pay £100.
"3. It tends to create public debt, by facilitating public
loans, and substituting unlimited supplies of paper, for
limited supplies of coin. The British debt is born of the Bank
of England. That bank was chartered in 1694, and was nothing
more nor less in the beginning, than an act of Parliament for
the incorporation of a company of subscribers to a government
loan. The loan was £1,200,000; the interest £80,000; and the
expenses of management £4,000. And this is the birth and origin,
the germ and nucleus of that debt, which is now £900,000,000
(the unfunded items included), which bears an interest of
£30,000,000, and costs £260,000 for annual management.
"4. It tends to beget and prolong unnecessary wars, by
furnishing the means of carrying them on without recurrence to
the people. England is the ready example for this calamity. Her
wars for the restoration of the Capet Bourbons were kept up by
loans and subsidies created out of bank paper. The people of
England had no interest in these wars, which cost them about
£600,000,000 of debt in twenty-five years, in addition to the
supplies raised within the year. The kings she put back upon the
French throne were not able to sit on it. Twice she put them
on; twice they tumbled off in the mud; and all that now remains
of so much sacrifice of life and money is, the debt, which is
eternal, the taxes, which are intolerable, the pensions and
titles of some warriors, and the keeping of the Capet Bourbons,
who are returned upon their hands.
"5. It tends to aggravate the inequality of fortunes; to make
the rich richer, and the poor poorer; to multiply nabobs and
paupers; and to deepen and widen the gulf which separates Dives
from Lazarus. A great moneyed power is favorable to great
capitalists; for it is the principle of money to favor money. It
is unfavorable to small capitalists; for it is the principle of
money to eschew the needy and unfortunate. It is injurious to
the laboring classes; because they receive no favors, and have
the price of the property they wish to acquire raised to the
paper maximum, while wages remain at the silver minimum.
"6. It tends to make and to break fortunes, by the flux and
reflux of paper. Profuse issues, and sudden contractions,
perform this operation, which can be repeated, like planetary
and pestilential visitations, in every cycle of so many years;
at every periodical return, transferring millions from the
actual possessors of property to the Neptunes who preside over
the flux and reflux of paper. The last operation of this kind
performed by the Bank of England, about five years ago, was
described by Mr. Alexander Baring, in the House of Commons, in
terms which are entitled to the knowledge and remembrance of
American citizens. I will read his description, which is brief,
but impressive. After describing the profuse issues of 1823-24,
he painted the reaction in the following terms:
"'They, therefore, all at once, gave a sudden jerk to the
horse on whose neck they had before suffered the reins to hang
loose. They contracted their issues to a considerable extent.
The change was at once felt throughout the country. A few days
before that, no one knew what to do with his money; now, no
one knew where to get it. * * * * The London bankers found
it necessary to follow the same course towards their country
correspondents, and these again towards their customers, and
each individual towards his debtor. The consequence was obvious
in the late panic. Every one, desirous to obtain what was due to
him, ran to his banker, or to any other on whom he had a claim;
and even those who had no immediate use for their money, took
it back, and let it lie unemployed in their pockets, thinking
it unsafe in others' hands. The effect of this alarm was, that
houses which were weak went immediately. Then went second rate
houses; and, lastly, houses which were solvent went, because
their securities were unavailable. The daily calls to which
each individual was subject put it out of his power to assist
his neighbor. Men were known to seek for assistance, and that,
too, without finding it, who, on examination of their affairs,
were proved to be worth 200,000 pounds,--men, too, who held
themselves so secure, that, if asked six months before whether
they could contemplate such an event, they would have said it
would be impossible, unless the sky should fall, or some other
event equally improbable should occur.'
"This is what was done in England five years ago, it is what may
be done here in every five years to come, if the bank charter is
renewed. Sole dispenser of money, it cannot omit the oldest and
most obvious means of amassing wealth by the flux and reflux of
paper. The game will be in its own hands, and the only answer
to be given is that to which I have alluded: 'The Sultan is too
just and merciful to abuse his power.'
"_Thirdly._ I object to the renewal of the charter, on account
of the exclusive privileges, and anti-republican monopoly, which
it gives to the stockholders. It gives, and that by an act of
Congress, to a company of individuals, the exclusive legal
privileges:
"1. To carry on the trade of banking upon the revenue and
credit, and in the name, of the United States of America.
"2. To pay the revenues of the Union in their own promissory
notes.
"3. To hold the moneys of the United States in deposit, without
making compensation for the undrawn balances.
"4. To discredit and disparage the notes of other banks, by
excluding them from the collection of the federal revenue.
"5. To hold real estate, receive rents, and retain a body of
tenantry.
"6. To deal in pawns, merchandise, and bills of exchange.
"7. To establish branches in the States without their consent.
"8. To be exempt from liability on the failure of the bank.
"9. To have the United States for a partner.
"10. To have foreigners for partners.
"11. To be exempt from the regular administration of justice for
the violations of their charter.
"12. To have all these exclusive privileges secured to them as a
monopoly, in a pledge of the public faith not to grant the like
privileges to any other company.
"These are the privileges, and this the monopoly of the bank.
Now, let us examine them, and ascertain their effect and
bearing. Let us contemplate the magnitude of the power which
they create; and ascertain the compatibility of this power with
the safety of this republican government, and the rights and
interests of its free and equal constituents.
"1. The name, the credit, and the revenues of the United States
are given up to the use of this company, and constitute in
themselves an immense capital to bank upon. The name of the
United States, like that of the King, is a tower of strength;
and this strong tower is now an outwork to defend the citadel of
a moneyed corporation. The credit of the Union is incalculable;
and, of this credit, as going with the name, and being in
partnership with the United States, the same corporation now has
possession. The revenues of the Union are twenty-six millions
of dollars, including the post-office; and all this is so
much capital in the hands of the bank, because the revenue is
received by it, and is payable in its promissory notes.
"2. To pay the revenues of the United States in their own
notes, until Congress, by law, shall otherwise direct. This is
a part of the charter, incredible and extraordinary as it may
appear. The promissory notes of the bank are to be received in
payment of every thing the United States may have to sell--in
discharge of every debt due to her, until Congress, by law,
shall otherwise direct; so that, if this bank, like its
prototype in England, should stop payment, its promissory notes
would still be receivable at every custom-house, land-office,
post-office, and by every collector of public moneys, throughout
the Union, until Congress shall meet, pass a repealing law, and
promulgate the repeal. Other banks depend upon their credit for
the receivability of their notes; but this favored institution
has law on its side, and a chartered right to compel the
reception of its paper by the federal government. The immediate
consequence of this extraordinary privilege is, that the United
States becomes virtually bound to stand security for the bank,
as much so as if she had signed a bond to that effect; and must
stand forward to sustain the institution in all emergencies,
in order to save her own revenue. This is what has already
happened, some ten years ago, in the early progress of the bank,
and when the immense aid given it by the federal government
enabled it to survive the crisis of its own overwhelming
mismanagement.
"3. To hold the moneys of the United States in deposit, without
making compensation for the use of the undrawn balances.--This
is a right which I deny; but, as the bank claims it, and, what
is more material, enjoys it; and as the people of the United
States have suffered to a vast extent in consequence of this
claim and enjoyment, I shall not hesitate to set it down to
the account of the bank. Let us then examine the value of this
privilege, and its effect upon the interest of the community;
and, in the first place, let us have a full and accurate view of
the amount of these undrawn balances, from the establishment of
the bank to the present day. Here it is! Look! Read!
"See, Mr. President, what masses of money, and always on hand.
The paper is covered all over with millions: and yet, for all
these vast sums, no interest is allowed; no compensation is
made to the United States. The Bank of England, for the undrawn
balances of the public money, has made an equitable compensation
to the British government; namely, a permanent loan of half a
million sterling, and a temporary loan of three millions for
twenty years, without interest. Yet, when I moved for a like
compensation to the United States, the proposition was utterly
rejected by the Finance Committee, and treated as an attempt
to violate the charter of the bank. At the same time it is
incontestable, that the United States have been borrowing these
undrawn balances from the bank, and paying an interest upon
their own money. I think we can identify one of these loans.
Let us try. In May, 1824, Congress authorized a loan of five
millions of dollars to pay the awards under the treaty with
Spain, commonly called the Florida treaty. The bank of the
United States took that loan, and paid the money for the United
States in January and March, 1825. In looking over the statement
of undrawn balances, it will be seen that they amounted to near
four millions at the end of the first, and six millions at
the end of the second quarter of that year. The inference is
irresistible, and I leave every senator to make it; only adding,
that we have paid $1,469,375 in interest upon that loan, either
to the bank or its transferrees. This is a strong case; but I
have a stronger one. It is known to every body, that the United
States subscribed seven millions to the capital stock of the
bank, for which she gave her stock note, bearing an interest of
five per cent. per annum. I have a statement from the Register
of the Treasury, from which it appears that, up to the 30th day
of June last, the United States had paid four millions seven
hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars in interest upon that
note; when it is proved by the statement of balances exhibited,
that the United States, for the whole period in which that
interest was accruing, had the half, or the whole, and once the
double, of these seven millions in the hands of the bank. This
is a stronger case than that of the five million loan, but it
is not the strongest. The strongest case is this: in the year
1817, when the bank went into operation, the United States
owed, among other debts, a sum of about fourteen millions and
three-quarters, bearing an interest of three per cent. In the
same year, the commissioners of the sinking fund were authorized
by an act of Congress to purchase that stock at sixty-five per
cent., which was then its market price. Under this authority,
the amount of about one million and a half was purchased; the
remainder, amounting to about thirteen millions and a quarter,
has continued unpurchased to this day; and, after costing the
United States about six millions in interest since 1817, the
stock has risen about four millions in value; that is to say,
from sixty-five to nearly ninety-five. Now, here is a clear loss
of ten millions of dollars to the United States. In 1817 she
could have paid off thirteen millions and a quarter of debt,
with eight millions and a half of dollars: now, after paying
six millions of interest, it would require twelve millions and
a half to pay off the same debt. By referring to the statement
of undrawn balances, it will be seen that the United States had,
during the whole year 1817, an average sum of above ten millions
of dollars in the hands of the bank, being a million and a half
more than enough to have bought in the whole of the three per
cent. stock. The question, therefore, naturally comes up, why
was it not applied to the redemption of these thirteen millions
and a quarter, according to the authority contained in the act
of Congress of that year? Certainly the bank needed the money;
for it was just getting into operation, and was as hard run to
escape bankruptcy about that time, as any bank that ever was
saved from the brink of destruction. This is the largest injury
which we have sustained, on account of accommodating the bank
with the gratuitous use of these vast deposits. But, to show
myself impartial, I will now state the smallest case of injury
that has come within my knowledge: it is the case of the _bonus_
of fifteen hundred thousand dollars which the bank was to pay to
the United States, in three equal instalments, for the purchase
of its charter. Nominally, this _bonus_ has been paid, but out
of what moneys? Certainly out of our own; for the statement
shows our money was there, and further, shows that it is still
there; for, on the 30th day of June last, which is the latest
return, there was still $2,550,664 in the hands of the bank,
which is above $750,000 more than the amount of the _bonus_.
"One word more upon the subject of these balances. It is now two
years since I made an effort to repeal the 4th section of the
Sinking Fund act of 1817; a section which was intended to limit
the amount of surplus money which might be kept in the treasury,
to two millions of dollars; but, by the power of construction,
was made to authorize the keeping of two millions in addition
to the surplus. I wished to repeal this section, which had
thus been construed into the reverse of its intention, and to
revive the first section of the Sinking Fund act of 1790, which
directed the whole of the surplus on hand to be applied, at the
end of each year, to the payment of the public debt. My argument
was this: that there was no necessity to keep any surplus;
that the revenue, coming in as fast as it went out, was like a
perennial fountain, which you might drain to the last drop, and
not exhaust; for the place of the last drop would be supplied
the instant it was out. And I supported this reasoning by a
reference to the annual treasury reports, which always exhibit
a surplus of four or five millions; and which were equally in
the treasury the whole year round, as on the last day of every
year. This was the argument, which in fact availed nothing;
but now I have mathematical proof of the truth of my position.
Look at this statement of balances; look for the year 1819,
and you will find but three hundred thousand dollars on hand
for that year; look still lower for 1821, and you will find
this balance but one hundred and eighty-two thousand dollars.
And what was the consequence? Did the Government stop? Did the
wheels of the State chariot cease to turn round in those years
for want of treasury oil? Not at all. Every thing went on as
well as before; the operations of the treasury were as perfect
and regular in those two years of insignificant balances, as in
1817 and 1818, when five and ten millions were on hand. This is
proof; this is demonstration; it is the indubitable evidence of
the senses which concludes argument, and dispels uncertainty;
and, as my proposal for the repeal of the 4th Section of the
Sinking Fund act of 1817 was enacted into a law at the last
session of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Secretary
of the Treasury, a vigilant and exemplary officer, I trust that
the repeal will be acted upon, and that the bank platter will be
wiped as clean of federal money in 1831, as it was in 1821. Such
clean-taking from that dish will allow two or three millions
more to go to the reduction of the public debt; and there can be
no danger in taking the last dollar, as reason and experience
both prove. But, to quiet every apprehension on this point, to
silence the last suggestion of a possibility of any temporary
deficit, I recur to a provision contained in two different
clauses in the bank charter, copied from an amendment in the
charter of the Bank of England, and expressly made, at the
instance of the ministry, to meet the contingency of a temporary
deficiency in the annual revenue. The English provision is
this: that the government may borrow of the bank half a million
sterling, at any time, without a special act of parliament to
authorize it. The provision in our charter is the same, with the
single substitution of dollars for pounds. It is, in words and
intention, a standing authority to borrow that limited sum, for
the obvious purpose of preventing a constant keeping of a sum of
money in hand as a reserve, to meet contingencies which hardly
ever occur. This contingent authority to effect a small loan
has often been used in England--in the United States, never;
possibly, because there has been no occasion for it; probably,
because the clause was copied mechanically from the English
charter, and without the perception of its practical bearing. Be
this as it may, it is certainly a wise and prudent provision,
such as all governments should, at all times be clothed with.
"If any senator thinks that I have exaggerated the injury
suffered by the United States, on account of the uncompensated
masses of public money in the hands of the bank, I am now going
to convince him that he is wrong. I am going to prove to him
that I have understated the case; that I have purposely kept
back a large part of it; and that justice requires a further
development. The fact is, that there are two different deposits
of public money in the bank; one in the name of the Treasurer of
the United States, the other in the name of disbursing officers.
The annual average of the former has been about three and a half
millions of dollars, and of this I have said not a word. But
the essential character of both deposits is the same; they are
both the property of the United States; both permanent; both
available as so much capital to the bank; and both uncompensated.
"I have not ascertained the average of these deposits since
1817, but presume it may equal the amount of that _bonus_ of
one million five hundred thousand dollars for which we sold
the charter, and which the Finance Committee of the Senate
compliments the bank for paying in three, instead of seventeen,
annual instalments; and shows how much interest they lost by
doing so. Certainly, this was a disadvantage to the bank.
"Mr. President, it does seem to me that there is something
ominous to the bank in this contest for compensation on the
undrawn balances. It is the very way in which the struggle began
in the British Parliament which has ended in the overthrow of
the Bank of England. It is the way in which the struggle is
beginning here. My resolutions of two and three years ago are
the causes of the speech which you now hear; and, as I have
reason to believe, some others more worthy of your hearing,
which will come at the proper time. The question of compensation
for balances is now mixing itself up here, as in England, with
the question of renewing the charter; and the two, acting
together, will fall with combined weight upon the public mind,
and certainly eventuate here as they did there.
"4. To discredit and disparage the notes of all other banks, by
excluding them from the collection of the federal revenue. This
results from the collection--no, not the collection, but the
receipt of the revenue having been communicated to the bank,
and along with it the virtual execution of the joint resolution
of 1816, to regulate the collection of the federal revenue.
The execution of that resolution was intended to be vested in
the Secretary of the Treasury--a disinterested arbiter between
rival banks; but it may be considered as virtually devolved upon
the Bank of the United States, and powerfully increases the
capacity of that institution to destroy, or subjugate, all other
banks. This power to disparage the notes of all other banks, is
a power to injure them; and, added to all the other privileges
of the Bank of the United States, is a power to destroy them!
If any one doubts this assertion, let him read the answers of
the president of the bank to the questions put to him by the
chairman of the Finance Committee. These answers are appended
to the committee's report of the last session in favor of the
bank, and expressly declare the capacity of the federal bank to
destroy the State banks. The worthy chairman [Mr. Smith, of Md.]
puts this question; 'Has the bank at any time oppressed any of
the State banks.' The president [Mr. Biddle] answers, as the
whole world would answer to a question of oppression, that it
never had; and this response was as much as the interrogatory
required. But it did not content the president of the bank; he
chose to go further, and to do honor to the institution over
which he presided, by showing that it was as just and generous
as it was rich and powerful. He, therefore, adds the following
words, for which, as a seeker after evidence, to show the
alarming and dangerous character of the bank, I return him my
unfeigned thanks: 'There are very few banks which might not have
been destroyed by an exertion of the power of the bank.'
"This is enough! proof enough! not for me alone, but for all
who are unwilling to see a moneyed domination set up--a moneyed
oligarchy established in this land, and the entire Union
subjected to its sovereign will. The power to destroy all other
banks is admitted and declared; the inclination to do so is
known to all rational beings to reside with the power! Policy
may restrain the destroying faculties for the present; but they
exist; and will come forth when interest prompts and policy
permits. They have been exercised; and the general prostration
of the Southern and Western banks attest the fact. They will be
exercised (the charter being renewed), and the remaining State
banks will be swept with the besom of destruction. Not that all
will have their signs knocked down, and their doers closed up.
Far worse than that to many of them. Subjugation, in preference
to destruction, will be the fate of many. Every planet must
have its satellites; every tyranny must have its instruments;
every knight is followed by his squire; even the king of beasts,
the royal quadruped, whose roar subdues the forest, must have
a small, subservient animal to spring his prey. Just so of
this imperial bank, when installed anew in its formidable and
lasting power. The State banks, spared by the sword, will be
passed under the yoke. They will become subordinate parts in the
great machine. Their place in the scale of subordination will
be one degree below the rank of the legitimate branches; their
business, to perform the work which it would be too disreputable
for the legitimate branches to perform. This will be the fate of
the State banks which are allowed to keep up their signs, and to
set open their doors; and thus the entire moneyed power of the
Union would fall into the hands of one single institution, whose
inexorable and invisible mandates, emanating from a centre,
would pervade the Union, giving or withholding money according
to its own sovereign will and absolute pleasure. To a favored
State, to an individual, or a class of individuals, favored
by the central power, the golden stream of Pactolus would
flow direct. To all such the munificent mandates of the High
Directory would come, as the fabled god made his terrestrial
visit of love and desire, enveloped in a shower of gold. But to
others--to those not favored--and to those hated--the mandates
of this same directory would be as 'the planetary plague which
hangs its poison in the sick air;' death to them! death to all
who minister to their wants! What a state of things! What a
condition for a confederacy of States! What grounds for alarm
and terrible apprehension, when in a confederacy of such vast
extent, so many independent States, so many rival commercial
cities, so much sectional jealousy, such violent political
parties, such fierce contests for power, there should be but
one moneyed tribunal, before which all the rival and contending
elements must appear! but one single dispenser of money, to
which every citizen, every trader, every merchant, every
manufacturer, every planter, every corporation, every city,
every State, and the federal government itself, must apply, in
every emergency, for the most indispensable loan! and this, in
the face of the fact, that, in every contest for human rights,
the great moneyed institutions of the world have uniformly been
found on the side of kings and nobles, against the lives and
liberties of the people;
"5. To hold real estate, receive rents, and retain a body
of tenantry. This privilege is hostile to the nature of our
republican government, and inconsistent with the nature and
design of a banking institution. Republics want freeholders,
not landlords and tenants; and, except the corporators in this
bank, and in the British East India Company, there is not an
incorporated body of landlords in any country upon the face
of the earth whose laws emanate from a legislative body. Banks
are instituted to promote trade and industry, and to aid the
government and its citizens with loans of money. The whole
argument in favor of banking--every argument in favor of this
bank--rests upon that idea. No one, when this charter was
granted, presumed to speak in favor of incorporating a society
of landlords, especially foreign landlords, to buy lands, build
houses, rent tenements, and retain tenantry. Loans of money
was the object in view, and the purchase of real estate is
incompatible with that object. Instead of remaining bankers,
the corporators may turn land speculators: instead of having
money to lend, they may turn you out tenants to vote. To an
application for a loan, they may answer, and answer truly, that
they have no money on hand; and the reason may be, that they
have laid it out in land. This seems to be the case at present.
A committee of the legislature of Pennsylvania has just applied
for a loan; the president of the bank, nothing loth to make
a loan to that great State, for twenty years longer than the
charter has to exist, expresses his regret that he cannot lend
but a limited and inadequate sum. The funds of the institution,
he says, will not permit it to advance more than eight millions
of dollars. And why? because it has invested three millions in
real estate! To this power to hold real estate, is superadded
the means to acquire it. The bank is now the greatest moneyed
power in the Union; in the event of the renewal of its charter,
it will soon be the sole one. Sole dispenser of money, it
will soon be the chief owner of property. To unlimited means
of acquisition, would be united perpetuity of tenure; for a
corporation never dies, and is free from the operation of the
laws which govern the descent and distribution of real estate
in the hands of individuals. The limitations in the charter are
vain and illusory. They insult the understanding, and mock the
credulity of foolish believers. The bank is first limited to
such acquisitions of real estate as are necessary to its own
accommodation; then comes a proviso to undo the limitation,
so far as it concerns purchases upon its own mortgages and
executions! This is the limitation upon the capacity of such an
institution to acquire real estate. As if it had any thing to
do but to make loans upon mortgages, and push executions upon
judgments! Having all the money, it would be the sole lender;
mortgages being the road to loans, all borrowers must travel
that road. When birds enough are in the net, the fowler draws
his string, and the heads are wrung off. So when mortgages
enough are taken, the loans are called in; discounts cease;
curtailments are made; failures to pay ensue; writs issue;
judgments and executions follow; all the mortgaged premises are
for sale at once; and the attorney of the bank appears at the
elbow of the marshal, sole bidder and sole purchaser.
"What is the legal effect of this vast capacity to acquire, and
this legal power to retain, real estate? Is it not the creation
of a new species of mortmain? And of a kind more odious and
dangerous than that mortmain of the church which it baffled the
English Parliament so many ages to abolish. The mortmain of the
church was a power in an ecclesiastical corporation to hold real
estate, independent of the laws of distribution and descent:
the mortmain of the bank is a power in a lay corporation to do
the same thing. The evil of the two tenures is identical; the
difference between the two corporations is no more than the
difference between parsons and money-changers; the capacity to
do mischief incomparably the greatest on the part of the lay
corporators. The church could only operate upon the few who
were thinking of the other world; the bank, upon all who are
immersed in the business or the pleasures of this. The means
of the church were nothing but prayers; the means of the bank
is money! The church received what it could beg from dying
sinners; the bank may extort what it pleases from the whole
living generation of the just and unjust. Such is the parallel
between the mortmain of the two corporations. They both end in
monopoly of estates and perpetuity of succession; and the bank
is the greatest monopolizer of the two. Monopolies and perpetual
succession are the bane of republics. Our ancestors took care to
provide against them, by abolishing entails and primogeniture.
Even the glebes of the church, lean and few as they were in
most of the States, fell under the republican principle of
limited tenures. All the States abolished the anti-republican
tenures; but Congress re-establishes them, and in a manner more
dangerous and offensive than before the Revolution. They are
now given, not generally, but to few; not to natives only, but
to foreigners also; for foreigners are large owners of this
bank. And thus, the principles of the Revolution sink before the
privileges of an incorporated company. The laws of the States
fall before the mandates of a central directory in Philadelphia.
Foreigners become the landlords of free-born Americans; and the
young and flourishing towns of the United States are verging
to the fate of the family boroughs which belong to the great
aristocracy of England.
"Let no one say the bank will not avail itself of its capacity
to amass real estate. The fact is, it has already done so. I
know towns, yea, cities, and could name them, if it might not
seem invidious from this elevated theatre to make a public
reference to their misfortunes, in which this bank already
appears as a dominant and engrossing proprietor. I have been in
places where the answers to inquiries for the owners of the most
valuable tenements, would remind you of the answers given by
the Egyptians to similar questions from the French officers, on
their march to Cairo. You recollect, no doubt, sir, the dialogue
to which I allude: 'Who owns that palace?' 'The Mameluke;' 'Who
this country house?' 'The Mameluke;' 'These gardens?' 'The
Mameluke;' 'That field covered with rice?' 'The Mameluke.'--And
thus have I been answered, in the towns and cities referred to,
with the single exception of the name of the Bank of the United
States substituted for that of the military scourge of Egypt. If
this is done under the first charter, what may not be expected
under the second? If this is done while the bank is on its best
behavior, what may she not do when freed from all restraint and
delivered up to the boundless cupidity and remorseless exactions
of a moneyed corporation?
"6. To deal in pawns, merchandise, and bills of exchange. I
hope the Senate will not require me to read dry passages from
the charter to prove what I say. I know I speak a thing nearly
incredible when I allege that this bank, in addition to all its
other attributes, is an incorporated company of pawnbrokers! The
allegation staggers belief, but a reference to the charter will
dispel incredulity. The charter, in the first part, forbids a
traffic in merchandise; in the after part, permits it. For truly
this instrument seems to have been framed upon the principles
of contraries; one principle making limitations, and the other
following after with provisos to undo them. Thus is it with
lands, as I have just shown; thus is it with merchandise, as I
now show. The bank is forbidden to deal in merchandise--proviso,
unless in the case of goods pledged for money lent, and not
redeemed to the day; and, proviso, again, unless for goods
which shall be the proceeds of its lands. With the help of
these two provisos, it is clear that the limitation is undone;
it is clear that the bank is at liberty to act the pawnbroker
and merchant, to any extent that it pleases. It may say to all
the merchants who want loans, Pledge your stores, gentlemen!
They must do it, or do worse; and, if any accident prevents
redemption on the day, the pawn is forfeited, and the bank takes
possession. On the other hand, it may lay out its rents for
goods; it may sell its real estate, now worth three millions of
dollars, for goods. Thus the bank is an incorporated company
of pawnbrokers and merchants, as well as an incorporation of
landlords and land-speculators; and this derogatory privilege,
like the others, is copied from the old Bank of England charter
of 1694. Bills of exchange are also subjected to the traffic
of this bank. It is a traffic unconnected with the trade of
banking, dangerous for a great bank to hold, and now operating
most injuriously in the South and West. It is the process which
drains these quarters of the Union of their gold and silver,
and stifles the growth of a fair commerce in the products of
the country. The merchants, to make remittances, buy bills of
exchange from the branch banks, instead of buying produce from
the farmers. The bills are paid for in gold and silver; and,
eventually, the gold and silver are sent to the mother bank,
or to the branches in the Eastern cities, either to meet these
bills, or to replenish their coffers, and to furnish vast
loans to favorite States or individuals. The bills sell cheap,
say a fraction of one per cent.; they are, therefore, a good
remittance to the merchant. To the bank the operation is doubly
good; for even the half of one per cent. on bills of exchange
is a great profit to the institution which monopolizes that
business, while the collection and delivery to the branches of
all the hard money in the country is a still more considerable
advantage. Under this system, the best of the Western banks--I
do not speak of those which had no foundations, and sunk under
the weight of neighborhood opinion, but those which deserved
favor and confidence--sunk ten years ago. Under this system,
the entire West is now undergoing a silent, general, and
invisible drain of its hard money; and, if not quickly arrested,
these States will soon be, so far as the precious metals are
concerned, no more than the empty skin of an immolated victim.
"7. To establish branches in the different States without
their consent, and in defiance of their resistance. No one can
deny the degrading and injurious tendency of this privilege.
It derogates from the sovereignty of a State; tramples upon
her laws; injures her revenue and commerce; lays open her
government to the attacks of centralism; impairs the property
of her citizens; and fastens a vampire on her bosom to suck
out her gold and silver. 1. It derogates from her sovereignty,
because the central institution may impose its intrusive
branches upon the State without her consent, and in defiance
of her resistance. This has already been done. The State of
Alabama, but four years ago, by a resolve of her legislature,
remonstrated against the intrusion of a branch upon her.
She protested against the favor. Was the will of the State
respected? On the contrary, was not a branch instantaneously
forced upon her, as if, by the suddenness of the action, to
make a striking and conspicuous display of the omnipotence of
the bank, and the nullity of the State? 2. It tramples upon
her laws; because, according to the decision of the Supreme
Court, the bank and all its branches are wholly independent
of State legislation; and it tramples on them again, because
it authorizes foreigners to hold lands and tenements in every
State, contrary to the laws of many of them; and because it
admits of the _mortmain_ tenure, which is condemned by all the
republican States in the Union. 3. It injures her revenue,
because the bank stock, under the decision of the Supreme
Court, is not liable to taxation. And thus, foreigners, and
non-resident Americans, who monopolize the money of the State,
who hold its best lands and town lots, who meddle in its
elections, and suck out its gold and silver, and perform no
military duty, are exempted from paying taxes, in proportion
to their wealth, for the support of the State whose laws they
trample upon, and whose benefits they usurp. 4. It subjects the
State to the dangerous manoeuvres and intrigues of centralism,
by means of the tenants, debtors, bank officers, and bank
money, which the central directory retain in the State, and
may embody and direct against it in its elections, and in its
legislative and judicial proceedings. 5. It tends to impair
the property of the citizens, and, in some instances, that of
the States, by destroying the State banks in which they have
invested their money. 6. It is injurious to the commerce of
the States (I speak of the Western States), by substituting a
trade in bills of exchange, for a trade in the products of the
country. 7. It fastens a vampire on the bosom of the State,
to suck away its gold and silver, and to co-operate with the
course of trade, of federal legislation, and of exchange,
in draining the South and West of all their hard money. The
Southern States, with their thirty millions of annual exports in
cotton, rice, and tobacco, and the Western States, with their
twelve millions of provisions and tobacco exported from New
Orleans, and five millions consumed in the South, and on the
lower Mississippi,--that is to say, with three fifths of the
marketable productions of the Union, are not able to sustain
thirty specie paying banks; while the minority of the States
north of the Potomac, without any of the great staples for
export, have above four hundred of such banks. These States,
without rice, without cotton, without tobacco, without sugar,
and with less flour and provisions, to export, are saturated
with gold and silver; while the Southern and Western States,
with all the real sources of wealth, are in a state of the
utmost destitution. For this calamitous reversal of the natural
order of things, the Bank of the United States stands forth
pre-eminently culpable. Yes, it is pre-eminently culpable! and
a statement in the 'National Intelligencer' of this morning
(a paper which would overstate no fact to the prejudice of
the bank), cites and proclaims the fact which proves this
culpability. It dwells, and exults, on the quantity of gold and
silver in the vaults of the United States Bank. It declares
that institution to be 'overburdened' with gold and silver; and
well may it be so overburdened, since it has lifted the load
entirely from the South and West. It calls these metals 'a drug'
in the hands of the bank; that is to say, an article for which
no purchaser can be found. Let this 'drug,' like the treasures
of the dethroned Dey of Algiers, be released from the dominion
of its keeper; let a part go back to the South and West, and the
bank will no longer complain of repletion, nor they of depletion.
"8. Exemption of the stockholders from individual liability
on the failure of the bank. This privilege derogates from the
common law, is contrary to the principle of partnerships, and
injurious to the rights of the community. It is a peculiar
privilege granted by law to these corporators, and exempting
them from liability, except in their corporate capacity, and to
the amount of the assets of the corporation. Unhappily these
assets are never _assez_, that is to say, enough, when occasion
comes for recurring to them. When a bank fails, its assets are
always less than its debts; so that responsibility fails the
instant that liability accrues. Let no one say that the bank of
the United States is too great to fail. One greater than it,
and its prototype, has failed, and that in our own day, and for
twenty years at a time: the Bank of England failed in 1797,
and the Bank of the United States was on the point of failing
in 1819. The same cause, namely, stockjobbing and overtrading,
carried both to the brink of destruction; the same means saved
both, namely, the name, the credit, and the helping hand of
the governments which protected them. Yes, the Bank of the
United States may fail; and its stockholders live in splendor
upon the princely estates acquired with its notes, while the
industrious classes, who hold these notes, will be unable to
receive a shilling for them. This is unjust. It is a vice in the
charter. The true principle in banking requires each stockholder
to be liable to the amount of his shares; and subjects him
to the summary action of every holder on the failure of the
institution, till he has paid up the amount of his subscription.
This is the true principle. It has prevailed in Scotland for the
last century, and no such thing as a broken bank has been known
there in all that time.
"9. To have the United States for a partner. Sir, there is one
consequence, one result of all partnerships between a government
and individuals, which should of itself, and in a mere
mercantile point of view, condemn this association on the part
of the federal government. It is the principle which puts the
strong partner forward to bear the burden whenever the concern
is in danger. The weaker members flock to the strong partner at
the approach of the storm, and the necessity of venturing more
to save what he has already staked, leaves him no alternative.
He becomes the Atlas of the firm, and bears all upon his own
shoulders. This is the principle: what is the fact? Why, that
the United States has already been compelled to sustain the
federal bank; to prop it with her revenues and its credit in
the trials and crisis of its early administration. I pass over
other instances of the damage suffered by the United States on
account of this partnership; the immense standing deposits for
which we receive no compensation; the loan of five millions of
our own money, for which we have paid a million and a half in
interest; the five per cent. stock note, on which we have paid
our partners four million seven hundred and twenty-five thousand
dollars in interest; the loss of ten millions on the three per
cent. stock, and the ridiculous catastrophe of the miserable
_bonus_, which has been paid to us with a fraction of our own
money: I pass over all this, and come to the point of a direct
loss, as a partner, in the dividends upon the stock itself.
Upon this naked point of profit and loss, to be decided by a
rule in arithmetic, we have sustained a direct and heavy loss.
The stock held by the United States, as every body knows, was
subscribed, not paid. It was a stock note, deposited for seven
millions of dollars, bearing an interest of five per cent. The
inducement to this subscription was the seductive conception
that, by paying five per cent. on its note, the United States
would clear four or five per cent. in getting a dividend of
eight or ten. This was the inducement; now for the realization
of this fine conception. Let us see it. Here it is; an official
return, from the Register of the Treasury of interest paid, and
of dividends received. The account stands thus:
Interest paid by the United States, $4,725,000
Dividends received by the United States, 4,629,426
----------
Loss to the United States, $95,574
"Disadvantageous as this partnership must be to the United
States in a moneyed point of view, there is a far more grave
and serious aspect under which to view it. It is the political
aspect, resulting from the union between the bank and the
government. This union has been tried in England, and has been
found there to be just as disastrous a conjunction as the
union between church and state. It is the conjunction of the
lender and the borrower, and Holy Writ has told us which of
these categories will be master of the other. But suppose they
agree to drop rivalry, and unite their resources. Suppose they
combine, and make a push for political power: how great is the
mischief which they may not accomplish! But, on this head,
I wish to use the language of one of the brightest patriots
of Great Britain; one who has shown himself, in these modern
days, to be the worthy successor of those old iron barons whose
patriotism commanded the unpurchasable eulogium of the elder
Pitt. I speak of Sir William Pulteney, and his speech against
the Bank of England, in 1797.
"THE SPEECH:--EXTRACT.
"'I have said enough to show that government has been rendered
dependent on the bank, and more particularly so in the time of
war; and though the bank has not yet fallen into the hands of
ambitious men, yet it is evident that it might, in such hands,
assume a power sufficient to control and overawe, not only the
ministers, but king, lords, and commons. * * * * * * As the bank
has thus become dangerous to government, it might, on the other
hand, by uniting with an ambitious minister, become the means of
establishing a fourth estate, sufficient to involve this nation
in irretrievable slavery, and ought, therefore, to be dreaded
as much as a certain East India bill was justly dreaded, at a
period not very remote. I will not say that the present minister
(the younger Pitt), by endeavoring, at this crisis, to take the
Bank of England under his protection, can have any view to make
use, hereafter, of that engine to perpetuate his own power, and
to enable him to domineer over our constitution: if that could
be supposed, it would only show that men can entertain a very
different train of ideas, when endeavoring to overset a rival,
from what occurs to them when intending to support and fix
themselves. My object is to secure the country against all risk
either from the bank as opposed to government, or as the engine
of ambitious men.'
"And this is my object also. I wish to secure the Union from all
chance of harm from this bank. I wish to provide against its
friendship, as well as its enmity--against all danger from its
hug, as well as from its blow. I wish to provide against all
risk, and every hazard; for, if this risk and hazard were too
great to be encountered by King, Lords, and Commons, in Great
Britain, they must certainly be too great to be encountered by
the people of the United States, who are but commons alone.
"10. To have foreigners for partners. This, Mr. President,
will be a strange story to be told in the West. The downright
and upright people of that unsophisticated region believe that
words mean what they signify, and that 'the Bank of the United
States' is the Bank of the United States. How great then must
be their astonishment to learn that this belief is a false
conception, and that this bank (its whole name to the contrary
notwithstanding) is just as much the bank of foreigners as
it is of the federal government. Here I would like to have
the proof--a list of the names and nations, to establish this
almost incredible fact. But I have no access except to public
documents, and from one of these I learn as much as will answer
the present pinch. It is the report of the Committee of Ways and
Means, in the House of Representatives, for the last session of
Congress. That report admits that foreigners own seven millions
of the stock of this bank; and every body knows that the federal
government owns seven millions also.
"Thus it is proved that foreigners are as deeply interested in
this bank as the United States itself. In the event of a renewal
of the charter they will be much more deeply interested than at
present; for a prospect of a rise in the stock to two hundred
and fifty, and the unsettled state of things in Europe, will
induce them to make great investments. It is to no purpose to
say that the foreign stockholders cannot be voters or directors.
The answer to that suggestion is this: the foreigners have the
money; they pay down the cash, and want no accommodations; they
are lenders, not borrowers; and in a great moneyed institution,
such stockholders must have the greatest influence. The name
of this bank is a deception upon the public. It is not the
bank of the federal government, as its name would import, nor
of the States which compose this Union; but chiefly of private
individuals, foreigners as well as natives, denizens, and
naturalized subjects. They own twenty-eight millions of the
stock, the federal government but seven millions, and these
seven are precisely balanced by the stock of the aliens. The
federal government and the aliens are equal, owning one fifth
each; and there would be as much truth in calling it the English
Bank as the Bank of the United States. Now mark a few of the
privileges which this charter gives to these foreigners. To be
landholders, in defiance of the State laws, which forbid aliens
to hold land; to be landlords by incorporation, and to hold
American citizens for tenants; to hold lands in mortmain; to be
pawnbrokers and merchants by incorporation; to pay the revenue
of the United States in their own notes; in short, to do every
thing which I have endeavored to point out in the long and
hideous list of exclusive privileges granted to this bank. If
I have shown it to be dangerous for the United States to be in
partnership with its own citizens, how much stronger is not the
argument against a partnership with foreigners? What a prospect
for loans when at war with a foreign power, and the subjects of
that power large owners of the bank here, from which alone, or
from banks liable to be destroyed by it, we can obtain money to
carry on the war! What a state of things, if, in the division
of political parties, one of these parties and the foreigners,
coalescing, should have the exclusive control of all the money
in the Union, and, in addition to the money, should have bodies
of debtors, tenants, and bank officers stationed in all the
States, with a supreme and irresponsible system of centralism to
direct the whole! Dangers from such contingencies are too great
and obvious to be insisted upon. They strike the common sense
of all mankind, and were powerful considerations with the old
whig republicans for the non-renewal of the charter of 1791.
Mr. Jefferson and the whig republicans staked their political
existence on the non-renewal of that charter. They succeeded;
and, by succeeding, prevented the country from being laid at the
mercy of British and ultra-federalists for funds to carry on the
last war. It is said the United States lost forty millions by
using depreciated currency during the last war. That, probably,
is a mistake of one half. But be it so! For what are forty
millions compared to the loss of the war itself--compared to the
ruin and infamy of having the government arrested for want of
money--stopped and paralyzed by the reception of such a note as
the younger Pitt received from the Bank of England in 1795?
"11. Exemption from due course of law for violations of its
charter.--This is a privilege which affects the administration
of justice, and stands without example in the annals of
republican legislation. In the case of all other delinquents,
whether persons or corporations, the laws take their course
against those who offend them. It is the right of every citizen
to set the laws in motion against every offender; and it is the
constitution of the law, when set in motion, to work through,
like a machine, regardless of powers and principalities, and
cutting down the guilty which may stand in its way. Not so in
the case of this bank. In its behalf, there are barriers erected
between the citizen and his oppressor, between the wrong and the
remedy, between the law and the offender. Instead of a right
to sue out a _scire facias_ or a _quo warranto_, the injured
citizen, with an humble petition in his hand, must repair to
the President of the United States, or to Congress, and crave
their leave to do so. If leave is denied (and denied it will be
whenever the bank has a peculiar friend in the President, or a
majority of such friends in Congress, the convenient pretext
being always at hand that the general welfare requires the bank
to be sustained), he can proceed no further. The machinery of
the law cannot be set in motion, and the great offender laughs
from behind his barrier at the impotent resentment of its
helpless victim. Thus the bank, for the plainest violations
of its charter, and the greatest oppressions of the citizen,
may escape the pursuit of justice. Thus the administration
of justice is subject to be strangled in its birth for the
shelter and protection of this bank. But this is not all.
Another and most alarming mischief results from the same
extraordinary privilege. It gives the bank a direct interest in
the presidential and congressional elections: it gives it need
for friends in Congress and in the presidential chair. Its fate,
its very existence, may often depend upon the friendship of the
President and Congress; and, in such cases, it is not in human
nature to avoid using the immense means in the hands of the bank
to influence the elections of these officers. Take the existing
fact--the case to which I alluded at the commencement of this
speech. There is a case made out, ripe with judicial evidence,
and big with the fate of the bank. It is a case of usury at the
rate of forty-six per cent., in violation of the charter, which
only admits an interest of six. The facts were admitted, in the
court below, by the bank's demurrer; the law was decided, in
the court above, by the supreme judges. The admission concludes
the facts; the decision concludes the law. The forfeiture of
the charter is established; the forfeiture is incurred; the
application of the forfeiture alone is wanting to put an end to
the institution. An impartial President or Congress might let
the laws take their course; those of a different temper might
interpose their veto. What a crisis for the bank! It beholds the
sword of Damocles suspended over its head! What an interest in
keeping those away who might suffer the hair to be cut!
"12. To have all these unjust privileges secured to the
corporators as a monopoly, by a pledge of the public faith to
charter no other bank.--This is the most hideous feature in
the whole mass of deformity. If these banks are beneficial
institutions, why not several? one, at least, and each
independent of the other, to each great section of the Union?
If malignant, why create one? The restriction constitutes the
monopoly, and renders more invidious what was sufficiently
hateful in itself. It is, indeed, a double monopoly, legislative
as well as banking; for the Congress of 1816 monopolized the
power to grant these monopolies. It has tied up the hands
of its successors; and if this can be done on one subject,
and for twenty years, why not upon all subjects, and for all
time? Here is the form of words which operate this double
engrossment of our rights: 'No other bank shall be established
by any future law of Congress, during the continuance of the
corporation hereby enacted, for which the faith of Congress is
hereby pledged;' with a proviso for the District of Columbia.
And that no incident might be wanting to complete the title of
this charter, to the utter reprobation of whig republicans,
this compound monopoly, and the very form of words in which
it is conceived, is copied from the charter of the Bank of
England!--not the charter of William and Mary, as granted in
1694 (for the Bill of Rights was then fresh in the memories of
Englishmen), but the charter as amended, and that for money, in
the memorable reign of Queen Anne, when a tory queen, a tory
ministry, and a tory parliament, and the apostle of toryism, in
the person of Dr. Sacheverell, with his sermons of divine right,
passive obedience, and non-resistance, were riding and ruling
over the prostrate liberties of England! This is the precious
period, and these the noble authors, from which the idea was
borrowed, and the very form of words copied, which now figure in
the charter of the Bank of the United States, constituting that
double monopoly, which restricts at once the powers of Congress
and the rights of the citizens.
"These, Mr. President, are the chief of the exclusive privileges
which constitute the monopoly of the Bank of the United States.
I have spoken of them, not as they deserved, but as my abilities
have permitted. I have shown you that they are not only evil in
themselves, but copied from an evil example. I now wish to show
you that the government from which we have made this copy has
condemned the original; and, after showing this fact, I think I
shall be able to appeal, with sensible effect, to all liberal
minds, to follow the enlightened example of Great Britain, in
getting rid of a dangerous and invidious institution, after
having followed her pernicious example in assuming it. For
this purpose, I will have recourse to proof, and will read
from British state papers of 1826. I will read extracts from
the correspondence between Earl Liverpool, first Lord of the
Treasury, and Mr. Robinson, Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the
one side, and the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of
England on the other; the subject being the renewal, or rather
non-renewal, of the charter of the Bank of England.
_Communications from the First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor
of the Exchequer to the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of
England.--Extracts._
"'The failures which have occurred in England, unaccompanied
as they have been by the same occurrences in Scotland, tend
to prove that there must have been an unsolid and delusive
system of banking in one part of Great Britain, and a solid
and substantial one in the other. * * * * In Scotland, there
are not more than thirty banks (three chartered), and these
banks have stood firm amidst all the convulsions of the money
market in England, and amidst all the distresses to which the
manufacturing and agricultural interests in Scotland, as well
as in England, have occasionally been subject. Banks of this
description must necessarily be conducted upon the generally
understood and approved principles of banking. * * * * The
Bank of England may, perhaps, propose, as they did upon a
former occasion, the extension of the term of their exclusive
privilege, as to the metropolis and its neighborhood, beyond
the year 1833, as the price of this concession [immediate
surrender of exclusive privileges]. It would be very much to be
regretted that they should require any such condition. * * * *
It is obvious, from what passed before, that Parliament will
never agree to it. * * * * Such privileges are out of fashion;
and what expectation can the bank, under present circumstances,
entertain that theirs will be renewed?'--_Jan. 13._
_Answer of the Court of Directors.--Extract._
"'Under the uncertainty in which the Court of Directors find
themselves with respect to the death of the bank, and the
effect which they may have on the interests of the bank, this
court cannot feel themselves justified in recommending to the
proprietors to give up the privilege which they now enjoy,
sanctioned and confirmed as it is by the solemn acts of the
legislature.'--_Jan. 20._
_Second communication from the Ministers.--Extract._
"'The First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer
have considered the answer of the bank of the 20th instant.
They cannot but regret that the Court of Directors should
have declined to recommend to the Court of Proprietors the
consideration of the paper delivered by the First Lord of the
Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Governor and
Deputy Governor on the 13th instant. The statement contained
in that paper appears to the First Lord of the Treasury and
the Chancellor of the Exchequer so full and explicit on all
the points to which it related, that they have nothing further
to add, although they would have been, and still are, ready to
answer, as far as possible, any specific questions which might
be put, for the purpose of removing the uncertainty in which the
court of directors state themselves to be with respect to the
details of the plan suggested in that paper.'--_Jan. 23._
_Second answer of the Bank.--Extract._
"'The Committee of Treasury [bank] having taken into
consideration the paper received from the First Lord of the
Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, dated January
23d, and finding that His Majesty's ministers persevere in
their desire to propose to restrict immediately the exclusive
privilege of the bank, as to the number of partners engaged in
banking to a certain distance from the metropolis, and also
continue to be of opinion that Parliament would not consent to
renew the privilege at the expiration of the period of their
present charter; finding, also, that the proposal by the bank of
establishing branch banks is deemed by His Majesty's ministers
inadequate to the wants of the country, are of opinion that
it would be desirable for this corporation to propose, as a
basis, the act of 6th of George the Fourth, which states,
the conditions on which the Bank of Ireland relinquished its
exclusive privileges; this corporation waiving the question of
a prolongation of time, although the committee [of the bank]
cannot agree in the opinion of the First Lord of the Treasury
and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that they are not making
a considerable sacrifice, adverting especially to the Bank of
Ireland remaining in possession of that privilege five years
longer than the Bank of England.'--_January 25._
* * * * *
"Here, Mr. President, is the end of all the exclusive privileges
and odious monopoly of the Bank of England. That ancient and
powerful institution, so long the haughty tyrant of the moneyed
world--so long the subsidizer of kings and ministers--so long
the fruitful mother of national debt and useless wars--so
long the prolific manufactory of nabobs and paupers--so long
the dread dictator of its own terms to parliament--now droops
the conquered wing, lowers its proud crest, and quails under
the blows if its late despised assailants. It first puts on a
courageous air, and takes a stand upon privileges sanctioned by
time, and confirmed by solemn acts. Seeing that the ministers
could have no more to say to men who would talk of privileges in
the nineteenth century, and being reminded that parliament was
inexorable, the bully suddenly degenerates into the craven, and,
from showing fight, calls for quarter. The directors condescend
to beg for the smallest remnant of their former power, for five
years only; for the city of London even; and offer to send
branches into all quarters. Denied at every point, the subdued
tyrant acquiesces in his fate; announces his submission to the
spirit and intelligence of the age; and quietly sinks down
into the humble, but safe and useful condition of a Scottish
provincial bank.
"And here it is profitable to pause; to look back, and see by
what means this ancient and powerful institution--this Babylon
of the banking world--was so suddenly and so totally prostrated.
Who did it? And with what weapons? Sir, it was done by that
power which is now regulating the affairs of the civilized
world. It was done by the power of public opinion, invoked by
the working members of the British parliament. It was done
by Sir Henry Parnell, who led the attack upon the Wellington
ministry, on the night of the 15th of November; by Sir William
Pulteney, Mr. Grenfell, Mr. Hume, Mr. Edward Ellice, and others,
the working members of the House of Commons, such as had, a few
years before, overthrown the gigantic oppressions of the salt
tax. These are the men who have overthrown the Bank of England.
They began the attack in 1824, under the discouraging cry of
too soon, too soon--for the charter had then nine years to run!
and ended with showing that they had began just soon enough.
They began with the ministers in their front, on the side of
the bank, and ended with having them on their own side, and
making them co-operators in the attack, and the instruments and
inflicters of the fatal and final blow. But let us do justice to
these ministers. Though wrong in the beginning, they were right
in the end; though monarchists, they behaved like republicans.
They were not Polignacs. They yielded to the intelligence of the
age; they yielded to the spirit which proscribes monopolies and
privileges, and in their correspondence with the bank directors,
spoke truth and reason and asserted liberal principles, with
a point and power which quickly put an end to dangerous and
obsolete pretensions. They told the bank the mortifying truths,
that its system was unsolid and delusive--that its privileges
and monopoly were out of fashion--that they could not be
prolonged for five years even--nor suffered to exist in London
alone; and, what was still more cutting, that the banks of
Scotland, which had no monopoly, no privilege, no connection
with the government, which paid interest on deposits, and
whose stockholders were responsible to the amount of their
shares--were the solid and substantial banks, which alone the
public interest could hereafter recognize. They did their
business, when they undertook it, like true men; and, in the
single phrase, '_out of fashion_,' achieved the most powerful
combination of solid argument and contemptuous sarcasm, that
ever was compressed into three words. It is a phrase of
electrical power over the senses and passions. It throws back
the mind to the reigns of the Tudors and Stuarts--the termagant
Elizabeth and the pedagogue James--and rouses within us all the
shame and rage we have been accustomed to feel at the view of
the scandalous sales of privileges and monopolies which were
the disgrace and oppression of these wretched times. Out of
fashion! Yes; even in England, the land of their early birth,
and late protection. And shall they remain in fashion here?
Shall republicanism continue to wear, in America, the antique
costume which the doughty champions of antiquated fashion have
been compelled to doff in England? Shall English lords and
ladies continue to find, in the Bank of the United States, the
unjust and odious privileges which they can no longer find in
the Bank of England? Shall the copy survive here, after the
original has been destroyed there? Shall the young whelp triumph
in America, after the old lion has been throttled and strangled
in England? No! never! The thing is impossible! The Bank of the
United States dies, as the Bank of England dies, in all its
odious points, upon the limitation of its charter; and the only
circumstance of regret is, that the generous deliverance is to
take effect two years earlier in the British monarchy than in
the American republic. It came to us of war--it will go away
with peace. It was born of the war of 1812--it will die in the
long peace with which the world is blessed. The arguments on
which it was created will no longer apply. Times have changed;
and the policy of the republic changes with the times. The war
made the bank; peace will unmake it. The baleful planet of fire,
and blood, and every human woe, did bring that pestilence upon
us; the benignant star of peace shall chase it away."
This speech was not answered. Confident in its strength, and
insolent in its nature, the great moneyed power had adopted a system
in which she persevered, until hard knocks drove her out of it: it
was to have an anti-bank speech treated with the contempt of silence
in the House, and caricatured and belittled in the newspapers; and
according to this system my speech was treated. The instant it was
delivered, Mr. Webster called for the vote, and to be taken by yeas
and nays, which was done; and resulted differently from what was
expected--a strong vote against the bank--20 to 23; enough to excite
uneasiness, but not enough to pass the resolution and legitimate a
debate on the subject. The debate stopped with the single speech;
but it was a speech to be read by the people--the masses--the
millions; and was conceived and delivered for that purpose; and
was read by them; and has been complimented since, as having
crippled the bank, and given it the wound of which it afterwards
died; but not within the year and a day which would make the slayer
responsible for the homicide. The list of yeas and nays was also
favorable to the effect of the speech. Though not a party vote, it
was sufficiently so to show how it stood--the mass of the democracy
against the bank--the mass of the anti-democrats against it. The
names were:--
"YEAS.--Messrs. Barnard, Benton, Bibb, Brown, Dickerson, Dudley,
Forsyth, Grundy, Hayne, Iredell, King, McKinley, Poindexter,
Sanford, Smith of S. C., Tazewell, Troup, Tyler, White,
Woodbury--20.
"NAYS.--Messrs. Barton, Bell, Burnet, Chase, Clayton, Root,
Frelinghuysen, Holmes, Hendricks, Johnston, Knight, Livingston,
Marks, Noble, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee,
Smith of Md., Sprague, Webster, Willey--23."
CHAPTER LVII.
ERROR OF DE TOCQUEVILLE, IN RELATION TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
I have had occasion several times to notice the errors of Monsieur
de Tocqueville, in his work upon American democracy. That work is
authority in Europe, where it has appeared in several languages;
and is sought by some to be made authority here, where it has been
translated into English, and published with notes, and a preface
to recommend it. It was written with a view to enlighten European
opinion in relation to democratic government, and evidently with
a candid intent; but abounds with errors to the prejudice of that
form of government, which must do it great mischief, both at home
and abroad, if not corrected. A fundamental error of this kind--one
which goes to the root of representative government, occurs in
chapter 8 of his work, where he finds a great difference in the
members comprising the two Houses of Congress, attributing an
immense superiority to the Senate, and discovering the cause of
the difference in the different modes of electing the members--the
popular elections of the House, and the legislative elections of the
Senate. He says:--
"On entering the House of Representatives at Washington, one
is struck with the vulgar demeanor of that great assembly. The
eye frequently does not discover a man of celebrity within its
walls. Its members are almost all obscure individuals, whose
names present no associations to the mind; they are mostly
village lawyers, men in trade, or even persons belonging to
the lower classes of society. In a country in which education
is very general, it is said that the representatives of the
people do not always know how to write correctly. At a few
yards' distance from this spot is the door of the Senate,
which contains within a small space a large proportion of
the celebrated men in America. Scarcely an individual is to
be found in it, who does not recall this idea of an active
and illustrious career. The Senate is composed of eloquent
advocates, distinguished generals, wise magistrates, and
statesmen of note, whose language would at all times do honor
to the most remarkable parliamentary debates of Europe. What,
then, is the cause of this strange contrast? and why are the
most able citizens to be found in one assembly rather than in
the other? Why is the former body remarkable for its vulgarity,
and its poverty of talent, whilst the latter seems to enjoy a
monopoly of intelligence and of sound judgment? Both of these
assemblies emanate from the people. From what cause, then,
does so startling a difference arise? The only reason which
appears to me adequately to account for it is, that the House of
Representatives is elected by the populace directly, and that of
the Senate is elected by an indirect application of universal
suffrage; but this transmission of the popular authority through
an assembly of chosen men operates an important change in it, by
refining its discretion and improving the forms which it adopts.
Men who are chosen in this manner, accurately represent the
majority of the nation which governs them; but they represent
the elevated thoughts which are current in the community, the
generous propensities which prompt its nobler actions, rather
than the petty passions which disturb, or the vices which
disgrace it. The time may be already anticipated at which the
American republics will be obliged to introduce the plan of
election by an elected body more frequently into their system of
representation, or they will incur no small risk of perishing
miserably among the shoals of democracy."--_Chapter 8._
The whole tenor of these paragraphs is to disparage the
democracy--to disparage democratic government--to attack
fundamentally the principle of popular election itself. They
disqualify the people for self-government, hold them to be incapable
of exercising the elective franchise, and predict the downfall
of our republican system, if that franchise is not still further
restricted, and the popular vote--the vote of the people--reduced
to the subaltern choice of persons to vote for them. These are
profound errors on the part of Mons. de Tocqueville, which require
to be exposed and corrected; and the correction of which comes
within the scope of this work, intended to show the capacity of the
people for self-government, and the advantage of extending--instead
of restricting--the privilege of the direct vote. He seems to
look upon the members of the two Houses as different orders of
beings--different classes--a higher and a lower class; the former
placed in the Senate by the wisdom of State legislatures, the latter
in the House of Representatives by the folly of the people--when the
fact is, that they are not only of the same order and class, but
mainly the same individuals. The Senate is almost entirely made up
out of the House! and it is quite certain that every senator whom
Mons. de Tocqueville had in his eye when he bestowed such encomium
on that body had come from the House of Representatives! placed
there by the popular vote, and afterwards transferred to the Senate
by the legislature; not as new men just discovered by the superior
sagacity of that body, but as public men with national reputations,
already illustrated by the operation of popular elections. And
if Mons. de Tocqueville had chanced to make his visit some years
sooner, he would have seen almost every one of these senators, to
whom his exclusive praise is directed, actually sitting in the other
House.
Away, then, with his fact! and with it, away with all his fanciful
theory of wise elections by small electoral colleges, and silly
ones by the people! and away with all his logical deductions,
from premises which have no existence, and which would have us
still further to "refine popular discretion," by increasing and
extending the number of electoral colleges through which it is to be
filtrated. Not only all vanishes, but his praise goes to the other
side, and redounds to the credit of popular elections; for almost
every distinguished man in the Senate or in any other department
of the government, now or heretofore--from the Congress of
Independence down to the present day--has owed his first elevation
and distinction, to popular elections--to the direct vote of the
people, given, without the intervention of any intermediate body,
to the visible object of their choice; and it is the same in other
countries, now and always. The English, the Scotch and the Irish
have no electoral colleges; they vote direct, and are never without
their ablest men in the House of Commons. The Romans voted direct;
and for five hundred years--until fair elections were destroyed by
force and fraud--never failed to elect consuls and prætors, who
carried the glory of their country beyond the point at which they
had found it.
The American people know this--know that popular election has
given them every eminent public man that they have ever had--that
it is the safest and wisest mode of political election--most free
from intrigue and corruption; and instead of further restricting
that mode, and reducing the masses to mere electors of electors,
they are, in fact, extending it, and altering constitutions to
carry elections to the people, which were formerly given to the
general assemblies. Many States furnish examples of this. Even the
constitution of the United States has been overruled by universal
public sentiment in the greatest of its elections--that of President
and Vice-President. The electoral college by that instrument,
both its words and intent, was to have been an independent body,
exercising its own discretion in the choice of these high officers.
On the contrary, it has been reduced to a mere formality for the
registration of the votes which the people prepare and exact. The
speculations of Monsieur de Tocqueville are, therefore, groundless;
and must be hurtful to representative government in Europe, where
the facts are unknown; and may be injurious among ourselves, where
his book is translated into English, with a preface and notes to
recommend it.
Admitting that there might be a difference between the appearance
of the two Houses, and between their talent, at the time that
Mons. de Tocqueville looked in upon them, yet that difference, so
far as it might then have existed, was accidental and temporary,
and has already vanished. And so far as it may have appeared, or
may appear in other times, the difference in favor of the Senate
may be found in causes very different from those of more or less
judgment and virtue in the constituencies which elect the two
Houses. The Senate is a smaller body, and therefore may be more
decorous; it is composed of older men, and therefore should be
graver, its members have usually served in the highest branches of
the State governments, and in the House of Representatives, and
therefore should be more experienced; its terms of service are
longer, and therefore give more time for talent to mature, and for
the measures to be carried which confer fame. Finally, the Senate
is in great part composed of the pick of the House, and therefore
gains double--by brilliant accession to itself and abstraction from
the other. These are causes enough to account for any occasional,
or general difference which may show itself in the decorum or
ability of the two Houses. But there is another cause, which is
found in the practice of some of the States--the caucus system and
rotation in office--which brings in men unknown to the people, and
turns them out as they begin to be useful; to be succeeded by other
new beginners, who are in turn turned out to make room for more
new ones; all by virtue of arrangements which look to individual
interests, and not to the public good.
The injury of these changes to the business qualities of the House
and the interests of the State, is readily conceivable, and very
visible in the delegations of States where they do, or do not
prevail--in some Southern and some Northern States, for example. To
name them might seem invidious, and is not necessary, the statement
of the general fact being sufficient to indicate an evil which
requires correction. Short terms of service are good on account
of their responsibility, and two years is a good legal term; but
every contrivance is vicious, and also inconsistent with the
re-eligibility permitted by the constitution, which prevents the
people from continuing a member as long as they deem him useful to
them. Statesmen are not improvised in any country; and in our own,
as well as in Great Britain, great political reputations have only
been acquired after long service--20, 30, 40, and even 50 years; and
great measures have only been carried by an equal number of years of
persevering exertion by the same man who commenced them. Earl Grey
and Major Cartwright--I take the aristocratic and the democratic
leaders of the movement--only carried British parliamentry reform
after forty years of annual consecutive exertion. They organized
the Society for Parliamentry Reform in 1792, and carried the reform
in 1832--disfranchising 56 burgs, half disfranchising 31 others,
enfranchising 41 new towns; and doubling the number of voters by
extending the privilege to £10 householders--extorting, perhaps, the
greatest concession from power and corruption to popular right that
was ever obtained by civil and legal means. Yet this was only done
upon forty years' continued annual exertions. Two men did it, but it
took them forty years.
The same may be said of other great British measures--Catholic
emancipation, corn law repeal, abolition of the slave trade, and
many others; each requiring a lifetime of continued exertion from
devoted men. Short service, and not popular election, is the evil
of the House of Representatives; and this becomes more apparent by
contrast--contrast between the North and the South--the caucus,
or rotary system, not prevailing in the South, and useful members
being usually continued from that quarter as long as useful; and
thus with fewer members, usually showing a greater number of men who
have attained a distinction. Monsieur de Tocqueville is profoundly
wrong, and does great injury to democratic government, as his theory
countenances the monarchial idea of the incapacity of the people for
self-government. They are with us the best and safest depositories
of the political elective power. They have not only furnished to the
Senate its ablest members through the House of Representatives, but
have sometimes repaired the injustice of State legislatures, which
repulsed or discarded some eminent men. The late Mr. John Quincy
Adams, after forty years of illustrious service--after having been
minister to half the great courts of Europe, a senator in Congress,
Secretary of State, and President of the United States--in the full
possession of all his great faculties, was refused an election by
the Massachusetts legislature to the United States Senate, where
he had served thirty years before. Refused by the legislature, he
was taken up by the people, sent to the House of Representatives,
and served there to octogenarian age--attentive, vigilant and
capable--an example to all, and a match for half the House to the
last. The brilliant, incorruptible, sagacious Randolph--friend of
the people, of the constitution, of economy and hard money--scourge
and foe to all corruption, plunder and jobbing--had nearly the same
fate; dropped from the Senate by the Virginia general assembly,
restored to the House of Representatives by the people of his
district, to remain there till, following the example of his friend,
the wise Macon, he voluntarily withdrew. I name no more, confining
myself to instances of the illustrious dead.
I have been the more particular to correct this error of De
Tocqueville, because, while disparaging democratic government
generally, it especially disparages that branch of our government
which was intended to be the controlling part. Two clauses of the
constitution--one vesting the House of Representatives with the
sole power of originating revenue bills, the other with the sole
power of impeachment--sufficiently attest the high function to which
that House was appointed. They are both borrowed from the British
constitution, where their effect has been seen in controlling the
course of the whole government, and bringing great criminals to
the bar. No sovereign, no ministry holds out an hour against the
decision of the House of Commons. Though an imperfect representation
of the people, even with the great ameliorations of the reform act
of 1832, it is at once the democratic branch, and the master-branch
of the British government. Wellington administrations have to retire
before it. Bengal Governors-General have to appear as criminals
at its bar. It is the theatre which attracts the talent, the
patriotism, the high spirit, and the lofty ambition of the British
empire; and the people look to it as the master-power in the working
of the government, and the one in which their will has weight. No
rising man, with ability to acquire a national reputation, will quit
it for a peerage and a seat in the House of Lords. Our House of
Representatives, with its two commanding prerogatives and a perfect
representation, should not fall below the British House of Commons
in the fulfilment of its mission. It should not become second to
the Senate, and in the beginning it did not. For the first thirty
years it was the controlling branch of the government, and the one
on whose action the public eye was fixed. Since then the Senate
has been taking the first place, and people have looked less to
the House. This is an injury above what concerns the House itself.
It is an injury to our institutions, and to the people. The high
functions of the House were given to it for wise purposes--for
paramount national objects. It is the immediate representation of
the people, and should command their confidence and their hopes.
As the sole originator of tax bills, it is the sole dispenser of
burthens on the people, and of supplies to the government. As sole
authors of impeachment, it is the grand inquest of the nation, and
has supervision over all official delinquencies. Duty to itself,
to its high functions, to the people, to the constitution, and to
the character of democratic government, require it to resume and
maintain its controlling place in the machinery and working of our
federal government: and that is what it has commenced doing in the
last two or three sessions--and with happy results to the economy of
the public service--and in preventing an increase of the evils of
our diplomatic representation abroad.
CHAPTER LVIII.
THE TWENTY-SECOND CONGRESS.
This body commenced its first session the 5th of December, 1831,
and terminated that session July 17th, 1832; and for this session
alone belongs to the most memorable in the annals of our government.
It was the one at which the great contest for the renewal of the
charter of the Bank of the United States was brought on, and
decided--enough of itself to entitle it to lasting remembrance,
though replete with other important measures. It embraced, in the
list of members of the two Houses, much shining talent, and a great
mass of useful ability, and among their names will be found many,
then most eminent in the Union, and others destined to become so.
The following are the names:
SENATE.
MAINE--John Holmes, Peleg Sprague.
NEW HAMPSHIRE--Samuel Bell, Isaac Hill.
MASSACHUSETTS--Daniel Webster, Nathaniel Silsbee.
RHODE ISLAND--Nehemiah R. Knight, Asher Robbins.
CONNECTICUT--Samuel A. Foot, Gideon Tomlinson.
VERMONT--Horatio Seymour, Samuel Prentiss.
NEW-YORK--Charles E. Dudley, Wm. Marcy.
NEW JERSEY--M. Dickerson, Theodore Frelinghuysen.
PENNSYLVANIA--Geo. M. Dallas, Wm. Wilkins.
DELAWARE--John M. Clayton, Arnold Naudain.
MARYLAND--E. F. Chambers, Samuel Smith.
VIRGINIA--Littleton W. Tazewell, John Tyler.
NORTH CAROLINA--B. Brown, W. P. Mangum.
SOUTH CAROLINA--Robert Y. Hayne, S. D. Miller.
GEORGIA--George M. Troup, John Forsyth.
KENTUCKY--George M. Bibb, Henry Clay.
TENNESSEE--Felix Grundy, Hugh L. White.
OHIO--Benjamin Ruggles, Thomas Ewing.
LOUISIANA--J. S. Johnston, Geo. A. Waggaman.
INDIANA--William Hendricks, Robert Hanna.
MISSISSIPPI--Powhatan Ellis, Geo. Poindexter.
ILLINOIS--Elias K. Kane, John M. Robinson.
ALABAMA--William R. King, Gabriel Moore.
MISSOURI--Thomas H. Benton, Alex. Buckner.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
From MAINE--John Anderson, James Bates, George Evans, Cornelius
Holland, Leonard Jarvis, Edward Kavanagh, Rufus McIntire.
NEW HAMPSHIRE--John Brodhead, Thomas Chandler, Joseph Hammons,
Henry Hubbard, Joseph M. Harper, John W. Weeks.
MASSACHUSETTS--John Quincy Adams, Nathan Appleton, Isaac C.
Bates, George N. Briggs, Rufus Choate, Henry A. S. Dearborn,
John Davis, Edward Everett, George Grennell, jun., James L.
Hodges, Joseph G. Kendall, John Reed. (_One vacancy._)
RHODE ISLAND--Tristam Burgess, Dutee J. Pearce.
CONNECTICUT--Noyes Barber, William W. Ellsworth, Jabez W.
Huntington, Ralph I. Ingersoll, William L. Storrs, Ebenezer
Young.
VERMONT--Heman Allen, William Cahoon, Horace Everett, Jonathan
Hunt, William Slade.
NEW YORK--William G. Angel, Gideon H. Barstow, Joseph Bouck,
William Babcock, John T. Bergen, John C. Brodhead, Samuel
Beardsley, John A. Collier, Bates Cooke, C. C. Cambreleng,
John Dickson, Charles Dayan, Ulysses F. Doubleday, William
Hogan, Michael Hoffman, Freeborn G. Jewett, John King, Gerrit
Y. Lansing, James Lent, Job Pierson, Nathaniel Pitcher, Edmund
H. Pendleton, Edward C. Reed, Erastus Root, Nathan Soule, John
W. Taylor, Phineas L. Tracy, Gulian C. Verplanck, Frederic
Whittlesey, Samuel J. Wilkin, Grattan H. Wheeler, Campbell P.
White, Aaron Ward, Daniel Wardwell.
NEW JERSEY--Lewis Condict, Silas Condict, Richard M. Cooper,
Thomas H. Hughes, James Fitz Randolph, Isaac Southard.
PENNSYLVANIA--Robert Allison, John Banks, George Burd, John
C. Bucher, Thomas H. Crawford, Richard Coulter, Harmar Denny,
Lewis Dewart, Joshua Evans, James Ford, John Gilmore, William
Heister, Henry Horn, Peter Ihrie, jun., Adam King, Henry King,
Joel K. Mann, Robert McCoy, Henry A. Muhlenberg, T. M. McKennan,
David Potts, jun., Andrew Stewart, Samuel A. Smith, Philander
Stephens, Joel B. Sutherland, John G. Watmough.
DELAWARE--John J. Milligan.
MARYLAND--Benjamin C. Howard, Daniel Jenifer, John L. Kerr,
George E. Mitchell, Benedict I. Semmes, John S. Spence, Francis
Thomas, George C. Washington, J. T. H. Worthington.
VIRGINIA--Mark Alexander, Robert Allen, William S. Archer,
William Armstrong, John S. Barbour, Thomas T. Bouldin,
Nathaniel H. Claiborne, Robert Craig, Joseph W. Chinn, Richard
Coke, jun., Thomas Davenport, Philip Doddridge, Wm. F. Gordon,
Charles C. Johnston, John Y. Mason, Lewis Maxwell, Charles F.
Mercer, William McCoy, Thomas Newton, John M. Patton, John J.
Roane, Andrew Stevenson.
NORTH CAROLINA--Dan'l L. Barringer, Laughlin Bethune, John
Branch, Samuel P. Carson, Henry W. Conner, Thomas H. Hall,
Micajah T. Hawkins, James J. McKay, Abraham Rencher, William B.
Shepard, Augustine H. Shepperd, Jesse Speight, Lewis Williams.
SOUTH CAROLINA--Robert W. Barnwell, Jas. Blair, Warren R. Davis,
William Drayton, John M. Felder, J. R. Griffin, Thomas R.
Mitchell, George McDuffie, Wm. T. Nuckolls.
GEORGIA--Thomas F. Foster, Henry G. Lamar, Daniel Newnan, Wiley
Thompson, Richard H. Wilde, James M. Wayne. (One vacancy.)
KENTUCKY--John Adair, Chilton Allan, Henry Daniel, Nathan
Gaither, Albert G. Hawes, R. M. Johnson, Joseph Lecompte,
Chittenden Lyon, Robert P. Letcher, Thomas A. Marshall,
Christopher Tompkins, Charles A. Wickliffe.
TENNESSEE--Thomas D. Arnold, John Bell, John Blair, William
Fitzgerald, William Hall, Jacob C. Isacks, Cave Johnson, James
K. Polk, James Standifer.
OHIO--Joseph H. Crane, Eleutheros Cooke, William Creighton,
jun., Thomas Corwin, James Findlay, William W. Irwin, William
Kennon, Humphrey H. Leavitt, William Russel, William Stanberry,
John Thomson, Joseph Vance, Samuel F. Vinton, Elisha Whittlesey.
LOUISIANA--H. A. Bullard, Philemon Thomas, Edward D. White.
INDIANA--Ratliff Boon, John Carr, Jonathan McCarty.
MISSISSIPPI--Franklin E. Plummer.
ILLINOIS--Joseph Duncan.
ALABAMA--Clement C. Clay, Dixon H. Lewis, Samuel W. Mardis.
MISSOURI--William H. Ashley.
DELEGATES.
MICHIGAN--Austin E. Wing.
ARKANSAS--Ambrose H. Sevier.
FLORIDA--Joseph M. White.
Andrew Stevenson, Esq., of Virginia, was re-elected speaker; and
both branches of the body being democratic, they were organized, in
a party sense, as favorable to the administration, although the most
essential of the committees, when the Bank question unexpectedly
sprung up, were found to be on the side of that institution. In
his message to the two Houses, the President presented a condensed
and general view of our relations, political and commercial, with
foreign nations, from which the leading passages are here given:
"After our transition from the state of colonies to that of
an independent nation, many points were found necessary to
be settled between us and Great Britain. Among them was the
demarcation of boundaries, not described with sufficient
precision in the treaty of peace. Some of the lines that
divide the States and territories of the United States from
the British provinces, have been definitively fixed. That,
however, which separates us from the provinces of Canada and
New Brunswick to the North and the East, was still in dispute
when I came into office. But I found arrangements made for its
settlement, over which I had no control. The commissioners who
had been appointed under the provisions of the treaty of Ghent,
having been unable to agree, a convention was made with Great
Britain by my immediate predecessor in office, with the advice
and consent of the Senate, by which it was agreed 'that the
points of difference which have arisen in the settlement of the
boundary line between the American and British dominions, as
described in the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, shall be
referred, as therein provided, to some friendly sovereign or
State, who shall be invited to investigate, and make a decision
upon such points of difference:' and the King of the Netherlands
having, by the late President and his Britannic Majesty, been
designated as such friendly sovereign, it became my duty to
carry, with good faith, the agreement, so made, into full
effect. To this end I caused all the measures to be taken which
were necessary to a full exposition of our case to the sovereign
arbiter; and nominated as minister plenipotentiary to his court,
a distinguished citizen of the State most interested in the
question, and who had been one of the agents previously employed
for settling the controversy. On the 10th day of January last,
His Majesty the King of the Netherlands delivered to the
plenipotentiaries of the United States, and of Great Britain,
his written opinion on the case referred to him. The papers
in relation to the subject will be communicated, by a special
message, to the proper branch of the government, with the
perfect confidence that its wisdom will adopt such measures as
will secure an amicable settlement of the controversy, without
infringing any constitutional right of the States immediately
interested.
"In my message at the opening of the last session of Congress,
I expressed a confident hope that the justice of our claims
upon France, urged as they were with perseverance and signal
ability by our minister there, would finally be acknowledged.
This hope has been realized. A treaty has been signed, which
will immediately be laid before the Senate for its approbation;
and which, containing stipulations that require legislative
acts, must have the concurrence of both Houses before it can be
carried into effect.
"Should this treaty receive the proper sanction, a source of
irritation will be stopped, that has, for so many years, in some
degree alienated from each other two nations who, from interest
as well as the remembrance of early associations, ought to
cherish the most friendly relations--an encouragement will be
given for perseverance in the demands of justice, by this new
proof, that, if steadily pursued, they will be listened to--and
admonition will be offered to those powers, if any, which may be
inclined to evade them, that they will never be abandoned. Above
all, a just confidence will be inspired in our fellow-citizens,
that their government will exert all the powers with which they
have invested it, in support of their just claims upon foreign
nations; at the same time that the frank acknowledgment and
provision for the payment of those which were addressed to our
equity, although unsupported by legal proof, affords a practical
illustration of our submission to the Divine rule of doing to
others what we desire they should do unto us.
"Sweden and Denmark having made compensation for the
irregularities committed by their vessels, or in their ports, to
the perfect satisfaction of the parties concerned, and having
renewed the treaties of commerce entered into with them, our
political and commercial relations with those powers continue to
be on the most friendly footing.
"With Spain, our differences up to the 22d of February, 1819,
were settled by the treaty of Washington of that date; but,
at a subsequent period, our commerce with the states formerly
colonies of Spain, on the continent of America, was annoyed and
frequently interrupted by her public and private armed ships.
They captured many of our vessels prosecuting a lawful commerce,
and sold them and their cargoes; and at one time, to our demands
for restoration and indemnity, opposed the allegation, that
they were taken in the violation of a blockade of all the ports
of those states. This blockade was declaratory only, and the
inadequacy of the force to maintain it was so manifest, that
this allegation was varied to a charge of trade in contraband
of war. This, in its turn, was also found untenable; and
the minister whom I sent with instructions to press for the
reparation that was due to our injured fellow-citizens, has
transmitted an answer to his demand, by which the captures
are declared to have been legal, and are justified because
the independence of the states of America never having been
acknowledged by Spain, she had a right to prohibit trade with
them under her old colonial laws. This ground of defence was
contradictory, not only to those which had been formerly
alleged, but to the uniform practice and established laws
of nations; and had been abandoned by Spain herself in the
convention which granted indemnity to British subjects for
captures made at the same time, under the same circumstances,
and for the same allegations with those of which we complain.
"I, however, indulge the hope that further reflection will lead
to other views, and feel confident, that when his Catholic
Majesty shall be convinced of the justice of the claim, his
desire to preserve friendly relations between the two countries,
which it is my earnest endeavor to maintain, will induce him
to accede to our demand. I have therefore dispatched a special
messenger, with instructions to our minister to bring the case
once more to his consideration; to the end that if, which I
cannot bring myself to believe, the same decision, that cannot
but be deemed an unfriendly denial of justice, should be
persisted in, the matter may, before your adjournment, be laid
before you, the constitutional judges of what is proper to be
done when negotiation for redress of injury fails.
"The conclusion of a treaty for indemnity with France, seemed
to present a favorable opportunity to renew our claims of a
similar nature on other powers, and particularly in the case of
those upon Naples; more especially as, in the course of former
negotiations with that power, our failure to induce France
to render us justice was used as an argument against us. The
desires of the merchants who were the principal sufferers, have
therefore been acceded to, and a mission has been instituted for
the special purpose of obtaining for them a reparation already
too long delayed. This measure having been resolved on, it was
put in execution without waiting for the meeting of Congress,
because the state of Europe created an apprehension of events
that might have rendered our application ineffectual.
"Our demands upon the government of the Two Sicilies are of a
peculiar nature. The injuries on which they are founded are
not denied, nor are the atrocity and perfidy under which those
injuries were perpetrated attempted to be extenuated. The sole
ground on which indemnity has been refused is the alleged
illegality of the tenure by which the monarch who made the
seizures held his crown. This defence, always unfounded in any
principle of the law of nations--now universally abandoned, even
by those powers upon whom the responsibility for acts of past
rulers bore the most heavily, will unquestionably be given up
by his Sicilian Majesty, whose counsels will receive an impulse
from that high sense of honor and regard to justice which are
said to characterize him; and I feel the fullest confidence that
the talents of the citizen commissioned for that purpose will
place before him the just claims of our injured citizens in such
a light as will enable me, before your adjournment, to announce
that they have been adjusted and secured. Precise instructions,
to the effect of bringing the negotiation to a speedy issue,
have been given, and will be obeyed.
"In the late blockade of Terceira, some of the Portuguese fleet
captured several of our vessels, and committed other excesses,
for which reparation was demanded; and I was on the point of
dispatching an armed force, to prevent any recurrence of a
similar violence, and protect our citizens in the prosecution
of their lawful commerce, when official assurances, on which I
relied, made the sailing of the ships unnecessary. Since that
period, frequent promises have been made that full indemnity
shall be given for the injuries inflicted and the losses
sustained. In the performance there has been some, perhaps
unavoidable, delay; but I have the fullest confidence that my
earnest desire that this business may at once be closed, which
our minister has been instructed strongly to express, will very
soon be gratified. I have the better ground for this hope, from
the evidence of a friendly disposition which that government has
shown by an actual reduction in the duty on rice, the produce
of our Southern States, authorizing the anticipation that this
important article of our export will soon be admitted on the
same footing with that produced by the most favored nation.
"With the other powers of Europe, we have fortunately had no
cause of discussions for the redress of injuries. With the
Empire of the Russias, our political connection is of the
most friendly, and our commercial of the most liberal kind.
We enjoy the advantages of navigation and trade, given to the
most favored nation; but it has not yet suited their policy, or
perhaps has not been found convenient from other considerations,
to give stability and reciprocity to those privileges, by a
commercial treaty. The ill-health of the minister last year
charged with making a proposition for that arrangement, did
not permit him to remain at St. Petersburg; and the attention
of that government, during the whole of the period since his
departure, having been occupied by the war in which it was
engaged, we have been assured that nothing could have been
effected by his presence. A minister will soon be nominated,
as well to effect this important object, as to keep up the
relations of amity and good understanding of which we have
received so many assurances and proofs from his Imperial Majesty
and the Emperor his predecessor.
"The treaty with Austria is opening to us an important trade
with the hereditary dominions of the Emperor, the value of which
has been hitherto little known, and of course not sufficiently
appreciated. While our commerce finds an entrance into the south
of Germany by means of this treaty, those we have formed with
the Hanseatic towns and Prussia, and others now in negotiation,
will open that vast country to the enterprising spirit of our
merchants on the north; a country abounding in all the materials
for a mutually beneficial commerce, filled with enlightened
and industrious inhabitants, holding an important place in
the politics of Europe, and to which we owe so many valuable
citizens. The ratification of the treaty with the Porte was sent
to be exchanged by the gentleman appointed our chargé d'affaires
to that court. Some difficulties occurred on his arrival; but at
the date of his last official dispatch, he supposed they had
been obviated, and that there was every prospect of the exchange
being speedily effected.
"This finishes the connected view I have thought it proper to
give of our political and commercial relations in Europe. Every
effort in my power will be continued to strengthen and extend
them by treaties founded on principles of the most perfect
reciprocity of interest, neither asking nor conceding any
exclusive advantage, but liberating, as far as it lies in my
power, the activity and industry of our fellow-citizens from the
shackles which foreign restrictions may impose.
"To China and the East Indies, our commerce continues in its
usual extent, and with increased facilities, which the credit
and capital of our merchants afford, by substituting bills for
payments in specie. A daring outrage having been committed in
those seas by the plunder of one of our merchantmen engaged
in the pepper trade at a port in Sumatra, and the piratical
perpetrators belonging to tribes in such a state of society that
the usual course of proceeding between civilized nations could
not be pursued, I forthwith dispatched a frigate with orders to
require immediate satisfaction for the injury, and indemnity to
the sufferers.
"Few changes have taken place in our connections with the
independent States of America since my last communication
to Congress. The ratification of a commercial treaty with
the United Republics of Mexico has been for some time under
deliberation in their Congress, but was still undecided at the
date of our last dispatches. The unhappy civil commotions that
have prevailed there, were undoubtedly the cause of the delay;
but as the government is now said to be tranquillized, we may
hope soon to receive the ratification of the treaty, and an
arrangement for the demarcation of the boundaries between us.
In the mean time, an important trade has been opened, with
mutual benefit, from St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, by
caravans, to the interior provinces of Mexico. This commerce is
protected in its progress through the Indian countries by the
troops of the United States, which have been permitted to escort
the caravans beyond our boundaries to the settled part of the
Mexican territory.
"From Central America I have received assurances of the most
friendly kind, and a gratifying application for our good offices
to remove a supposed indisposition towards that government
in a neighboring state: this application was immediately and
successfully complied with. They gave us also the pleasing
intelligence, that differences which had prevailed in their
internal affairs had been peaceably adjusted. Our treaty with
this republic continues to be faithfully observed, and promises
a great and beneficial commerce between the two countries; a
commerce of the greatest importance, if the magnificent project
of a ship canal through the dominions of that state, from the
Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, now in serious contemplation,
shall be executed.
"I have great satisfaction in communicating the success which
has attended the exertions of our minister in Colombia to
procure a very considerable reduction in the duties on our flour
in that republic. Indemnity, also, has been stipulated for
injuries received by our merchants from illegal seizures; and
renewed assurances are given that the treaty between the two
countries shall be faithfully observed.
"Chili and Peru seem to be still threatened with civil
commotions; and, until they shall be settled, disorders may
naturally be apprehended, requiring the constant presence of a
naval force in the Pacific Ocean, to protect our fisheries and
guard our commerce.
"The disturbances that took place in the Empire of Brazil,
previously to, and immediately consequent upon, the abdication
of the late Emperor, necessarily suspended any effectual
application for the redress of some past injuries suffered
by our citizens from that government, while they have been
the cause of others, in which all foreigners seem to have
participated. Instructions have been given to our minister
there, to press for indemnity due for losses occasioned by these
irregularities, and to take care that our fellow-citizens shall
enjoy all the privileges stipulated in their favor, by the
treaty lately made between the two powers; all which, the good
intelligence that prevails between our minister at Rio Janeiro
and the regency gives us the best reason to expect.
"I should have placed Buenos Ayres on the list of South American
powers, in respect to which nothing of importance affecting us
was to be communicated, but for occurrences which have lately
taken place at the Falkland Islands, in which the name of that
republic has been used to cover with a show of authority acts
injurious to our commerce, and to the property and liberty of
our fellow-citizens. In the course of the present year, one of
our vessels engaged in the pursuit of a trade which we have
always enjoyed without molestation, has been captured by a band
acting, as they pretend, under the authority of the government
of Buenos Ayres. I have therefore given orders for the dispatch
of an armed vessel, to join our squadron in those seas, and aid
in affording all lawful protection to our trade which shall be
necessary; and shall, without delay, send a minister to inquire
into the nature of the circumstances, and also of the claim, if
any, that is set up by that government to those islands. In the
mean time, I submit the case to the consideration of Congress,
to the end that they may clothe the Executive with such
authority and means as they may deem necessary for providing a
force adequate to the complete protection of our fellow-citizens
fishing and trading in those seas.
"This rapid sketch of our foreign relations, it is hoped,
fellow-citizens, may be of some use in so much of your
legislation as may bear on that important subject; while it
affords to the country at large a source of high gratification
in the contemplation of our political and commercial connection
with the rest of the world. At peace with all--having subjects
of future difference with few, and those susceptible of easy
adjustment--extending our commerce gradually on all sides, and
on none by any but the most liberal and mutually beneficial
means--we may, by the blessing of Providence, hope for all that
national prosperity which can be derived from an intercourse
with foreign nations, guided by those eternal principles of
justice and reciprocal good will which are binding as well upon
States as the individuals of whom they are composed.
"I have great satisfaction in making this statement of our
affairs, because the course of our national policy enables
me to do it without any indiscreet exposure of what in other
governments is usually concealed from the people. Having none
but a straightforward, open course to pursue--guided by a single
principle that will bear the strongest light--we have happily no
political combinations to form, no alliances to entangle us, no
complicated interests to consult; and in subjecting all we have
done to the consideration of our citizens, and to the inspection
of the world, we give no advantage to other nations, and lay
ourselves open to no injury."
This clear and succinct account of the state of our foreign
relations makes us fully acquainted with these affairs as they
then stood, and presents a view of questions to be settled with
several powers which were to receive their solution from the firm
and friendly spirit in which they would be urged. Turning to our
domestic concerns, the message thus speaks of the finances; showing
a gradual increase, the rapid extinction of the public debt, and
that a revenue of 27-3/4 millions was about double the amount of all
expenditures, exclusive of what that extinction absorbed:
"The state of the public finances will be fully shown by the
Secretary of the Treasury, in the report which he will presently
lay before you. I will here, however, congratulate you upon
their prosperous condition. The revenue received in the present
year will not fall short of twenty-seven million seven hundred
thousand dollars; and the expenditures for all objects other
than the public debt will not exceed fourteen million seven
hundred thousand. The payment on account of the principal and
interest of the debt, during the year, will exceed sixteen
millions and a half of dollars: a greater sum than has been
applied to that object, out of the revenue, in any year since
the enlargement of the sinking fund, except the two years
following immediately thereafter. The amount which will have
been applied to the public debt from the 4th of March, 1829, to
the 1st of January next, which is less than three years since
the administration has been placed in my hands, will exceed
forty millions of dollars."
On the subject of government insolvent debtors, the message said:
"In my annual message of December, 1829, I had the honor to
recommend the adoption of a more liberal policy than that which
then prevailed towards unfortunate debtors to the government;
and I deem it my duty again to invite your attention to this
subject. Actuated by similar views, Congress at their last
session passed an act for the relief of certain insolvent
debtors of the United States: but the provisions of that law
have not been deemed such as were adequate to that relief to
this unfortunate class of our fellow-citizens, which may be
safely extended to them. The points in which the law appears to
be defective will be particularly communicated by the Secretary
of the Treasury: and I take pleasure in recommending such an
extension of its provisions as will unfetter the enterprise of a
valuable portion of our citizens, and restore to them the means
of usefulness to themselves and the community."
Recurring to his previous recommendation in favor of giving the
election of President and Vice-President to the direct vote of the
people, the message says:
"I have heretofore recommended amendments of the federal
constitution giving the election of President and Vice-President
to the people, and limiting the service of the former to a
single term. So important do I consider these changes in our
fundamental law, that I cannot, in accordance with my sense
of duty, omit to press them upon the consideration of a new
Congress. For my views more at large, as well in relation to
these points as to the disqualification of members of Congress
to receive an office from a President in whose election they
have had an official agency, which I proposed as a substitute, I
refer you to my former messages."
And concludes thus in relation to the Bank of the United States:
"Entertaining the opinions heretofore expressed in relation to
the Bank of the United States, as at present organized, I felt
it my duty, in my former messages, frankly to disclose them,
in order that the attention of the legislature and the people
should be seasonably directed to that important subject, and
that it might be considered and finally disposed of in a manner
best calculated to promote the ends of the constitution, and
subserve the public interests. Having thus conscientiously
discharged a constitutional duty, I deem it proper, on this
occasion, without a more particular reference to the views
of the subject then expressed, to leave it for the present
to the investigation of an enlightened people and their
representatives."
CHAPTER LIX.
REJECTION OF MR. VAN BUREN, MINISTER TO ENGLAND.
At the period of the election of General Jackson to the Presidency,
four gentlemen stood prominent in the political ranks, each
indicated by his friends for the succession, and each willing to be
the General's successor. They were Messrs. Clay and Webster, and
Messrs. Calhoun and Van Buren; the two former classing politically
against General Jackson--the two latter with him. But an event
soon occurred to override all political distinction, and to bring
discordant and rival elements to work together for a common object.
That event was the appointment of Mr. Van Buren to be Secretary
of State--a post then looked upon as a stepping-stone to the
Presidency--and the imputed predilection of General Jackson for
him. This presented him as an obstacle in the path of the other
three, and which the interest of each required to be got out of
the way. The strife first, and soon, began in the cabinet, where
Mr. Calhoun had several friends; and Mr. Van Buren, seeing that
General Jackson's administration was likely to be embarrassed on
his account, determined to resign his post--having first seen
the triumph of the new administration in the recovery of the
British West India trade, and the successful commencement of other
negotiations, which settled all outstanding difficulties with other
nations, and shed such lustre upon Jackson's diplomacy. He made
known his design to the President, and his wish to retire from the
cabinet--did so--received the appointment of minister to London, and
immediately left the United States; and the cabinet, having been
from the beginning without harmony or cohesion, was dissolved--some
resigning voluntarily, the rest under requisition--as already
related in the chapter on the dissolution of the cabinet. The
voluntary resigning members were classed as friends to Mr. Van
Buren, the involuntary as opposed to him, and two of them (Messrs.
Ingham and Branch) as friends to Mr. Calhoun; and became, of course,
alienated from General Jackson. I was particularly grieved at this
breach between Mr. Branch and the President, having known him from
boyhood--been school-fellows together, and being well acquainted
with his inviolable honor and long and faithful attachment to
General Jackson. It was the complete extinction of the cabinet, and
a new one was formed.
Mr. Van Buren had nothing to do with this dissolution, of which
General Jackson has borne voluntary and written testimony, to be
used in this chapter; and also left behind him a written account
of the true cause, now first published in this Thirty Years'
View, fully exonerating Mr. Van Buren from all concern in that
event, and showing his regret that it had occurred. But the whole
catastrophe was charged upon him by his political opponents, and
for the unworthy purpose of ousting the friends of Mr. Calhoun, and
procuring a new set of members entirely devoted to his interest.
This imputation was negatived by his immediate departure from the
country, setting out at once upon his mission, without awaiting the
action of the Senate on his nomination. This was in the summer of
1831. Early in the ensuing session--at its very commencement, in
fact--his nomination was sent in, and it was quickly perceptible
that there was to be an attack upon him--a combined one; the three
rival statesmen acting in concert, and each backed by all his
friends. No one outside of the combination, myself alone excepted,
could believe it would be successful. I saw they were masters of
the nomination from the first day, and would reject it when they
were ready to exhibit a case of justification to the country: and so
informed General Jackson from an early period in the session. The
numbers were sufficient: the difficulty was to make up a case to
satisfy the people; and that was found to be a tedious business.
Fifty days were consumed in these preliminaries--to be precise,
fifty-one; and that in addition to months of preparation before
the Senate met. The preparation was long, but the attack vigorous;
and when commenced, the business was finished in two days. There
were about a dozen set speeches against him, from as many different
speakers--about double the number that spoke against Warren
Hastings--and but four off-hand replies for him; and it was evident
that the three chiefs had brought up all their friends to the
work. It was an unprecedented array of numbers and talent against
one individual, and he absent,--and of such amenity of manners as
usually to disarm political opposition of all its virulence. The
causes of objection were supposed to be found in four different
heads of accusation; each of which was elaborately urged:
1. The instructions drawn up and signed by Mr. Van Buren as
Secretary of State, under the direction of the President, and
furnished to Mr. McLane, for his guidance in endeavoring to reopen
the negotiation for the West India trade.
2. Making a breach of friendship between the first and second
officers of the government--President Jackson and Vice-President
Calhoun--for the purpose of thwarting the latter, and helping
himself to the Presidency.
3. Breaking up the cabinet for the same purpose.
4. Introducing the system of "proscription" (removal from office for
opinion's sake), for the same purpose.
A formal motion was made by Mr. Holmes, of Maine, to raise a
committee with power to send for persons and papers, administer
oaths, receive sworn testimony, and report it, with the committee's
opinion, to the Senate; but this looked so much like preferring an
impeachment, as well as trying it, that the procedure was dropped;
and all reliance was placed upon the numerous and elaborate
speeches to be delivered, all carefully prepared, and intended
for publication, though delivered in secret session. Rejection of
the nomination was not enough--a killing off in the public mind
was intended; and therefore the unusual process of the elaborate
preparation and intended publication of the speeches. All the
speakers went through an excusatory formula, repeated with equal
precision and gravity; abjuring all sinister motives; declaring
themselves to be wholly governed by a sense of public duty;
describing the pain which they felt at arraigning a gentleman
whose manners and deportment were so urbane; and protesting that
nothing but a sense of duty to the country could force them to the
reluctant performance of such a painful task. The accomplished
Forsyth complimented, in a way to be perfectly understood, this
excess of patriotism, which could voluntarily inflict so much
self-distress for the sake of the public good; and I, most
unwittingly, brought the misery of one of the gentlemen to a sudden
and ridiculous conclusion by a chance remark. It was Mr. Gabriel
Moore, of Alabama, who sat near me, and to whom I said, when the
vote was declared, "You have broken a minister, and elected a
Vice-President." He asked how? and I told him the people would see
nothing in it but a combination of rivals against a competitor, and
would pull them all down, and set him up. "Good God!" said he, "why
didn't you tell me that before I voted, and I would have voted the
other way." It was only twenty minutes before, for he was the very
last speaker, that Mr. Moore had delivered himself thus, on this
very interesting point of public duty against private feeling:
"Under all the circumstances of the case, notwithstanding the
able views which have been presented, and the impatience of
the Senate, I feel it a duty incumbent upon me, not only in
justification of myself, and of the motives which govern me
in the vote which I am about to give, but, also, in justice
to the free and independent people whom I have the honor in
part to represent, that I should set forth the reasons which
have reluctantly compelled me to oppose the confirmation of
the present nominee. Sir, it is proper that I should declare
that the evidence adduced against the character and conduct of
the late Secretary of State, and the sources from which this
evidence emanates, have made an impression on my mind that will
require of me, in the conscientious though painful discharge of
my duty, to record my vote against his nomination."
The famous Madame Roland, when mounting the scaffold, apostrophized
the mock statue upon it with this exclamation: "Oh Liberty! how many
crimes are committed in thy name!" After what I have seen during
my thirty years of inside and outside views in the Congress of the
United States, I feel qualified to paraphrase the apostrophe, and
exclaim: "Oh Politics! how much bamboozling is practised in thy
game!"
The speakers against the nomination were Messrs. Clay, Webster, John
M. Clayton, Ewing of Ohio, John Holmes, Frelinghuysen, Poindexter,
Chambers of Maryland, Foot of Connecticut, Governor Miller, and
Colonel Hayne of South Carolina, and Governor Moore of Alabama--just
a dozen, and equal to a full jury. Mr. Calhoun, as Vice-President,
presiding in the Senate, could not speak; but he was understood to
be personated by his friends, and twice gave the casting vote, one
interlocutory, against the nominee--a tie being contrived for that
purpose, and the combined plan requiring him to be upon the record.
Only four spoke on the side of the nomination; General Smith of
Maryland, Mr. Forsyth, Mr. Bedford Brown, and Mr. Marcy. Messrs.
Clay and Webster, and their friends, chiefly confined themselves to
the instructions on the West India trade; the friends of Mr. Calhoun
paid most attention to the cabinet rupture, the separation of old
friends, and the system of proscription. Against the instructions
it was alleged, that they begged as a favor what was due as a
right; that they took the side of Great Britain against our own
country; and carried our party contests, and the issue of our party
elections, into diplomatic negotiations with foreign countries; and
the following clause from the instructions to Mr. McLane was quoted
to sustain these allegations:
"In reviewing the causes which have preceded and more or less
contributed to a result so much regretted, there will be found
three grounds upon which we are most assailable: 1. In our too
long and too tenaciously resisting the right of Great Britain to
impose protecting duties in her colonies. 2. In not relieving
her vessels from the restriction of returning direct from the
United States to the colonies after permission had been given by
Great Britain to our vessels to clear out from the colonies to
any other than a British port. And, 3. In omitting to accept the
terms offered by the act of Parliament of July, 1825, after the
subject had been brought before Congress and deliberately acted
upon by our government. It is, without doubt, to the combined
operation of these (three) causes that we are to attribute the
British interdict; you will therefore see the propriety of
possessing yourself fully of all the explanatory and mitigating
circumstances connected with them, that you may be able to
obviate, as far as practicable, the unfavorable impression which
they have produced."
This was the clause relied upon to sustain the allegation of putting
his own country in the wrong, and taking the part of Great Britain,
and truckling to her to obtain as a favor what was due as a right,
and mixing up our party contests with our foreign negotiations. The
fallacy of all these allegations was well shown in the replies of
the four senators, and especially by General Smith, of Maryland;
and has been further shown in the course of this work, in the
chapter on the recovery of the British West India trade. But there
was a document at that time in the Department of State, unknown to
the friends of Mr. Van Buren in the Senate, which would not only
have exculpated him, but turned the attacks of his assailants
against themselves. The facts were these: Mr. Gallatin, while
minister at London, on the subject of this trade, of course sent
home dispatches, addressed to the Secretary of State (Mr. Clay), in
which he gave an account of his progress, or rather of the obstacles
which prevented any progress, in the attempted negotiation. There
were two of these dispatches, one dated September 22, 1826, the
other November the 14th, 1827. The latter had been communicated to
Congress in full, and printed among the papers of the case; of the
former only an extract had been communicated, and that relating to
a mere formal point. It so happened that the part of this dispatch
of September, 1826, not communicated, contained Mr. Gallatin's
report of the causes which led to the refusal of the British to
treat--their refusal to permit us to accept the terms of their act
of 1825, after the year limited for acceptance had expired--and
which led to the order in council, cutting us off from the trade;
and it so happened that this report of these causes, so made by
Mr. Gallatin, was the original from which Mr. Van Buren copied
his instructions to Mr. McLane! and which were the subject of so
much censure in the Senate. I have been permitted by Mr. Everett,
Secretary of State under President Fillmore--(Mr. Webster would have
given me the same permission if I had applied during his time, for
he did so in every case that I ever asked)--to examine this dispatch
in the Department of State, and to copy from it whatever I wanted; I
accordingly copied the following:
"On three points we were perhaps vulnerable.
"1. The delay of renewing the negotiation.
"2. The omission of having revoked the restriction on the
indirect intercourse when that of Great Britain had ceased.
"3. Too long an adherence to the opposition to her right of
laying protecting duties. This might have been given up as soon
as the act of 1825 passed. These are the causes assigned for the
late measure adopted towards the United States on that subject;
and they have, undoubtedly, had a decisive effect as far as
relates to the order in council, assisted as they were by the
belief that our object was to compel this country to regulate
the trade upon our own terms."
This was a passage in the unpublished part of that dispatch, and it
shows itself to be the original from which Mr. Van Buren copied,
substituting the milder term of "assailable" where Mr. Gallatin
had applied that of "vulnerable" to Mr. Adams's administration.
Doubtless the contents of that dispatch, in this particular, were
entirely forgotten by Mr. Clay at the time he spoke against Mr.
Van Buren, having been received by him above four years before
that time. They were probably as little known to the rest of the
opposition senators as to ourselves; and the omission to communicate
and print them could not have occurred from any design to suppress
what was material to the debate in the Senate, as the communication
and printing had taken place long before this occasion of using the
document had occurred.
The way I came to the knowledge of this omitted paragraph was this:
When engaged upon the chapter of his rejection, I wrote to Mr. Van
Buren for his view of the case; and he sent me back a manuscript
copy of a speech which he had drawn up in London, to be delivered in
New-York, at some "public dinner," which his friends could get up
for the occasion; but which he never delivered, or published, partly
from an indisposition to go into the newspapers for character--much
from a real forbearance of temper--and possibly from seeing, on his
return to the United States, that he was not at all hurt by his
fall. That manuscript speech contained this omitted extract, and I
trust that I have used it fairly and beneficially for the right,
and without invidiousness to the wrong. It disposes of one point of
attack; but the gentlemen were wrong in their whole broad view of
this British West India trade question. Jackson took the Washington
ground, and he and Washington were both right. The enjoyment of
colonial trade is a privilege to be solicited, and not a right to
be demanded; and the terms of the enjoyment are questions for the
mother country. The assailing senators were wrong again in making
the instructions a matter of attack upon Mr. Van Buren. They were
not his instructions, but President Jackson's. By the constitution
they were the President's, and the senators derogated from that
instrument in treating his secretary as their author. The President
alone is the conductor of our foreign relations, and the dispatches
signed by the Secretaries of State only have force as coming from
him, and are usually authenticated by the formula, "_I am instructed
by the President to say_," &c., &c. It was a constitutional
blunder, then, in the senators to treat Mr. Van Buren as the author
of these instructions; it was also an error in point of fact.
General Jackson himself specially directed them; and so authorized
General Smith to declare in the Senate--which he did.
Breaking up the cabinet, and making dissension between General
Jackson and Mr. Calhoun, was the second of the allegations against
Mr. Van Buren. Repulsed as this accusation has been by the character
of Mr. Van Buren, and by the narrative of the "Exposition," it has
yet to receive a further and most authoritative contradiction, from
a source which admits of no cavil--from General Jackson himself--in
a voluntary declaration made after that event had passed away, and
when justice alone remained the sole object to be accomplished. It
was a statement addressed to "Martin Van Buren, President of the
United States," dated at the Hermitage, July 31st, 1840, and ran in
these words:
"It was my intention as soon as I heard that Mr. Calhoun had
expressed his approbation of the leading measures of your
administration, and had paid you a visit, to place in your
possession the statement which I shall now make; but bad health,
and the pressure of other business have constantly led me to
postpone it. What I have reference to is the imputation that
has been sometimes thrown upon you, that you had an agency in
producing the controversy which took place between Mr. Calhoun
and myself, in consequence of Mr. Crawford's disclosure of what
occurred in the cabinet of Mr. Monroe relative to my military
operations in Florida during his administration. Mr. Calhoun is
doubtless already satisfied that he did you injustice in holding
you in the slightest degree responsible for the course I pursued
on that occasion: but as there may be others who may still be
disposed to do you injustice, and who may hereafter use the
circumstance for the purpose of impairing both your character
and his, I think it my duty to place in your possession the
following emphatic declaration, viz.: _That I am not aware of
your ever saying a word to me relative to Mr. Calhoun, which had
a tendency to create an interruption of my friendly relations
with him:--that you were not consulted in any stage of the
correspondence on the subject of his conduct in the cabinet of
Mr. Monroe;--and that, after this correspondence became public,
the only sentiment you ever expressed to me about it was that of
deep regret that it should have occurred._ You are at liberty
to show this letter to Mr. Calhoun and make what other use of
it you may think proper for the purpose of correcting the
erroneous impressions which have prevailed on this subject."
A testimony more honorable than this in behalf of a public man, was
never delivered, nor one more completely disproving a dishonorable
imputation, and showing that praise was due where censure had
been lavished. Mr. Van Buren was not the cause of breaking up the
cabinet, or of making dissension between old friends, or of raking
up the buried event in Mr. Monroe's cabinet, or of injuring Mr.
Calhoun in any way. Yet this testimony, so honorable to him, was
never given to the public, though furnished for the purpose, and now
appears for the first time in print.
Equally erroneous was the assumption, taken for granted throughout
the debate, and so extensively and deeply impressed upon the public
mind, that Mr. Calhoun was the uniform friend of General Jackson
in the election--his early supporter in the canvass, and steadfast
adherent to the end. This assumption has been rebutted by Mr.
Calhoun himself, who, in his pamphlet against General Jackson,
shows that he was for _himself_ until withdrawn from the contest
by Mr. Dallas at a public meeting, in Philadelphia, in the winter
of 1823-4; and after that was _perfectly neutral_. His words
are: "_When my name was withdrawn from the list of presidential
candidates, I assumed a perfectly neutral position between Gen.
Jackson and Mr. Adams._" This clears Mr. Van Buren again, as he
could not make a breach of friendship where none existed, or
supplant a supporter where there was no support: and that there was
none from Mr. Calhoun to Gen. Jackson, is now authentically declared
by Mr. Calhoun himself. Yet this head of accusation, with a bad
motive assigned for it, was most perseveringly urged by his friends,
and in his presence, throughout the whole debate.
Introducing the "New-York system of proscription" into the federal
government, was the last of the accusations on which Mr. Van Buren
was arraigned; and was just as unfounded as all the rest. Both his
temper and his judgment was against the removal of faithful officers
because of difference of political opinion, or even for political
conduct against himself--as the whole tenor of his conduct very
soon after, and when he became President of the United States,
abundantly showed. The departments at Washington, and some part of
every State in the Union, gave proofs of his forbearance in this
particular.
I have already told that I did not speak in the debate on the
nomination of Mr. Van Buren; and this silence on such an occasion
may require explanation from a man who does not desire the character
of neglecting a friend in a pinch. I had strong reasons for that
abstinence, and they were obliged to be strong to produce it. I was
opposed to Mr. Van Buren's going to England as minister. He was our
intended candidate for the Presidency, and I deemed such a mission
to be prejudicial to him and the party, and apt to leave us with a
candidate weakened with the people by absence, and by a residence
at a foreign court. I was in this state of mind when I saw the
combination formed against him, and felt that the success of it
would be his and our salvation. Rejection was a bitter medicine, but
there was health at the bottom of the draught. Besides, I was not
the guardian of Messrs. Clay, Webster, and Calhoun, and was quite
willing to see them fall into the pit which they were digging for
another. I said nothing in the debate; but as soon as the vote was
over I wrote to Mr. Van Buren a very plain letter, only intended
for himself, and of which I kept no copy; but having applied for
the original for use in this history, he returned it to me, on
the condition that I should tell, if I used it, that in a letter
to General Jackson, he characterized it as "honest and sensible."
Honest, I knew it to be at the time; sensible, I believe the event
has proved it to be; and that there was no mistake in writing
such a letter to Mr. Van Buren, has been proved by our subsequent
intercourse. It was dated January 28, 1832, and I subjoin it in
full, as contemporaneous testimony, and as an evidence of the
independent manner in which I spoke to my friends--even those I was
endeavoring to make President. It ran thus:
"Your faithful correspondents will have informed you of the
event of the 25th. Nobody would believe it here until after it
happened, but the President can bear me witness that I prepared
him to expect it a month ago. The public will only understand
it as a political movement against a rival; it is right,
however, that you should know that without an auxiliary cause
the political movement against you would not have succeeded.
There were gentlemen voting against you who would not have done
so except for a reason which was strong and clear in their own
minds, and which (it would be improper to dissemble) has hurt
you in the estimation of many candid and disinterested people.
After saying this much, I must also say, that I look upon this
head of objection as temporary, dying out of itself, and to
be swallowed up in the current and accumulating topics of the
day. You doubtless know what is best for yourself, and it does
not become me to make suggestions; but for myself, when I find
myself on the bridge of Lodi, I neither stop to parley, nor turn
back to start again. Forward, is the word. Some say, make you
governor of New-York; I say, you have been governor before: that
is turning back. Some say, come to the Senate in place of some
of your friends; I say, that of itself will be only parleying
with the enemy while on the middle of the bridge, and receiving
their fire. The vice-presidency is the only thing, and if a
place in the Senate can be coupled with the trial for that,
then a place in the Senate might be desirable. The Baltimore
Convention will meet in the month of May, and I presume it will
be in the discretion of your immediate friends in New-York,
and your leading friends here, to have you nominated; and
in all that affair I think you ought to be passive. 'For
Vice-President,' on the Jackson ticket, will identify you with
him; a few cardinal principles of the old democratic school
might make you worth contending for on your own account. The
dynasty of '98 (the federalists) has the Bank of the United
States in its interest; and the Bank of the United States has
drawn into its vortex, and wields at its pleasure, the whole
high tariff and federal internal improvement party. To set up
for yourself, and to raise an interest which can unite the
scattered elements of a nation, you will have to take positions
which are visible, and represent principles which are felt and
understood; you will have to separate yourself from the enemy
by partition lines which the people can see. The dynasty of '98
(federalists), the Bank of the United States, the high tariff
party, the federal internal improvement party, are against you.
Now, if you are not against them, the people, and myself, as
one of the people, can see nothing between you and them worth
contending for, in a national point of view. This is a very
plain letter, and if you don't like it, you will throw it in
the fire; consider it as not having been written. For myself, I
mean to retire upon my profession, while I have mind and body to
pursue it; but I wish to see the right principles prevail, and
friends instead of foes in power."
The prominent idea in this letter was, that the people would see
the rejection in the same light that I did--as a combination to put
down a rival--as a political blunder--and that it would work out the
other way. The same idea prevailed in England. On the evening of
the day, on the morning of which all the London newspapers heralded
the rejection of the American minister, there was a great party
at Prince Talleyrand's--then the representative at the British
court, of the new King of the French, Louis Phillippe. Mr. Van
Buren, always master of himself, and of all the proprieties of
his position, was there, as if nothing had happened; and received
distinguished attentions, and complimentary allusions. Lord
Aukland, grandson to the Mr. Eden who was one of the Commissioners
of Conciliation sent to us at the beginning of the revolutionary
troubles, said to him, "It is an advantage to a public man to be
the subject of an outrage"--a remark, wise in itself, and prophetic
in its application to the person to whom it was addressed. He
came home--apparently gave himself no trouble about what had
happened--was taken up by the people--elected, successively,
Vice-President and President--while none of those combined against
him ever attained either position.
There was, at the time, some doubt among their friends as to the
policy of the rejection, but the three chiefs were positive in
their belief that a senatorial condemnation would be political
death. I heard Mr. Calhoun say to one of his doubting friends, "It
will kill him, sir, kill him dead. He will never kick sir, never
kick;" and the alacrity with which he gave the casting votes, on
the two occasions, both vital, on which they were put into his
hands, attested the sincerity of his belief, and his readiness for
the work. How those tie-votes, for there were two of them, came
to happen twice, "hand-running," and in a case so important, was
matter of marvel and speculation to the public on the outside of
the locked-up senatorial door. It was no marvel to those on the
inside, who saw how it was done. The combination had a superfluity
of votes, and, as Mr. Van Buren's friends were every one known,
and would sit fast, it only required the superfluous votes on one
side to go out; and thus an equilibrium between the two lines was
established. When all was finished, the injunction of secrecy was
taken off the proceedings, and the dozen set speeches delivered in
secret session immediately published--which shows that they were
delivered for effect, not upon the Senate, but upon the public mind.
The whole proceeding illustrates the impolicy, as well as peril to
themselves, of rival public men sitting in judgment upon each other,
and carries a warning along with it which should not be lost.
As an event affecting the most eminent public men of the day, and
connecting itself with the settlement of one of our important
foreign commercial questions--as belonging to history, and already
carried into it by the senatorial debates--as a key to unlock the
meaning of other conduct--I deem this account of the REJECTION of
Mr. Van Buren a necessary appendage to the settlement of the British
West India trade question--as an act of justice to General Jackson's
administration (the whole of which was involved in the censure then
cast upon his Secretary of State), and as a sunbeam to illuminate
the labyrinth of other less palpable concatenations.
CHAPTER LX.
BANK OF THE UNITED STATES--ILLEGAL AND VICIOUS CURRENCY.
In his first annual message, in the year 1829, President Jackson,
besides calling in question the unconstitutionality and general
expediency of the Bank, also stated that it had failed in furnishing
a uniform currency. That declaration was greatly contested by
the Bank and its advocates, and I felt myself bound to make an
occasion to show it to be well founded, and to a greater extent
than the President had intimated. It had in fact issued an illegal
and vicious kind of paper--authorized it to be issued at all the
branches--in the shape of drafts or orders payable in Philadelphia,
but voluntarily paid where issued, and at all the branches; and so
made into a local currency, and constituting the mass of all its
paper seen in circulation; and as the greatest quantity was usually
issued at the most remote and inaccessible branches, the payment
of the drafts were well protected by distance and difficulty; and
being of small denominations, loitered and lingered in the hands
of the laboring people until the "wear and tear" became a large
item of gain to the Bank, and the difficulty of presenting them at
Philadelphia an effectual bar to their payment there. The origin of
this kind of currency was thus traced by me: It was invented by
a Scotch banker of Aberdeen, who issued notes payable in London,
always of small denominations, that nobody should take them up to
London for redemption. The Bank of Ireland seeing what a pretty way
it was to issue notes which they could not practically be compelled
to pay, adopted the same trick. Then the English country bankers
followed the example. But their career was short. The British
parliament took hold of the fraud, and suppressed it in the three
kingdoms. That parliament would tolerate no currency issued at one
place, and payable at another.
The mode of proceeding to get at the question of this vicious
currency was the same as that pursued to get at the question of the
non-renewal of the charter--namely, an application for leave to
bring in a joint resolution declaring it to be illegal, and ordering
it to be suppressed; and in asking that leave to give the reasons
for the motion: which was done, in a speech of which the following
are some parts:
"Mr. Benton rose to ask leave to bring in his promised
resolution on the state of the currency. He said he had given
his notice for the leave he was about to ask, without concerting
or consulting with any member of the Senate. The object of his
resolution was judicial, not political; and he had treated the
senators not as counsellors, but as judges. He had conversed
with no one, neither friend nor adversary; not through contempt
of counsel, or fear of opposition, but from a just and rigorous
regard to decorum and propriety. His own opinion had been made
up through the cold, unadulterated process of legal research;
and he had done nothing, and would do nothing, to prevent, or
hinder, any other senator from making up his opinion in the
same way. It was a case in which politics, especially partisan
politics, could find no place; and in the progress of which
every senator would feel himself retiring into the judicial
office--becoming one of the _judices selecti_--and searching
into the stores of his own legal knowledge, for the judgment,
and the reasons of the judgment, which he must give in this
great cause, in which a nation is the party on one side, and a
great moneyed corporation on the other. He [Mr. B.] believed
the currency, against which his resolution was directed,
to be illegal and dangerous; and so believing, it had long
been his determination to bring the question of its legality
before the Senate and the people; and that without regard to
the powerful resentment, to the effects of which he might be
exposing himself. He had adopted the form of a declaratory
resolution, because it was intended to declare the true sense
of the charter upon a disputed point. He made his resolution
joint in its character, that it might have the action of both
Houses of Congress; and single in its object, that the main
design might not be embarrassed with minor propositions. The
form of the resolution gave him a right to state his reasons
for asking leave to bring it in; the importance of it required
those reasons to be clearly stated. The Senate, also, has its
rights and its duties. It is the right of the Senate and House
of Representatives, as the founder of the bank corporation, to
examine into the regularity of its proceedings, and to take
cognizance of the infractions of its charter; and this right has
become a duty, since the very tribunal selected by the charter
to try these infractions had tried this very question, and
that without the formality of a _scire facias_ or the presence
of the adverse party, and had given judgment in favor of the
corporation; a decision which he [Mr. B.] was compelled, by
the strongest convictions of his judgment, to consider both as
extrajudicial and erroneous.
"The resolution, continued Mr. B., which I am asking leave to
bring in, expresses its own object. It declares against the
legality of these orders, AS A CURRENCY. It is the currency
which I arraign. I make no inquiry, for I will not embarrass
my subject with irrelevant and immaterial inquiries--I make
no inquiry into the modes of contract and payment which
are permitted, or not permitted, to the Bank of the United
States, in the conduct of its private dealings and individual
transactions. My business lies with the currency; for, between
public currency and private dealings, the charter of the bank
has made a distinction, and that founded in the nature of
things, as broad as lines can draw, and as clear as words can
express. The currency concerns the public; and the soundness
of that currency is taken under the particular guardianship of
the charter; a special code of law is enacted for it: private
dealings concern individuals: and it is for individuals, in
making their bargains, to take care of their own interests. The
charter of the Bank of the United States has authorized, but not
regulated, certain private dealings of the bank; it is full and
explicit upon the regulation of currency. Upon this distinction
I take my stand. I establish myself upon the broad and clear
distinction which reason makes, and the charter sanctions. I
arraign the currency! I eschew all inquiry into the modes of
making bargains for the sale or purchase of bills of exchange,
buying and selling gold or silver bullion, building houses,
hiring officers, clerks, and servants, purchasing necessaries,
or laying in supplies of fuel and stationery.
"1. I object to it because it authorizes an issue _of currency
upon construction_. The issue of currency, sir, was the great
and main business for which the bank was created, and which it
is, in the twelfth article, expressly authorized to perform, and
I cannot pay so poor a compliment to the understandings of the
eminent men who framed that charter, as to suppose that they
left the main business of the bank to be found, by construction,
in an independent phrase, and that phrase to be found but once
in the whole charter. I cannot compliment their understandings
with the supposition that, after having authorized and defined
a currency, and subjected it to numerous restrictions, they had
left open the door to the issue of another sort of currency,
upon construction, which should supersede the kind they had
prescribed, and be free from every restriction to which the
prescribed currency was subject.
"Let us recapitulate. Let us sum up the points of
incompatibility between the characteristics of this currency,
and the requisites of the charter: let us group and contrast the
frightful features of their flagrant illegality. 1. Are they
signed by the president of the bank and his principal cashier?
They are not! 2. Are they under the corporate seal? Not at all!
3. Are they drawn in the name of the corporation? By no means!
4. Are they subject to the double limitation of time and amount
in case of credit? They are not; they may exceed sixty days'
time, and be less than one hundred dollars! 5. Are they limited
to the minimum size of five dollars? Not at all! 6. Are they
subject to the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury?
Not in the least! 7. The prohibition against suspending specie
payments? They are not subject to it! 8. The penalty of double
interest for delayed payment? Not subject to it! 9. Are they
payable where issued? Not at all, neither by their own terms,
nor by any law applicable to them! 10. Are they payable at
other branches? So far from it, that they were invented to
avoid such payment! 11. Are they transferable by delivery? No;
by indorsement! 12. Are they receivable in payment of public
dues? So far from it, that they are twice excluded from such
payments by positive enactments! 13. Are the directors liable
for excessive issues? Not at all! 14. Has the holder a right
to sue at the branch which issues the order? No, sir, he has
a right to go to Philadelphia, and sue the directors there! a
right about equivalent to the privilege of going to Mecca to
sue the successors of Mahomet for the bones of the prophet!
Fourteen points of contrariety and difference. Not a feature
of the charter in the faces of these orders. Every mark a
contrast; every lineament a contradiction; all announcing, or
rather denouncing, to the world, the positive fact of a spurious
progeny; the incontestable evidence of an illegitimate and
bastard issue.
"I have now, Mr. President, brought this branch bank currency
to the test of several provisions in the charter, not all of
them, but a few which are vital and decisive. The currency
fails at every test; and upon this failure I predicate an
argument of its total illegality. Thus far I have spoken upon
the charter, and have proved that if this currency can prevail,
that instrument, with all its restrictions and limitations, its
jealous, prohibitory constitution, and multiplied enactments for
the safety of the public, is nothing but a blank piece of paper
in the hands of the bank. I will now have recourse to another
class of arguments--a class extrinsic to the charter, but close
to the subject--indispensable to fair examination, and directly
bearing upon the illegal character of this currency.
"1. In the first place, I must insist that these orders cannot
possibly serve for currency, because they are subject to the
law of indorsable paper. The law which governs all such paper
is too universally known to be enlarged upon here. Presentation
for acceptance and payment, notice of default in either, prompt
return of the dishonored paper; and all this with rigorous
punctuality, and a loss of recourse for the slightest delay at
any point, are the leading features of this law. Now it is too
obvious that no paper subject to the law of indorsement can
answer the purposes of circulation. It will die on the hands
of the holders while passing from one to another, instead of
going to the place of payment. Now it is incontestable that
these orders are instruments negotiable by indorsement, and by
indorsement alone. Whether issued under the charter, or under
the general laws of the land, they are still subject to the law
of indorsable paper. They are the same in either case as if
drawn by one citizen upon another. And this is a point which I
mean to make clear: for many worthy people believe there is some
peculiar law for bank paper, which takes it out of the operation
of the general laws of the land. Not so the fact. The twelfth
fundamental article of the bank constitution declares that the
bills or notes to be issued by the bank shall be negotiable
in the same manner as if issued by a _private person_; that
is to say, those payable to a named person or his _order_, by
_indorsement_, in like manner and with the _like effect_ as
foreign bills of exchange; and those made payable to _bearer_
shall be negotiable by _delivery_ alone; in the same manner,
we may add, as a silver dollar. So much for these orders, if
drawn under the charter; if not drawn under it, they are then
issued under the general law of the land, or without any law
at all. Taken either under the charter or out of it, it comes
to the same point, namely, that these orders are subject to
the same law as if drawn by one private person upon another.
This is enough to fix their character, and to condemn them as
a circulating medium; it is enough for the people to know; for
every citizen knows enough of law to estimate the legal value
of an _unaccepted order_, drawn upon a man five hundred or one
thousand miles off! But it has the word _bearer_ on the back!
Yes, sir, and why not on the face as easily as on the back?
Our school-time acquaintance, Mr. President, the gentleman
from Cork, with his coat buttoned behind, had a sensible,
and, I will add, a lawful reason for arraying himself in that
grotesque habiliment; but what reason can the bank have for
putting bearer on the back of the order, where it has no effect
upon its negotiable character, and omitting it on the face,
where it would have governed the character, and secured to the
holder all the facilities for the prompt and easy recovery of
the contents of a paper transferable by mere delivery? The only
effect of this preposterous or cunning indorsement must be to
bamboozle the ignorant--pardon the low word, sir--to bamboozle
the ignorant with the belief that they are handling a currency
which may at any time be collected without proof, trouble, or
delay; while in reality it is a currency which reserves to the
bank all the legal defences which can be set up to prevent
the recovery of a parcel of old, unaccepted, unpresented,
unauthorized bills of exchange.
"2. I take a second exception to these orders as a currency.
It is this, that being once paid, they are done with. A note
transferable by delivery, may be reissued, and its payment
demanded again, and so on forever. But a bill of exchange, or
any paper subject to the same law with a bill of exchange, is
incapable of reissue, and is payable but once. The payment
once made, extinguishes the debt; the paper which evidenced it
is dead in law, and cannot be resuscitated by any act of the
parties. That payment can be plead in bar to any future action.
This law applies to checks and orders as well as to bills of
exchange; it applies to bank checks and orders as well as to
those of private persons, and this allegation alone would
annihilate every pretension of these branch bank orders to the
character of currency.
"The bank went into operation with the beginning of the year
1817; established eighteen branches, half a dozen of which in
the South and West; issued its own notes freely, and made large
issues of notes payable at all these branches. The course of
trade carried the branch notes of the South and West to the
Northeast; and nothing in the course of trade brought them back
to the West. They were payable in all demands to the federal
government; merchants in Philadelphia, New-York, and Boston
received them in payment of goods, and gave them--not back
again in payment of Southern and Western produce--but to the
collectors of the customs. Become the money of the government,
the bank had to treat them as cash. The fourteenth section
of the charter made them receivable in all payments to the
government, and another clause required the bank to transfer the
moneys of the government to any point ordered; these two clauses
(the transfer clause being harmless without the receiving one
contained in the fourteenth section) laid the bank under the
obligation to cash all the notes of all the branches wherever
presented; for, if she did not do it, she would be ordered to
transfer the notes to the place where they were payable, and
then to transfer the silver to the place where it was wanted;
and both these operations she had to perform at her own expense.
The Southern and Western branch notes flowed to the Northeast;
the gold and silver of the South and West were ordered to
follow them; and, in a little while, the specie of the South
and West was transferred to the Northeast; but the notes went
faster on horses and in mail stages than the silver could go in
wagons; and the parent bank in Philadelphia, and the branches
in New-York and Boston, exhausted by the double operation of
providing for their own, and for Southern and Western branch
notes besides, were on the point of stopping payment at the
end of two years. Mr. Cheves then came into the presidency; he
stopped the issue of Southern and Western branch paper, and
saved the bank from insolvency! Application was then made to
Congress to repeal the fourteenth section of the charter, and
thus relieve the bank from this obligation to cash its notes
every where. _Congress refused to do so._ Application was made
at the same time to repeal a part of the twelfth fundamental
article of the constitution of the bank, for the purpose of
relieving the president and principal cashier of the parent
bank from the labor of signing the five and ten dollar notes.
_Congress refused that application also._ And here every thing
rested while Mr. Cheves continued president. The Southern and
Western branches ceased to do business _as banks_; no bank
notes or bills were seen but those bearing the signatures of
the president and his principal cashier, and none of these
payable at Southern and Western branches. The profits of the
stockholders became inconsiderable, and the prospect of a
renewed charter was lost in the actual view of the inactivity
and uselessness of the bank in the South and West. Mr. Cheves
retired. He withdrew from an institution he had saved from
bankruptcy, but which he could not render useful to the South
and West; and then ensued a set of operations for enabling the
bank to do the things which Congress had refused to do for
it; that is to say, to avoid the operation of the fourteenth
section, and so much of the twelfth fundamental article as
related to the signature of the notes and bills of the bank.
These operations resulted in the invention of the _branch bank
orders_. These orders, now flooding the country, circulating
as notes, and considered every where as gold and silver
(because they are _voluntarily_ cashed at several branches, and
_erroneously_ received at every land office and custom-house),
have given to the bank its present apparent prosperity, its
temporary popularity, and its delusive cry of a sound and
uniform currency. This is my narrative; an appalling one, it
must be admitted; but let it stand for nothing if not sustained
by the proof.
"I have now established, Mr. President, as I trust and believe,
the truth of the first branch of my proposition, namely, that
this currency of branch bank orders is unauthorized by the
charter, and illegal. I will now say a few words in support of
the second branch of the proposition, namely, that this currency
ought to be suppressed.
"The mere fact of the illegality, sir, I should hold to be
sufficient to justify this suppression. In a country of laws,
the laws should be obeyed. No private individual should be
allowed to trample them under foot; much less a public man,
or public body; least of all, a great moneyed corporation
wielding above one hundred millions of dollars per annum, and
boldly contending with the federal government for the sceptre
of political power--_money is power!_ The Bank of the United
States possesses more money than the federal government; and
the question of power is now to be decided between them. That
question is wrapped up in the case before you. It is a case
of clear conviction of a violation of the laws by this great
moneyed corporation; and that not of a single statute, and by
inadvertence, and in a small matter, which concerns but few, but
in one general, sweeping, studied, and systematic infraction
of a whole code of laws--of an entire constitution, made for
its sole government and restraint--and the pernicious effects
of which enter into the revenues of the Union, and extend
themselves to every moneyed transaction between man and man.
This is the case of violated law which stands before you; and
if it goes unpunished, then do I say, the question of political
power is decided between the bank and the government. The
question of supremacy is at an end. Let there be no more talk
of restrictions or limitation in the charter. Grant a new one.
Grant it upon the spot. Grant it without words! Grant it in
blank! to save the directors from the labor of re-examination!
the court from the labor of constructions! and yourselves from
the radation of being publicly trampled under foot.
"I do insist, Mr. President, that this currency ought to
be suppressed for illegality alone, even if no pernicious
consequences could result from its circulation. But pernicious
consequences do result. The substituted currency is not the
equivalent of the branch bank notes, whose place it has usurped:
it is inferior to those notes in vital particulars, and to the
manifest danger and loss of the people.
"In the first place, these branch bank orders are _not payable
in the States in which they are issued_. Look at them! they are
nominally payable in Philadelphia! Look at the law! It gives the
holder no right to demand their contents at the branch bank,
until the order has been to Philadelphia, and returned. I lay
no stress upon the insidious circumstance that these orders are
now paid at the branch where issued, and at other branches. That
voluntary, delusive payment may satisfy those who are willing
to swallow a gilded hook; it may satisfy those who are willing
to hold their property at the will of the bank. For my part, I
want law for my rights. I look at the law, to the legal rights
of the holder, and say that he has no right to demand payment at
the branch which issued the order. The present custom of paying
is voluntary, not compulsory; it depends upon the will of the
bank, not upon law; and none but tyrants can require, or slaves
submit to, a tenure at will. These orders, even admitting them
to be legal, are only payable in Philadelphia and to demand
payment there, is a delusive and _impracticable right_. For the
body of the citizens cannot go to Philadelphia to get the change
for the small orders; merchants will not remit them; they would
as soon carry up the fires of hell to Philadelphia; for the bank
would consign them to ruin if they did. These orders are for
the frontiers; and it is made the interest and the policy of
merchants to leave them at home, and take a bill of exchange at
a nominal premium. Brokers alone will ever carry them, and that
as their own, after buying them out of the hands of the people
at a discount fixed by themselves.
"This contrivance, Mr. President, of issuing bank paper at one
place, payable at another and a distant place, is not a new
thing under the sun; but its success, if it succeeds here, will
be a new thing in the history of banking. This contrivance, sir,
is of European origin. It began in Scotland some years ago, with
a banker in _Aberdeen_, who issued promissory notes payable in
_London_. Then the Bank of Ireland set her branches in _Sligo_,
_Cork_, and _Belfast_, at the same work; and they made their
branch notes payable in _Dublin_. The English country bankers
took the hint, and put out their notes payable in _London_. The
mass of these notes were of the smaller denominations, one or
two pounds sterling, corresponding with our five and ten dollar
orders; such as were handled by the laboring classes, and who
could never carry them to _London_ and _Dublin_ to demand their
contents. At this point the British Imperial Parliament took
cognizance of the matter; treated the issue of such notes as a
vicious practice, violative of the very first idea of a sound
currency, and particularly dangerous to the laboring classes.
The parliament suppressed the practice. This all happened in the
year 1826; and now this practice, thus suppressed in _England_,
_Scotland_, and _Ireland_, is in full operation in our
_America!_ and the directors of the Bank of the United States
are celebrated, as the greatest of financiers, for picking up
an illegal practice of Scottish origin, and putting it into
operation in the United States, and that, too, in the very year
in which it was suppressed in Great Britain!"
Leave was not given to introduce the joint resolution. The friends
of the bank being a majority in the Senate, refused the motion, but
felt themselves bound to make defence for a currency so illegal
and vicious. Further discussion was stopped for that time; but
afterwards, on the question of the recharter, the illegality of
this kind of currency was fully established, and a clause put into
the new charter to suppress it. The veto message put an end to
the charter, and for the necessity of the remedy in that quarter;
but the practice has been taken up by local institutions and
private bankers in the States, and become an abuse which requires
extirpation.
CHAPTER LXI.
ERROR OF MONS. DE TOCQUEVILLE IN RELATION TO THE BANK OF THE UNITED
STATES, THE PRESIDENT, AND THE PEOPLE.
The first message of President Jackson, delivered at the
commencement of the session of 1829-30, confirmed the hopes
which the democracy had placed in him. It was a message of the
Jeffersonian school, and re-established the land-marks of party, as
parties were when founded on principle. Its salient point was the
Bank of the United States, and the non-renewal of its charter. He
was opposed to the renewal, both on grounds of constitutionality and
expediency; and took this early opportunity of so declaring, both
for the information of the people, and of the institution, that each
might know what they had to rely upon with respect to him. He said:
"The charter of the Bank of the United States expires in 1836,
and its stockholders will probably apply for a renewal of
their privileges. In order to avoid the evils resulting from
precipitancy in a measure involving such important principles,
and such deep pecuniary interests, I feel that I cannot, in
justice to the parties interested, too soon present it to the
deliberate consideration of the legislature and the people.
Both the constitutionality and the expediency of the law
creating this bank are well questioned by a large portion of
our fellow-citizens; and it must be admitted by all that it has
failed in the great end of establishing a uniform and sound
currency."
This passage was the grand feature of the message, rising above
precedent and judicial decisions going back to the constitution and
the foundation of party on principle; and risking a contest at the
commencement of his administration, which a mere politician would
have put off to the last. The Supreme Court had decided in favor of
the constitutionality of the institution; a democratic Congress,
in chartering a second bank, had yielded the question, both of
constitutionality and expediency. Mr. Madison, in signing the bank
charter in 1816, yielded to the authorities without surrendering
his convictions. But the effect was the same in behalf of the
institution, and against the constitution, and against the integrity
of party founded on principle. It threw down the greatest landmark
of party, and yielded a power of construction which nullified the
limitations of the constitution, and left Congress at liberty to
pass any law which it deemed _necessary_ to carry into effect any
granted power. The whole argument for the bank turned upon the word
"necessary" at the end of the enumerated powers granted to Congress;
and gave rise to the first great division of parties in Washington's
time--the federal party being for the construction which would
authorize a national bank; the democratic party (republican, as then
called,) being against it.
It was not merely the bank which the democracy opposed, but the
latitudinarian construction which would authorize it, and which
would enable Congress to substitute its own will in other cases for
the words of the constitution, and do what it pleased under the
plea of "necessary"--a plea under which they would be left as much
to their own will as under the "general welfare" clause. It was
the turning point between a strong and splendid government on one
side, doing what it pleased, and a plain economical government on
the other, limited by a written constitution. The construction was
the main point, because it made a gap in the constitution through
which Congress could pass any other measures which it deemed to
be "necessary:" still there were great objections to the bank
itself. Experience had shown such an institution to be a political
machine, adverse to free government, mingling in the elections and
legislation of the country, corrupting the press; and exerting its
influence in the only way known to the moneyed power--by corruption.
General Jackson's objections reached both heads of the case--the
unconstitutionality of the bank, and its inexpediency. It was a
return to the Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian times of the early
administration of General Washington, and went to the words of the
constitution, and not to the interpretations of its administrators,
for its meaning.
Such a message, from such a man--a man not apt to look back when
he had set his face forward--electrified the democratic spirit of
the country. The old democracy felt as if they were to see the
constitution restored before they died--the young, as if they were
summoned to the reconstruction of the work of their fathers. It was
evident that a great contest was coming on, and the odds entirely
against the President. On the one side, the undivided phalanx
of the federal party (for they had not then taken the name of
whig); a large part of the democratic party, yielding to precedent
and judicial decision; the bank itself, with its colossal money
power--its arms in every State by means of branches--its power over
the State banks--its power over the business community--over public
men who should become its debtors or retainers--its organization
under a single head, issuing its orders in secret, to be obeyed in
all places and by all subordinates at the same moment. Such was the
formidable array on one side: on the other side a divided democratic
party, disheartened by division, with nothing to rely upon but the
goodness of their cause, the _prestige_ of Jackson's name, and the
presidential power;--good against any thing less than two-thirds of
Congress on the final question of the re-charter; but the risk to
run of his non-election before the final question came on.
Under such circumstances it required a strong sense of duty in the
new President to commence his career by risking such a contest; but
he believed the institution to be unconstitutional and dangerous,
and that it ought to cease to exist; and there was a clause in the
constitution--that constitution which he had sworn to support--which
commanded him to recommend to Congress, for its consideration, such
measures as he should deem expedient and proper. Under this sense
of duty, and under the obligation of this oath, President Jackson
had recommended to Congress the non-renewal of the bank charter,
and the substitution of a different fiscal agent for the operations
of the government--if any such agent was required. And with his
accustomed frankness, and the fairness of a man who has nothing
but the public good in view, and with a disregard of self which
permits no personal consideration to stand in the way of a discharge
of a public duty, he made the recommendation six years before the
expiration of the charter, and in the first message of his first
term; thereby taking upon his hands such an enemy as the Bank of the
United States, at the very commencement of his administration. That
such a recommendation against such an institution should bring upon
the President and his supporters, violent attacks, both personal
and political, with arraignment of motives as well as of reasons,
was naturally to be expected; and that expectation was by no means
disappointed. Both he and they, during the seven years that the
back contest (in different forms) prevailed, received from it--from
the newspaper and periodical press in its interest, and from the
public speakers in its favor of every grade--an accumulation of
obloquy, and even of accusation, only lavished upon the oppressors
and plunderers of nations--a Verres, or a Hastings. This was natural
in such an institution. But President Jackson and his friends had
a right to expect fair treatment from history--from disinterested
history--which should aspire to truth, and which has no right to be
ignorant or careless. He and they had a right to expect justice from
such history; but this is what they have not received. A writer,
whose book takes him out of that class of European travellers
who requite the hospitality of Americans by disparagement of
their institutions, their country, and their character--one whose
general intelligence and candor entitle his errors to the honor of
correction--in brief, M. de Tocqueville--writes thus of President
Jackson and the Bank of the United States:
"When the President attacked the bank, the country was excited
and parties were formed; the well-informed classes rallied round
the bank, the common people round the President. But it must
not be imagined that the people had formed a rational opinion
upon a question which offers so many difficulties to the most
experienced statesman. The bank is a great establishment, which
enjoys an independent existence, and the people, accustomed
to make and unmake whatever it pleases, is startled to meet
with this obstacle to its authority. In the midst of the
perpetual fluctuation of society, the community is irritated
by so permanent an institution, and is led to attack in order
to see whether it can be shaken or controlled, like all other
institutions of the country."--(Chapter 10.)
Of this paragraph, so derogatory to President Jackson and the
people of the United States, every word is an error. Where a fact
is alleged, it is an error; where an opinion is expressed, it is an
error; where a theory is invented, it is fanciful and visionary.
President Jackson did not attack the bank; the bank attacked him,
and for political as well as pecuniary motives; and under the
lead of politicians. When General Jackson, in his first message,
of December, 1829, expressed his opinion to Congress against the
renewal of the bank's charter, he attacked no right or interest
which the bank possessed. It was an institution of limited
existence, enjoying great privileges,--among others a monopoly of
national banking, and had no right to any prolongation of existence
or privilege after the termination of its charter--so far from it,
if there was to be another bank, the doctrine of equal rights and no
monopolies or perpetuities required it to be thrown open to the free
competition of all the citizens. The reasons given by the President
were no attack upon the bank. He impugned neither the integrity nor
the skill of the institution, but repeated the objections of the
political school to which he belonged, and which were as old as Mr.
Jefferson's cabinet opinion to President Washington, in the year
1791, and Mr. Madison's great speech in the House of Representatives
in the same year. He, therefore, made no attack upon the bank,
either upon its existence, its character, or any one of its rights.
On the other hand, the bank did attack President Jackson, under the
lead of politicians, and for the purpose of breaking him down. The
facts were these: President Jackson had communicated his opinion
to Congress in December, 1829, against the renewal of the charter;
near three years afterwards, on the 9th of January, 1832, while
the charter had yet above three years to run, and a new Congress
to be elected before its expiration, and the presidential election
impending--(General Jackson and Mr. Clay the candidates)--the
memorial of the president and directors of the bank was suddenly
presented in the Senate of the United States, for the renewal of its
charter.
Now, how came that memorial to be presented at a time so
inopportune? so premature, so inevitably mixing itself with the
presidential election, and so encroaching upon the rights of the
people, in snatching the question out of their hands, and having
it decided by a Congress not elected for the purpose--and to the
usurpation of the rights of the Congress elected for the purpose?
How came all these anomalies? all these violations of right,
decency and propriety? They came thus, the bank and its leading
anti-Jackson friends believed that the institution was stronger
than the President--that it could beat him in the election--that
it could beat him in Congress (as it then stood), and carry the
charter,--driving him upon the _veto_ power, and rendering him
odious if he used it, and disgracing him if (after what he had
said) he did not. This was the opinion of the leading politicians
friendly to the bank, and inimical to the President. But the bank
had a class of friends in Congress also friendly to Gen. Jackson;
and between these two classes there was vehement opposition of
opinion on the point of moving for the new charter. It was found
impossible, in communications between Washington and Philadelphia,
then slow and uncertain, in stage coach conveyances, over miry roads
and frozen waters, to come to conclusions on the difficult point.
Mr. Biddle and the directors were in doubt, for it would not do to
move in the matter, unless all the friends of the bank in Congress
acted together. In this state of uncertainty, General Cadwallader,
of Philadelphia, friend and confidant of Mr. Biddle, and his usual
envoy in all the delicate bank negotiations or troubles, was sent to
Washington to obtain a result; and the union of both wings of the
bank party in favor of the desired movement. He came, and the mode
of operation was through the machinery of _caucus_--that contrivance
by which a few govern many. The two wings being of different
politics, sat separately, one headed by Mr. Clay, the other by Gen.
Samuel Smith, of Maryland. The two caucuses disagreed, but the
democratic being the smaller, and Mr. Clay's strong will dominating
the other, the resolution was taken to proceed, and all bound to go
together.
I had a friend in one of these councils who informed me regularly
of the progress made, and eventually that the point was carried for
the bank--that General Cadwallader had returned with the news, and
with injunctions to have the memorial immediately at Washington,
and by a given day. The day arrived, but not the memorial, and my
friend came to inform me the reason why; which was, that the stage
had got overturned in the bad roads and crippled Gen. Cadwallader
in the shoulder, and detained him; but that the delay would only be
of two days; and then the memorial would certainly arrive. It did
so; and on Monday, the 9th of January, 1832, was presented in the
Senate by Mr. Dallas, a senator from Pennsylvania, and resident
of Philadelphia, where the bank was established. Mr. Dallas was
democratic, and the friend of General Jackson, and on presenting the
memorial, as good as told all that I have now written, bating only
personal particulars. He said:
"That being requested to present this document to the Senate,
praying for a renewal of the existing charter of the bank, he
begged to be indulged in making a few explanatory remarks. With
unhesitating frankness he wished it to be understood by the
Senate, by the good commonwealth which it was alike his duty and
his pride to represent with fidelity on that floor, and by the
people generally, that this application, at this time, had been
discouraged by him. Actuated mainly, if not exclusively, by a
desire to preserve to the nation the practical benefits of the
institution, the expediency of bringing it forward thus early in
the term of its incorporation, during a popular representation
in Congress which must cease to exist some years before that
term expires, and on the eve of all the excitement incident to a
great political movement, struck his mind as more than doubtful.
He felt deep solicitude and apprehension lest, in the progress
of inquiry, and in the development of views, under present
circumstances, it might be drawn into real or imaginary conflict
with some higher, some more favorite, some more immediate wish
or purpose of the American people; and from such a conflict,
what sincere friend of this useful establishment would not
strive to save or rescue it, by at least a temporary forbearance
or delay?"
This was the language of Mr. Dallas, and it was equivalent to a
protest from a well-wisher of the bank against the perils and
improprieties of its open plunge into the presidential canvass,
for the purpose of defeating General Jackson and electing a friend
of its own. The prudential counsels of such men as Mr. Dallas did
not prevail; political counsels governed; the bank charter was
pushed--was carried through both Houses of Congress--dared the veto
of Jackson--received it--roused the people--and the bank and all
its friends were crushed. Then it affected to have been attacked
by Jackson; and Mons. de Tocqueville has carried that fiction into
history, with all the imaginary reasons for a groundless accusation,
which the bank had invented.
The remainder of this quotation from Mons. de Tocqueville is
profoundly erroneous, and deserves to be exposed, to prevent the
mischiefs which his book might do in Europe, and even in America,
among that class of our people who look to European writers for
information upon their own country. He speaks of the well-informed
classes who rallied round the bank; and the common people who
had formed no rational opinion upon the subject, and who joined
General Jackson. Certainly the great business community, with few
exceptions, comprising wealth, ability and education, went for the
bank, and the masses for General Jackson; but which had formed
the rational opinion is seen by the event. The "well-informed"
classes have bowed not merely to the decision, but to the
intelligence of the masses. They have adopted their opinion of the
institution--condemned it--repudiated it as an "obsolete idea;" and
of all its former advocates, not one exists now. All have yielded
to that instinctive sagacity of the people, which is an overmatch
for book-learning; and which being the result of common sense, is
usually right; and being disinterested, is always honest. I adduce
this instance--a grand national one--of the succumbing of the
well-informed classes to the instinctive sagacity of the people, not
merely to correct Mons. de Tocqueville, but for the higher purpose
of showing the capacity of the people for self-government. The rest
of the quotation, "the independent existence--the people accustomed
to make and unmake--startled at this obstacle--irritated at a
permanent institution--attack in order to shake and control;" all
this is fancy, or as the old English wrote it, fantasy--enlivened by
French vivacity into witty theory, as fallacious as witty.
I could wish I were done with quotations from Mons. de Tocqueville
on this subject; but he forces me to make another extract from his
book, and it is found in his chapter 18, thus:
"The slightest observation enables us to appreciate the
advantages which the country derives from the bank. Its notes
are taken on the borders of the desert for the same value as in
Philadelphia. It is nevertheless the object of great animosity.
Its directors have proclaimed their hostility to the President,
and are accused, not without some show of probability, of having
abused their influence to thwart his election. The President,
therefore, attacks the establishment with all the warmth of
personal enmity; and he is encouraged in the pursuit of his
revenge by the conviction that he is supported by the secret
propensities of the majority. It always holds a great number
of the notes issued by the provincial banks, which it can at
any time oblige them to convert into cash. It has itself
nothing to fear from a similar demand, as the extent of its
resources enables it to meet all claims. But the existence of
the provincial banks is thus threatened, and their operations
are restricted, since they are only able to issue a quantity
of notes duly proportioned to their capital. They submit with
impatience to this salutary control. The newspapers which they
have bought over, and the President, whose interest renders him
their instrument, attack the bank with the greatest vehemence.
They rouse the local passions and the blind democratic instinct
of the country to aid in their cause; and they assert that
the bank directors form a permanent aristocratic body, whose
influence must ultimately be felt in the government, and must
affect those principles of equality--upon which society rests in
America."
Now, while Mons. de Tocqueville was arranging all this fine
encomium upon the bank, and all this censure upon its adversaries,
the whole of which is nothing but a French translation of the
bank publications of the day, for itself and against President
Jackson--during all this time there was a process going on in the
Congress of the United States, by which it was proved that the bank
was then insolvent, and living from day to day upon expedients; and
getting hold of property and money by contrivances which the law
would qualify as swindling--plundering its own stockholders--and
bribing individuals, institutions, and members of legislative
bodies, wherever it could be done. Those fine notes, of which he
speaks, were then without solid value. The salutary restraint
attributed to its control over local banks was soon exemplified in
its forcing many of them into complicity in its crimes, and all
into two general suspensions of specie payments, headed by itself.
Its solidity and its honor were soon shown in open bankruptcy--in
the dishonor of its notes--the violation of sacred deposits--the
disappearance of its capital--the destruction of institutions
connected with it--the extinction of fifty-six millions of capital
(its own, and that of others drawn into its vortex);--and the ruin
or damage of families, both foreign and American, who had been
induced by its name, and by its delusive exhibitions of credit,
to invest their money in its stock. Placing the opposition of
President Jackson to such an institution to the account of base and
personal motives--to feelings of revenge because he had been unable
to seduce it into his support--is an error of fact manifested by
all the history of the case; to say nothing of his own personal
character. He was a senator in Congress during the existence of
the first national bank, and was against it; and on the same
grounds of unconstitutionality and of inexpediency. He delivered
his opinion against this second one before it had manifested any
hostility to him. His first opposition was abstract--against the
institution--without reference to its conduct; he knew nothing
against it then, and neither said, or insinuated any thing against
it. Subsequently, when misconduct was discovered, he charged it;
and openly and responsibly. Equally unfounded is the insinuation in
another place, of subserviency to local banks. He, the instrument of
local banks! he who could not be made the friend, even, of the great
bank itself; who was all his life a hard money man--an opposer of
all banks--the denouncer of delinquent banks in his own State; who,
with one stroke of his pen, in the recess of Congress, and against
its will, in the summer of 1836, struck all their notes from the
list of land-office payments! and whose last message to Congress,
and in his farewell address to the people, admonished them earnestly
and affectionately against the whole system of paper money--the
evils of which he feelingly described as falling heaviest upon the
most meritorious part of the community, and the part least able to
bear them--the productive classes.
The object of this chapter is to correct this error of Mons.
de Tocqueville, and to vindicate history, and to do justice to
General Jackson and the democracy: and my task is easy. Events
have done it for me--have answered every question on which the
bank controversy depended, and have nullified every argument in
favor of the bank--and that both with, and without reference
to its misconduct. As an institution, it has been proved to be
"unnecessary," and the country is found to do infinitely better
without it than with it. During the twenty years of its existence
there was pecuniary distress in the country--periodical returns of
expansion and contraction, deranged currency, ruined exchanges,
panics and convulsions in the money market. In the almost twenty
years which have elapsed since, these calamitous words have never
been heard: and the contrast of the two periods will make the
condemnation of one, and the eulogy of the other. There was no gold
during the existence of the bank: there has been an ample gold
currency ever since, and that before we got California. There were
general suspensions of specie payments during its time; and none
since. Exchanges were deranged during its existence: they have been
regular since its death. Labor and property lived the life of "up
and down"--high price one day, no price another day--while the bank
ruled: both have been "up" all the time, since it has been gone.
We have had a war since--a foreign war--which tries the strength
of financial systems in all countries; and have gone through this
war not only without a financial crisis, but with a financial
triumph--the public securities remaining above par the whole time;
and the government paying to its war debt creditors a reward
of twenty dollars upon the hundred to get them to accept their
pay before it is due; and in this shining side of the contrast,
experience has invalidated the decision of the Supreme Court,
by expunging the sole argument upon which the decision rested.
"Necessity," "necessary to carry into effect the granted powers,"
was the decision of the court. Not so, the voice of experience. That
has proved such an institution to be unnecessary. Every granted
power, and some not granted, have been carried into effect since the
extinction of the national bank, and since the substitution of the
gold currency and the independent treasury; and all with triumphant
success--the war power above all, and most successfully exercised
of all. And this sole foundation for the court's decision in favor
of the constitutionality of the bank being removed, the decision
itself vanishes--disappears--"like the baseless fabric of a vision,
leaving not a wreck behind." But there will be a time hereafter for
the celebration of this victory of the constitution over the Supreme
Court--the only object of this chapter being to vindicate General
Jackson and the people from the errors of Mons. de Tocqueville in
relation to them and the bank: which is done.
CHAPTER LXII.
EXPENSES OF THE GOVERNMENT.
Economy in the government expenditures was a cardinal feature in
the democratic policy, and every increase of expense was closely
scrutinized by them, and brought to the test of the clearest
necessity. Some increase was incident to the growing condition
of the country; but every item beyond the exigencies of that
growth was subjected to severe investigation and determined
opposition. In the execution of this policy the expenses proper
of the government--those incident to working its machinery--were,
immediately after my entrance into the Senate, and after the army
and other reductions of 1820 and '21 had taken effect--just about
eight millions of dollars. The same expenditure up to the beginning
of the year 1832--a period of about ten years--had risen to thirteen
and a half millions: and, adverting to this increase in some current
debate, and with a view to fix attention upon the growing evil, I
stated to the Senate that these expenses had nearly doubled since
I had been a member of the Senate. This statement drew a reply
from the veteran chairman of the Senate's committee on finance
(General Smith, of Maryland), in opposition to my statement; which,
of course, drew further remarks from me. Both sets of remarks are
valuable at this day--instructive in the picture they present
between 1822--1832--and 1850. Gen. Smith's estimate of about ten
millions instead of eight--though predicated on the wrong basis of
beginning to count before the expenses of the army reduction had
taken effect, and counting in the purchase of Florida, and some
other items of a nature foreign to the support of government--even
his estimate presents a startling point of comparison with the same
expenditure of the present day; and calls for the revival of that
spirit of economy which distinguished the democracy in the earlier
periods of the government. Some passages from the speech of each
senator (General Smith and Mr. Benton) will present this brief, but
important inquiry, in its proper point of view. Gen. Smith said:
"I will now come, Mr. President, to my principal object. It is
the assertion, 'that, since the year 1821, the expenses of the
government had nearly doubled;' and I trust I shall be able to
show that the senator from Missouri [Mr. Benton] had been under
some misapprehension. The Senate are aware of the effect which
such an assertion, coming from such high authority, must have
upon the public mind. It certainly had its effect even upon this
enlightened body. I mentioned to an honorable senator a few days
since, that the average ordinary expenditure of the government
for the last nine years did not exceed the sum of twelve and a
half millions. But, said the senator, the expenditures have
greatly increased during that period. I told him I thought they
had not; and I now proceed to prove, that, with the exception of
four years, viz., 1821, 1822, 1823, and 1824, the expenditures
of the government have not increased. I shall endeavor to show
the causes of the reduction of expenses during those years, and
that they afford no criteria by which to judge of the necessary
expenses of government, and that they are exceptions to the
general rate of expenditures, arising from particular causes.
But even they exhibit an expenditure far above the one half of
the present annual ordinary expenses.
"In the year 1822, which was the period when the senator from
Missouri [Mr. Benton] took his seat in the Senate, the ordinary
expenses of the government amounted to the sum of $9,827,643.
The expenses of the year 1823, amounted to $9,784,154. I
proceed, Mr. President, to show the cause which thus reduced
the ordinary expenses during these years. I speak in the
presence of gentlemen, some of whom were then in the House of
Representatives, and will correct me if my recollection should
lead me into error. During the session of the year 1819-'20 the
President asked a loan, I think, of five millions, to defray the
expenses of the government, which he had deemed necessary, and
for which estimates had, as usual, been laid before Congress.
A loan of three millions only was granted; and, in the next
session, another loan of, I think, seven millions was asked, in
order to enable the Executive to meet the amount of expenses
estimated for, as necessary for the year 1821. A loan of five
millions was granted, and in the succeeding year another loan of
five hundred thousand dollars was asked, and refused. Congress
were dissatisfied that loans should be required in time of
profound peace, to meet the common expenses of the nation; and
they refused to grant the amount asked for in the estimates,
although this amount would have been granted if there had been
money in the treasury to meet them, without resorting to loans.
The Committee of Ways and Means (and it was supported by the
House) lessened some of the items estimated for, and refused
others. No item, except such as was indispensably necessary,
was granted. By the adoption of this course, the expenditures
were reduced, in 1821, to $10,723,479, and to the sums already
mentioned for the two years, 1822 and 1823, and the current
expenses of 1824. $10,330,144. The consequence was, that the
treasury was restored to a sound state, so that Congress was
enabled, in the year 1825, to appropriate the full amount of the
estimate. The expenditures of 1824 amounted to $15,330,144. This
large expenditure is to be attributed to the payment made to
Spain in that year, of $5,000,000 for the purchase of Florida.
I entertained doubts whether I ought to include this sum in the
expenditures; but, on full consideration, I deemed it proper to
include it. It may be said that it was an extraordinary payment,
and such as could not again occur. So is the payment on
account of awards under the Treaty of Ghent, in 1827 and 1828,
amounting to $1,188,716. Of the same character, too, are the
payments made for the purchase of lands from the Indians; for
the removal of the Indians; for payments to the several States
for moneys advanced during the late war; and a variety of other
extraordinary charges on the treasury."
The error of this statement was in the basis of the calculation,
and in the inclusion of items which did not belong to the expenses
proper of the government, and in beginning to count before the year
of reduction--the whole of which, in a period of ten years made
an excess of twenty-two millions above the ordinary expenses. I
answered thus:
"Mr. Benton rose in reply to the senator from Maryland. Mr. B.
said that a remark of his, in a former debate, seemed to have
been the occasion of the elaborate financial statements which
the senator from Maryland had just gone through. Mr. B. said he
had made the remark, in debate; it was a general one, and not to
be treated as an account stated by an accounting officer. His
remark was, that the public expenditure had nearly doubled since
he had been a member of the Senate. Neither the words used, nor
the mode of the expression, implied the accuracy of an account;
it was a remark to signify a great and inordinate increase in
a comparatively short time. He had not come to the Senate this
day with the least expectation of being called to justify that
remark, or to hear a long arraignment of it argued; but he was
ready at all times to justify, and he would quickly do it. Mr.
B. said that when he made the remark, he had no statement of
accounts in his eye, but he had two great and broad facts before
him, which all the figures and calculations upon earth, and
all the compound and comparative statements of arithmeticians,
could not shake or alter; which were--first, that when he came
into the Senate the machinery of this government was worked
for between eight and nine millions of dollars; and, secondly,
the actual payments for the last year, in the President's
message, were about fourteen millions and three-quarters. The
sum estimated for the future expenditures, by the Secretary of
the Treasury, was thirteen and a half millions; but fifteen
millions were recommended by him to be levied to meet increased
expenditures. Mr. B. said these were two great facts which he
had in his eye, and which he would justify. He would produce no
proofs as to the second of his facts, because the President's
message and the Secretary's report were so recently sent in, and
so universally reprinted, that every person could recollect,
or turn to their contents, and verify his statement upon their
own examination or recollection. He would verify his first
statement only by proofs, and for that purpose would refer to
the detailed statements of the public expenditures, compiled
by Van Zandt and Watterston, and for which he had just sent to
the room of the Secretary of the Senate. Mr. B. would take the
years 1822-'3; for he was not simple enough to take the years
before the reduction of the army, when he was looking for the
lowest expenditure. Four thousand men were disbanded, and had
remained disbanded ever since; they were disbanded since he came
into the Senate; he would therefore date from that reduction.
This would bring him to the years 1822-'3, when you, sir (the
Vice-President), was Secretary of War. What was the whole
expenditure of the government for each of those years? It stood
thus:
1822, $17,676,592 63
1823, 15,314,171 00
"These two sums include every head of expenditure--they include
public debt, revolutionary and invalid pensions; three heads of
temporary expenditure. The payments on account of the public
debt in those two years, were--
In 1822, $7,848,919 12
1823, 5,530,016 41
"Deduct these two sums from the total expenditure of the years
to which they refer, and you will have--
For 1822, $9,727,673 41
1823, 9,784,155 59
"The pensions for those years were--
_Revolutionary._ _Invalid._ _Aggregate._
1822, $1,642,590 94 $305,608 46 $1,947,199 40
1823, 1,449,097 04 331,491 48 1,730,588 52
"Now, deduct these pensions from the years to which they refer,
and you will have just about $8,000,000 as the expense of
working the machinery of government at the period which I had
in my eye. But the pensions have not yet totally ceased; they
are much diminished since 1822, 1823, and in a few years must
cease. The revolutionary pensioners must now average seventy
years of age; their stipends will soon cease. I hold myself well
justified, then, in saying, as I did, that the expenditures of
the government have nearly doubled in my time. The remark had
no reference to administrations. There was nothing comparative
in it; nothing intended to put up, or put down, any body. The
burdens of the people is the only thing I wish to put down. My
service in the Senate has extended under three administrations,
and my periods of calculation extend to all three. My opinion
now is, that the machinery of this government, after the payment
of the public debt, should be worked for ten millions or less,
and two millions more for extraordinaries; in all twelve
millions; but this is a point for future discussion. My present
object is to show a great increase in a short time; and to show
that, not to affect individuals, but to show the necessity of
practising what we all profess--economy. I am against keeping
up a revenue, after the debt and pensions are paid, as large,
or nearly as large, as the expenditure was in 1822, 1823, with
these items included. I am for throwing down my load, when I get
to the end of my journey. I am for throwing off the burden of
the debt, when I get to the end of the debt. The burden of the
debt is the taxes levied on account of it. I am for abolishing
these taxes; and this is the great question upon which parties
now go to trial before the American people. One word more, and I
am done for the present. The senator for Maryland, to make up a
goodly average for 1822, and 1823, adds the expenditure of 1824,
which includes, besides sixteen millions and a half for the
public debt, and a million and a half for pensions, the sum of
five millions for the purchase of Florida. Sir, he must deduct
twenty-two millions from that computation; and that deduction
will bring his average for those years to agree very closely
with my statement."
It was something at the time this inquiry took place to know which
was right--General Smith, or myself. Two millions, more or less,
per annum in the public expenditures, was then something--a thing
to be talked about, and accounted for, among the economical men of
that day. It seems to be nothing now, when the increases are many
millions per annum--when personal and job legislation have become
the frequent practice--when contracts are legislated to adventurers
and speculators--when the halls of Congress have come to be
considered the proper place to lay the foundations, or to repair the
dilapidations of millionary fortunes: and when the public fisc, and
the national domain may consider themselves fortunate sometimes in
getting off with a loss of two millions in a single operation.
CHAPTER LXIII.
BANK OF THE UNITED STATES--RECHARTER COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
In the month of December 1831, the "National Republicans" (as the
party was then called which afterwards took the name of "whig"),
assembled in convention at Baltimore to nominate candidates of
their party for the presidential, and vice-presidential election,
which was to take place in the autumn of the ensuing year. The
nominations were made--Henry Clay of Kentucky, for President;
and John Sergeant of Pennsylvania for Vice-President: and the
nominations accepted by them respectively. Afterwards, and according
to what was usual on such occasions, the convention issued an
address to the people of the United States, setting forth the
merits of their own, and the demerits of the opposite candidate;
and presenting the party issues which were to be tried in the
ensuing elections. So far as these issues were political, they were
legitimate subjects to place before the people: so far as they were
not political, they were illegitimate, and wrongfully dragged into
the political arena, to be made subservient to party elevation.
Of this character were the topics of the tariff, of internal
improvement, the removal of the Cherokee Indians, and the renewal of
the United States Bank charter. Of these four subjects, all of them
in their nature unconnected with politics, and requiring for their
own good to remain so unconnected, I now notice but one--that of the
renewal of the charter of the existing national bank;--and which was
now presented as a party object, and as an issue in the election,
and under all the exaggerated aspects which party tactics consider
lawful in the prosecution of their aims. The address said:
"Next to the great measures of policy which protect and
encourage domestic industry, the most important question,
connected with the economical policy of the country, is
that of the bank. This great and beneficial institution, by
facilitating exchanges between different parts of the Union, and
maintaining a sound, ample, and healthy state of the currency,
may be said to supply the body politic, economically viewed,
with a continual stream of life-blood, without which it must
inevitably languish, and sink into exhaustion. It was first
conceived and organized by the powerful mind of Hamilton. After
having been temporarily shaken by the honest though groundless
scruples of other statesmen, it has been recalled to existence
by the general consent of all parties, and with the universal
approbation of the people. Under the ablest and most faithful
management it has been for many years past pursuing a course
of steady and constantly increasing influence. Such is the
institution which the President has gone out of his way in
several successive messages, without a pretence of necessity or
plausible motive, in the first instance six years before his
suggestion could with any propriety be acted upon, to denounce
to Congress as a sort of nuisance, and consign, as far as his
influence extends, to immediate destruction.
"For this denunciation no pretext of any adequate motive is
assigned. At a time when the institution is known to all to
be in the most efficient and prosperous state--to be doing
all that any bank ever did or can do, we are briefly told in
ten words, that it has not effected the objects for which it
was instituted, and must be abolished. Another institution is
recommended as a substitute, which, so far as the description
given of it can be understood, would be no better than a machine
in the hands of the government for fabricating and issuing paper
money without check or responsibility. In his recent message
to Congress, the President declares, for the third time, his
opinion on these subjects, in the same concise and authoritative
style as before, and intimates that he shall consider his
re-election as an expression of the opinion of the people that
they ought to be acted on. If, therefore, the President be
re-elected, it may be considered certain that the bank will be
abolished, and the institution which he has recommended, or
something like it, substituted in its place.
"Are the people of the United States prepared for this? Are
they ready to destroy one of their most valuable establishments
to gratify the caprice of a chief magistrate, who reasons,
and advises upon a subject, with the details of which he is
evidently unacquainted, in direct contradiction to the opinion
of his own official counsellors? Are the enterprising, liberal,
high-minded, and intelligent _merchants_ of the Union willing
to countenance such a measure? Are the cultivators of the West,
who find in the Bank of the United States a never-failing source
of that _capital_, which is so essential to their prosperity,
and which they can get nowhere else, prepared to lend their
aid in drying up the fountain of their own prosperity? Is
there any class of the people or section of the Union so lost
to every sentiment of common prudence, so regardless of all
the principles of republican government, as to place in the
hands of the executive department the means of an irresponsible
and unlimited issue of paper money--in other words, the means
of corruption without check or bounds? If such be, in fact,
the wishes of the people, they will act with consistency and
propriety in voting for General Jackson, as President of the
United States; for, by his re-election, all these disastrous
effects will certainly be produced. He is fully and three times
over pledged to the people to negative any bill that may be
passed for re-chartering the bank, and there is little doubt
that the additional influence which he would acquire by a
re-election, would be employed to carry through Congress the
extraordinary substitute which he has repeatedly proposed."
Thus the bank question was fully presented as an issue in the
election by that part of its friends which classed politically
against President Jackson; but it had also democratic friends,
without whose aid the recharter could not be got through Congress;
and the result produced which was contemplated with hope and
pleasure--responsibility of a veto thrown upon the President.
The consent of this wing was necessary: and it was obtained as
related in a previous chapter, through the instrumentality of a
caucus--that contrivance of modern invention by which a few govern
many--by which the many are not only led by the few, but subjugated
by them, and turned against themselves and after having performed
at the caucus as a _figurante_ (to make up a majority), become
real actors in doing what they condemn. The two wings of the bank
friends were brought together by this machinery, as already related
in chapter lxi.; and operations for the new charter immediately
commenced, in conformity to the decision. On the 9th day of January
the memorial of the President, Directors & Company of the Bank
was presented in each House--by Mr. Dallas in the Senate, and Mr.
McDuffie in the House of Representatives; and while condemning the
time of bringing forward the question of the recharter, Mr. Dallas,
in further intimation of his previously signified opinion of its
then dangerous introduction, said: "He became a willing, as he was
virtually an instructed agent, in promoting to the extent of his
humble ability, an object which, _however dangerously timed its
introduction might seem_, was in itself as he conceived, entitled to
every consideration and favor." Mr. Dallas then moved for a select
committee to revise, consider, and report upon the memorial--which
motion was granted, and Messrs. Dallas, Webster, Ewing of Ohio,
Hayne of South Carolina, and Johnston of Louisiana, were appointed
the committee--elected for that purpose by a vote of the Senate--and
all except one favorable to the recharter.
In the House of Representatives Mr. McDuffie did not ask for the
same reference--a select committee--but to the standing committee
of Ways and Means, of which he was chairman, and which was mainly
composed of the same members as at the previous session when it
reported so elaborately in favor of the bank. The reason of this
difference on the point of the reference was understood to be this:
that in the Senate the committee being elective, and the majority of
the body favorable to the bank, a favorable committee was certain
to be had on ballot--while in the House the appointment of the
committee being in the hands of the Speaker (Mr. Stevenson), and he
adverse to the institution, the same favorable result could not be
safely counted on; and, therefore, the select committee was avoided,
and the one known to be favorable was preferred. This led to an
adverse motion to refer to a select committee--in support of which
motion Mr. Wayne of Georgia, since appointed one of the justices of
the Supreme Court, said:
"That he had on a former occasion expressed his objection to the
reference of this subject to the Committee of Ways and Means;
and he should not trouble the House by repeating now what he
had advanced at the commencement of the session in favor of the
appointment of a select committee; but he called upon gentlemen
to consider what was the attitude of the Committee of Ways and
Means in reference to the bank question, and to compare it
with the attitude in which that question had been presented
to the House by the President of the United States; and he
would ask, whether it was not manifestly proper to submit the
memorial to a committee entirely uncommitted upon the subject.
But this was not the object for which he had risen; the present
question had not come upon him unexpectedly; he had been aware
before he entered the House that a memorial of this kind would
this morning be presented; and when he looked back upon the
occurrences of the last four weeks, and remembered what had
taken place at a late convention in Baltimore, and the motives
which had been avowed for bringing forward the subject at this
time, he must say that gentlemen ought not to permit a petition
of this kind to receive the attention of the House. Who could
doubt that the presentation of that memorial was in fact a party
measure, intended to have an important operation on persons
occupying the highest offices of the government? If, however,
it should be considered necessary to enter upon the subject at
the present time, Mr. Wayne said he was prepared to meet it. But
when gentlemen saw distinctly before their eyes the motive of
such a proceeding, he hoped that, notwithstanding there might
be a majority in the House in favor of the bank, gentlemen
would not lend themselves to that kind of action. Could it be
necessary to take up the question of rechartering the bank at
the present session? Gentlemen all knew that four years must
pass before its charter would expire, and that Congress had
power to extend the period, if further time was necessary to
wind up its affairs. It was known that other subjects of an
exciting character must come up during the present session and
could there be any necessity or propriety in throwing additional
matter into the House, calculated to raise that excitement yet
higher?"
Mr. McDuffie absolved himself from all connection with the Baltimore
national republican convention, and claimed like absolution for the
directory of the bank; and intimated that a caucus consultation to
which democratic members were party, had led to the presentation
of the memorial at this time;--an intimation entirely true, only
it should have comprehended all the friends of the bank of both
political parties. A running debate took place on these motions, in
which many members engaged. Admitting that the parliamentary law
required a friendly committee for the application, it was yet urged
that that committee should be a select one, charged with the single
subject, and with leisure to make investigations;--which leisure
the Committee of Ways did not possess--and could merely report as
formerly, and without giving any additional information to the
House. Mr. Archer of Virginia, said:
"As regarded the disposal of the memorial, it appeared clear
to him that a select committee would be the proper one. This
had been the disposal adopted with all former memorials. Why
vary the mode now? The subject was of a magnitude to entitle it
to a special committee. As regarded the Committee of Ways and
Means, with its important functions, were not its hands to be
regarded as too full for the great attention which this matter
must demand? It was to be remarked, too, that this committee,
at a former session, with little variety in its composition,
had, in the most formal manner, expressed its opinion on the
great question involved. We ought not, as had been said, to put
the memorial to a nurse which would strangle it. Neither would
it be proper to send it to an inquest in which its fate had
been prejudged. Let it go to either the Committee of Ways and
Means, or a select committee; the chairman of that committee
would stand as he ought, in the same relation to it. If the
last disposal were adopted, too, the majority of the committee
would consist, under the usage in that respect, of friends of
the measure. The recommendation of this mode was, that it would
present the nearest approach to equality in the contest, of
which the case admitted.
"Mr. Mitchell, of South Carolina, said that he concurred
entirely in the views of his friend from Georgia [Mr. Wayne].
He did not think that the bank question ought to be taken up at
all this session; but if it were, it ought most unquestionably
to be referred to a select committee. He saw no reason, however,
for its being referred at all. The member from South Carolina
[Mr. McDuffie] tells us, said Mr. M., that it involves the vast
amount of fifty millions of dollars; that this is dispersed to
every class of people in our widely extended country; and if
the question of rechartering were not decided now, it would
hazard these great and complicated interests. Mr. M. said he
attached no importance to this argument. The stockholders who
met lately at Philadelphia thought differently, for, by a solemn
resolution, they left it discretionary with the president of
the bank to propose the question to Congress when he saw fit.
If they had thought that a postponement would have endangered
their interests, would they not have said so? This fact does
away the argument of the member from South Carolina. The bank
question was decided by the strongest party question which could
be put to this or any House. It has been twice discussed within
a few years. It was rejected once in the Senate by the vote of
the Vice-President, and it afterwards passed this House with a
majority of two. It would divide the whole country, and excite
on that floor, feelings of the most exasperated bitterness.
Not a party question? Does not the member from South Carolina
[Mr. McDuffie] remember that this question divided the country
into federalists and republicans? It was a great constitutional
question, and he hoped all those who thought with him, would
rally against it in all their strength. But why refer it to
the Committee of Ways and Means? It was committed before to a
select committee on national currency. If this question was
merely financial, as whether we should sell our stock, and, if
we did, whether we should sell it to the bank, he would not
object to its being referred to the Committee of Ways and Means.
But it was not a question of revenue. It was one of policy and
the constitution--one of vast magnitude and of the greatest
complexity--requiring a committee of the most distinguished
abilities on that floor. It was a party question in reference to
men and things out of doors. Those who deny this, must be blind
to every thing around them--we hear it every where--we see it
in all which we read. Sir, we have now on hand a topic which
must engross every thought and feeling--a topic which perhaps
involves the destinies of this nation--a topic of such magnitude
as to occupy us the remainder of the session; I mean the tariff.
I hope, therefore, this memorial will be laid on the table, and,
if not, that it will be referred to a select committee."
Mr. Charles Johnston, of Virginia, said:
"The bank has been of late distinctly and repeatedly charged
with using its funds, and the funds of the people of these
States, in operating upon and controlling public opinion. He did
not mean to express any opinion as to the truth or falsehood
of this accusation, but it was of sufficient consequence to
demand an accurate inquiry. The bank was further charged with
violating its charter, in the issue of a great number of small
drafts to a large amount, and payable, in the language of the
honorable member from New-York [Mr. Cambreleng], "nowhere;"
this charge, also, deserved inquiry. There were other charges
of maladministration which equally deserved inquiry; and it was
his [Mr. J.'s] intention, at a future day, unless some other
gentleman more versed in the business of the House anticipated
him, to press these inquiries by a series of instructions to
the committee intrusted with the subject. Mr. J. urged as an
objection to referring this inquiry to the Committee of Ways
and Means, that so much of their time would be occupied with
the regular and important business connected with the fiscal
operations of the government, that they could not spare labor
enough to accomplish the minute investigations wanted at their
hands. We had been further told that all the members of that
committee were friendly to the project of rechartering the bank,
and the honorable gentleman [Mr. Mercer] had relied upon the
fact, as a fair exponent of public opinion in favor of the bank.
He [Mr. J.] added, that although he could by no means assent to
the force of this remark, yet that it furnished strong reason
for those who wished a close scrutiny of the administration of
the bank, to wish some gentlemen placed on the committee of
inquiry, who would be actuated by the zeal of fair opposition to
the bank; he conceded that a majority of the committee should
be composed of its friends. He concluded, by hoping that the
memorial would be referred to a select committee."
Finally the vote was taken, and the memorial referred to the
Committee of Ways and Means, but by a slender majority--100 against
90--and 24 members absent, or not voting. The members of the
committee were: Messrs. McDuffie, of South Carolina; Verplanck of
New-York; Ingersoll, of Connecticut; Gilmore, of Pennsylvania; Mark
Alexander, of Virginia; Wilde, of Georgia; and Gaither, of Kentucky.
CHAPTER LXIV.
BANK OF THE UNITED STATES--COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION ORDERED.
SEEING the state of parties in Congress, and the tactics of the
bank--that there was a majority in each House for the institution,
and no intention to lose time in arguing for it--our course of
action became obvious, which was--to attack incessantly, assail
at all points, display the evil of the institution, rouse the
people--and prepare them to sustain the veto. It was seen to be the
policy of the bank leaders to carry the charter first, and quietly
through the Senate; and afterwards, in the same way in the House.
We determined to have a contest in both places; and to force the
bank into defences which would engage it in a general combat, and
lay it open to side-blow, as well as direct attacks. With this view
a great many amendments and inquiries were prepared to be offered
in the Senate, all of them proper, or plausible, recommendable in
themselves, and supported by acceptable reasons; which the friends
of the bank must either answer, or reject without answer; and so
incur odium. In the House it was determined to make a move, which,
whether resisted or admitted by the bank majority, would be certain
to have an effect against the institution--namely, an investigation
by a committee of the House, as provided for in the charter. If
the investigation was denied, it would be guilt shrinking from
detection; if admitted, it was well known that misconduct would he
found. I conceived this movement, and had charge of its direction.
I preferred the House for the theatre of investigation, as most
appropriate, being the grand inquest of the nation; and, besides,
wished a contest to be going on there while the Senate was engaged
in passing the charter; and the right to raise the committee was
complete, in either House. Besides the right reserved in the
charter, there was a natural right, when the corporation was asked
for a renewed lease, to inquire how it had acted under the previous
one. I got Mr. Clayton, a new member from Georgia (who had written a
pamphlet against the bank in his own State), to take charge of the
movement; and gave him a memorandum of seven alleged breaches of the
charter, and fifteen instances of imputed misconduct, to inquire
into, if he got his committee; or to allege on the floor, if he
encountered resistance.
On Thursday, the 23d of February, Mr. Clayton made his motion--"That
a select committee be appointed to examine into the affairs of
the Bank of the United States, with power to send for persons and
papers, and to report the result of their inquiries to the House."
This motion was objected to, and its consideration postponed until
the ensuing Monday. Called up on that day, an attempt was made
to repulse it from the consideration of the House. Mr. Watmough,
a representative from Pennsylvania, and from the city, a friend
to the bank, and from his locality and friendship supposed to be
familiar with its wishes, raised the question of consideration--that
is, called on the House to decide whether they would consider
Mr. Clayton's motion; a question which is only raised under the
parliamentary law where the motion is too frivolous, or flagrantly
improper, to receive the attention of the House. It was a false
move on the part of the institution; and the more so as it seemed
to be the result of deliberation, and came from its immediate
representative. Mr. Polk, of Tennessee, saw the advantage presented;
and as the question of consideration was not debatable, he demanded,
as the only mode of holding the movement to its responsibility,
the yeas and nays on Mr. Watmough's question. But it went off on a
different point--a point of order--the question of consideration
not lying after the House has taken action on the subject; and in
this case that had been done--very little action to be sure--only
postponing the consideration from one day to another; but enough to
satisfy the rule; and so the motion of Mr. Watmough was disallowed;
and the question of consideration let in. Another movement was then
made to cut off discussion, and get rid of the resolution, by a
motion to lay it on the table, also made by a friend of the bank
[Mr. Lewis Williams, of North Carolina]. This motion was withdrawn
at the instance of Mr. McDuffie, who began to see the effect of
these motions to suppress, not only investigation, but congressional
discussion; and, besides, Mr. McDuffie was a bold man, and an able
debater, and had examined the subject, and reported in favor of
the bank, and fully believed in its purity; and was, therefore,
the less averse to debate. But resistance to investigation was
continued by others, and was severely animadverted upon by several
speakers--among others, by Mr. Polk, of Tennessee, who said:
"The bank asks a renewal of its charter; and ought its friends
to object to the inquiry? He must say that he had been not a
little surprised at the unexpected resistance which had been
offered to the resolution under consideration, by the friends
and admirers of this institution--by those who, no doubt,
sincerely believed its continued existence for another term of
twenty years to be essential to the prosperity of the country.
He repeated his surprise that its friends should be found
shrinking from the investigation proposed. He would not say
that such resistance afforded any fair grounds of inference
that there might be something "rotten in the state of Denmark."
He would not say this; for he did not feel himself authorized
to do so; but was it not perceived that such an inference
might, and probably would, be drawn by the public? On what
ground was the inquiry opposed? Was it that it was improper?
Was it that it was unusual? The charter of the bank itself
authorized a committee of either House of Congress to examine
its books, and report upon its condition, whenever either House
may choose to institute an examination. A committee of this
House, upon a former occasion, did make such an examination,
and he would refer to their report before he sat down. Upon the
presentation of the bank memorial to the other branch of the
legislature, a select committee had been invested with power
to send for persons and papers, if they chose to do so. When
the same memorial was presented to that House, what had been
the course pursued by the friends of the bank? A motion to
refer it to a select committee was opposed. It was committed
to their favorite Committee of Ways and Means. He meant no
disrespect to that committee, when he said that the question
of rechartering the bank was known to have been prejudged by
that committee. When the President of the United States brought
the subject of the bank to the notice of Congress in December,
1829, a select committee was refused by the friends of the bank,
and that portion of the message was referred to the Committee
of Ways and Means. Precisely the same thing occurred at the
commencement of the last and at the present session of Congress,
in the reference which was made of that part of the messages
of the President upon the subject of the bank. The friends of
this institution have been careful always to commit it to the
same committee, a committee whose opinions were known. Upon
the occasion first referred to, that committee made a report
favorable to the bank, which was sent forth to the public,--not
a report of facts, not a report founded upon an examination
into the affairs of the bank. At the present session, we were
modestly asked to extend this bank monopoly for twenty years,
without any such examination having taken place. The committee
had reported a bill to that effect, but had given us no facts in
relation to the present condition of the bank. They had not even
deemed it necessary to ask to be invested with power to examine
either into its present condition, or into the manner in which
its affairs have been conducted.
"He would now call the attention of the House to the examination
of the bank, made by a committee of this House in the year 1819,
and under the order of the House. He then held the report of
that committee in his hand. That committee visited the bank
at Philadelphia; they examined its books, and scrutinized its
conduct. They examined on oath the president, a part of the
directors and officers of the bank. And what was the result?
They discovered many and flagrant abuses. They found that the
charter had been violated in divers particulars, and they so
reported to this House. He would not detain the House, however,
with the details of that document. Gentlemen could refer to it,
and satisfy themselves. It contained much valuable information,
as bearing upon the proposition now before the House. It was
sufficient to say that at that period, within three years after
the bank had gone into existence, it was upon the very verge
of bankruptcy. This the gentleman from South Carolina would
not deny. The report of the committee to which he had alluded
authorized him to say that there had been gross mismanagement,
he would not use any stronger term, and in the opinion of that
committee (an opinion never reversed by Congress) a palpable
violation of the charter. Now sir, this was the condition of
the bank in 1819. The indulgence of Congress induced them not
to revoke the charter. The bank had gone on in its operations.
Since that period no investigation or examination had taken
place. All we knew of its doings, since that period, was from
the ex parte reports of its own officers. These may all be
correct, but, if they be so, it could do no harm to ascertain
the fact."
Mr. Clayton then justified his motion for the committee, _first_
upon the provisions of the charter (article 23) which gave to either
House of Congress the right at all times to appoint a committee
to inspect the books, and to examine in to the proceedings of the
bank; and to report whether the provisions of the charter had
been violated; and be treated as a revolt against this provision
of the charter, as well as a sign of guilt, this resistance to
an absolute right on the part of Congress, and most proper to be
exercised when the institution was soliciting the continuation
of its privileges; and which right had been exercised by the
House in 1819, when its committee found various violations of the
charter, and proposed a _scire facias_ to vacate it:--which was
only refused by Congress, not for the sake of the bank, but for the
community--whose distresses the closing of the bank might aggravate.
Next, he justified his motion on the ground of misconduct in the
bank in seven instances of violated charter, involving forfeiture;
and fifteen instances of abuse, which required correction, though
not amounting to forfeiture of the charter. All these he read to the
House, one by one, from a narrow slip of paper, which he continued
rolling round his finger all the time. The memorandum was mine--in
my handwriting--given to him to copy, and amplify, as they were
brief memoranda. He had not copied them; and having to justify
suddenly, he used the slip I had given him--rolling it on his
finger, as on a cylinder, to prevent my handwriting from being seen:
so he afterwards told me himself. The reading of these twenty-two
heads of accusation, like so many counts in an indictment, sprung
the friends of the bank to their feet--and its foes also--each
finding in it something to rouse them--one to the defence, the other
to the attack. The accusatory list was as follows:
"FIRST: _Violations of charter amounting to forfeiture_:
"1. The issue of seven millions, and more, of branch bank orders
as a currency.
"2. Usury on broken bank notes in Ohio and Kentucky: nine
hundred thousand dollars in Ohio, and nearly as much in
Kentucky. See 2 Peters' Reports, p. 527, as to the nature of the
case.
"3. Domestic bills of exchange, disguised loans to take more
than at the rate of six per cent. Sixteen millions of these
bills for December last. See monthly statements.
"4. Non-user of the charter. In this, that from 1819 to 1826,
a period of seven years, the South and West branches issued
no currency of any kind. See the doctrine on non-user of
charter and duty of corporations to act up to the end of their
institution, and forfeiture for neglect.
"5. Building houses to rent. See limitation in their charter on
the right to hold real property.
"6. In the capital stock, not having due proportion of coin.
"7. Foreigners voting for directors, through their trustees.
"SECOND: _Abuses worthy of inquiry, not amounting to forfeiture,
but going, if true, clearly to show the inexpediency of renewing
the charter._
"1. Not cashing its own notes, or receiving in deposit at each
branch, and at the parent bank, the notes of each other. By
reason of this practice, notes of the mother bank are at a
discount at many, if not all, of her branches, and completely
negatives the assertion of 'sound and uniform currency.'
"2. Making a difference in receiving notes from the federal
government and the citizens of the States. This is admitted as
to all notes above five dollars.
"3. Making a difference between members of Congress and the
citizens generally, in both granting loans and selling bills of
exchange. It is believed it can be made to appear that members
can obtain bills of exchange without, citizens with a premium;
the first give nominal endorsers, the other must give two
sufficient resident endorsers.
"4. The undue accumulation of proxies in the hands of a few to
control the election for directors.
"5. A strong suspicion of secret understanding between the bank
and brokers to job in stocks, contrary to the charter. For
example, to buy up three per cent. stock at this day; and force
the government to pay at par for that stock; and whether the
government deposits may not be used to enhance its own debts.
"6. Subsidies and loans, directly or indirectly, to printers,
editors, and lawyers, for purposes other than the regular
business of the bank.
"7. Distinction in favor of merchants in selling bills of
exchange.
"8. Practices upon local banks and debtors to make them petition
Congress for a renewal of its charter, and thus impose upon
Congress by false clamor.
"9. The actual management of the bank, whether safely and
prudently conducted. See monthly statements to the contrary.
"10. The actual condition of the bank, her debts and credits;
how much she has increased debts and diminished her means to pay
in the last year; how much she has increased her credits and
multiplied her debtors, since the President's message in 1829,
without ability to take up the notes she has issued, and pay her
deposits.
"11. Excessive issues, all on public deposits.
"12. Whether the account of the bank's prosperity be real or
delusive.
"13. The amount of gold and silver coin and bullion sent from
Western and Southern branches of the parent bank since its
establishment in 1817. The amount is supposed to be fifteen
or twenty millions, and, with bank interest on bank debts,
constitutes a system of the most intolerable oppression of the
South and West. The gold and silver of the South and West have
been drawn to the mother bank, mostly by the agency of that
unlawful currency created by branch bank orders, as will be made
fully to appear.
"14. The establishment of agencies in different States, under
the direction and management of one person only, to deal in
bills of exchange, and to transact other business properly
belonging to branch banks, contrary to the charter.
"15. Giving authority to State banks to discount their bills
without authority from the Secretary of the Treasury."
Upon the reading of these charges a heated and prolonged discussion
took place, in which more than thirty members engaged (and about
an equal number on each side); in which the friends of the bank
lost so much ground in the public estimation, in making direct
opposition to investigation, that it became necessary to give up
that species of opposition--declare in favor of examination--but
so conducted as to be nugatory, and worse than useless. One
proposition was to have the investigation made by the Committee
of Ways and Means--a proposition which involved many departures
from parliamentary law--from propriety--and from the respect which
the bank owed to itself, if it was innocent. By all parliamentary
law such a committee must be composed of members friendly to the
inquiry--hearty in the cause--and the mover always to be its
chairman: here, on the contrary, the mover was to be excluded:
the very champion of the Bank defence was to be the investigating
chairman; and the committee to whom it was to go, was the same that
had just reported so warmly for the Bank. But this proposition
had so bad a look that the chairman of the Committee of Ways and
Means (Mr. McDuffie) objected to it himself, utterly refusing to
take the office of prosecutor against an institution of which he
was the public defender. Propositions were then made to have the
committee appointed by ballot, so as to take the appointment of
the committee out of the hands of the Speaker (who, following the
parliamentary rule, would select a majority of members favorable
to inquiry); and in the vote by ballot, the bank having a majority
in the House, could reverse the parliamentary rule, and give to
the institution a committee to shield, instead of to probe it.
Unbecoming, and even suspicious to the institution itself as this
proposition was, it came within a tie vote of passing, and was only
lost by the casting vote of the Speaker. Investigation of some
kind, and by a select committee, becoming then inevitable, the only
thing that could be done in favor of the bank was to restrict its
scope; and this was done both as to time and matter; and also as to
the part of the institution to be examined. Mr. Adams introduced
a resolution to limit the inquiry to the operations of the mother
bank, thereby skipping the twenty-seven branches, though some of
them were nearer than the parent bank; also limiting the points of
inquiry to breaches of the charter, so as to cut off the abuses;
also limiting the time to a short day (the 21st of April)--March
then being far advanced; so as to subject full investigation
to be baffled for the want of time. The reason given for these
restrictions was to bring the investigation within the compass of
the session--so as to insure action on the application before the
adjournment of Congress--thereby openly admitting its connection
with the presidential election. On seeing his proposed inquiry thus
restricted, Mr. Clayton thus gave vent to his feelings:
"I hope I may be permitted to take a parting leave of my
resolution, as I very plainly perceive that it is going the
way of all flesh. I discover the bank has a complying majority
at present in this House, and at this late hour of the night
are determined to carry things in their own way; but, sir, I
view with astonishment the conduct of that majority. When a
speaker rises in favor of the bank, he is listened to with great
attention; but when one opposed to it attempts to address the
House, such is the intentional noise and confusion, he cannot
be heard; and, sir, the gentleman who last spoke but one in
favor of an inquiry, had to take his seat in a scene little
short of a riot. I do not understand such conduct. When I
introduced my resolution, I predicated it upon the presumption
that every thing in this House would, when respectfully
presented, receive a respectful consideration, and would be
treated precisely as all other questions similarly situated
are treated. I expected the same courtesy that other gentlemen
received in the propositions submitted by them, that it would
go to a committee appointed in the usual form, and that they
would have the usual time to make their report. I believed,
for I had no right to believe otherwise, that all committees
of this House were honest, and that they had too much respect
for themselves, as well as for the House, to trifle with any
matter confided to their investigation. Believing this, I did
expect my resolution would be submitted in the accustomed way;
and if this House had thought proper to trust me, in part, with
the examination of the subject to which it refers, I would have
proceeded to the business in good faith, and reported as early
as was practicable with the important interests at stake. It
has been opposed in every shape; vote upon vote has been taken
upon it, all evidently tending to evade inquiry; and now it is
determined to compel the committee to report in a limited time,
a thing unheard of before in this House, and our inquiries
are to be confined entirely to the mother bank; whereas her
branches, at which more than half the frauds and oppressions
complained of have been committed, are to go unexamined, and we
are to be limited to breaches of the charter when the abuses
charged are numerous and flagrant, and equally injurious to the
community. We are only to examine the books of the parent bank,
the greatest part of which may be accidentally from home, at
some of the branches. If the bank can reconcile it to herself to
meet no other kind of investigation but this, she is welcome to
all the advantages which such an insincere and shuffling course
is calculated to confer; the people of this country are too
intelligent not to understand exactly her object."
Among the abuses cut off from examinations by these restrictions,
were two modes of extorting double and treble compensation for the
use of money, one by turning a loan note into a bill of exchange,
and the other by forcing the borrower to take his money upon a
domestic bill instead of on a note--both systematically practised
upon in the West, and converting nearly all the Western loans into
enormously usurious transactions. Mr. Clayton gave the following
description of the first of these modes of extorting usury:
"I will now make a fuller statement; and I think I am authorized
to say that there are gentlemen in this House from the West,
and under my eye at present, who will confirm every word I
say. A person has a note in one of the Western branch banks,
and if the bank determines to extend no further credit, its
custom is, when it sends out the usual notice of the time the
note falls due, to write across the notice, in red ink, these
three fatal words--well understood in that country--'Payment is
expected.' This notice, thus rubricated, becomes a death-warrant
to the credit of that customer, unless he can raise the wind,
as it is called, to pay it off, or can discount a domestic
bill of exchange. This last is done in one of two ways. If he
has a factor in New Orleans who is in the habit of receiving
and selling his produce, he draws upon him to pay it off at
maturity. The bank charges two per centum for two months, the
factor two and a half, and thus, if the draft is at sixty
days, he pays at the rate of twenty-seven per centum. If,
however, he has no factor, he is obliged to get some friend
who has one to make the arrangement to get his draft accepted.
For this accommodation he pays his friend one and a half per
cent., besides the two per cent. to the bank, and the two
and a half per cent. to the acceptor; making, in this mode
of arrangement, thirty-six per cent. which he pays before he
can get out of the clutches of the bank for that time, twelve
per cent. of which, in either case, goes to the bank; and so
little conscience have they, in order to make this, they will
subject a poor and unfortunate debtor to the other enormous
burdens, and consequently to absolute beggary. For it must be
obvious to every one that such a per cent. for money, under the
melancholy depreciation of produce every where in the South
and West, will soon wind up the affairs of such a borrower. No
people under the heavens can bear it; and unless a stop is put
to it, in some way or other, I predict the Western people will
be in the most deplorable situation it is possible to conceive.
There is another great hardship to which this debtor is liable,
if he should not be able to furnish the produce; or, which is
sometimes the case, if it is sacrificed in the sale of it at
the time the draft becomes due, whereby it is protested for
want of funds, it returns upon him with the additional cost
of ten per cent. for non-payment. Now, sir, that is what is
meant by domestic bills of exchange, disguised as loans, to
take more than six per cent.; for, mark, Mr. Speaker, the bank
does not purchase a bill of exchange by paying out cash for it,
and receiving the usual rate of exchange, which varies from
one-quarter to one per cent.; but it merely delivers up the poor
debtor's note which was previously in bank, and, what is worse,
just as well secured as the domestic bill of exchange which they
thus extort from him in lieu thereof. And while they are thus
exacting this per cent. from him, they are discounting bills
for others not in debt to them at the usual premium of one per
cent. The whole scene seems to present the picture of a helpless
sufferer in the hands of a ruffian, who claims the merit of
charity for discharging his victim alive, after having torn away
half his limbs from his body."
The second mode was to make the loan take the form of a domestic
bill from the beginning; and this soon came to be the most general
practice. The borrowers finding that their notes were to be
metamorphosed into bills payable in a distant city, readily fell
into the more convenient mode of giving a bill in the first instance
payable in some village hard by, where they could go to redeem it
without giving commissions to intermediate agents in the shape of
endorsers and brokers. The profit to the bank in this operation was
to get six per centum interest, and two per cent. exchange; which,
on a sixty days' bill, was twelve per cent. per annum; and, added to
the interest, eighteen per cent. per annum; with the addition of ten
per centum damages if the bill was protested; and of this character
were the mass of the loans in the West--a most scandalous abuse, but
cut off, with a multitude of others, from investigation from the
restrictions placed upon the powers of the committee.
The supporters of the institution carried their point in the House,
and had the investigation in their own way; but with the country
it was different. The bank stood condemned upon its own conduct,
and badly crippled by the attacks upon her. More than a dozen
speakers assailed her: Clayton, Wayne, Foster of Georgia; J. M.
Patton, Archer, and Mark Alexander of Virginia; James K. Polk of
Tennessee; Cambreleng, Beardsley, Hoffman and Angel of New-York;
Mitchell and Blair of South Carolina; Carson of North Carolina;
Leavitt of Ohio. The speakers on the other side were: McDuffie and
Drayton of South Carolina; Denny, Crawford, Coulter, Watmough, of
Pennsylvania; Daniel of Kentucky; Jenifer of Maryland; Huntington of
Connecticut; Root and Collins of New-York; Evans of Maine; Mercer of
Virginia; Wilde of Georgia. Pretty equally matched both in numbers
and ability; but the difference between attack and defence--between
bold accusation and shrinking palliation--the conduct of the bank
friends, first in resisting all investigation, then in trying to put
it into the hands of friends, then restricting the examination, and
the noise and confusion with which many of the anti-bank speeches
were saluted--gave to the assailants the appearance of right, and
the tone of victory throughout the contest; and created a strong
suspicion against the bank. Certainly its conduct was injudicious,
except upon the hypothesis of a guilt, the worst suspicion of
which would be preferable to open detection and such, eventually,
was found to be the fact. In justice to Mr. McDuffie, the leading
advocate of the bank, it must be remembered that the attempts
to stifle, or evade inquiry, did not come from him but from the
immediate representative of the bank neighborhood--that he twice
discountenanced and stopped such attempts, requesting them to be
withdrawn; and no doubt all the defenders of the bank at the time
believed in its integrity and utility, and only followed the lead of
its immediate friends in the course which they pursued. For myself I
became convinced that the bank was insolvent, as well as criminal;
and that, to her, examination was death; and therefore she could not
face it.
The committee appointed were: Messrs. Clayton, Richard M. Johnson
of Kentucky, Francis Thomas of Maryland, and Mr. Cambreleng of
New-York, opposed to the recharter of the Bank; Messrs. McDuffie,
John Quincy Adams, and Watmough, in favor of it. The committee was
composed according to the parliamentary rule--the majority in favor
of the object--but one of them (Colonel Johnson of Kentucky), was
disqualified by his charitable and indulgent disposition for the
invidious task of criminal inquisition; and who frankly told the
House, after he returned, that he had never looked at a bank-book,
or asked a question while he was at Philadelphia; and, Mr. Adams in
invalidating the report of the majority against the bank, disputed
the reality of the majority, saying that the good nature of Colonel
Johnson had merely licensed it. On the other hand, the committee was
as favorably composed for the bank--Mr. Adams and Mr. McDuffie both
able writers and speakers, of national reputation, investigating
minds, ardent temperaments, firm believers in the integrity and
usefulness of the corporation; and of character and position to
be friendly to the institution without the imputation of an undue
motive. Mr. Watmough was a new member, but acceptable to the bank
as its immediate representative, as the member that had made the
motions to baffle investigation; and as being from his personal as
well as political and social relations, in the category to form,
if necessary, its channel of confidential communication with the
committee.
The committee made three reports--one by the majority, one by
the minority, and one by Mr. Adams alone. The first was a severe
recrimination of the bank on many points--usury, issuing branch
bank orders as a currency, selling coin, selling stock obtained
from government under special acts of Congress, donations for
roads and canals, building houses to rent or sell, loans unduly
made to editors, brokers, and members of Congress. The adversary
reports were a defence of the bank on all these points, and the
highest encomiums upon the excellence of its management, and the
universality of its utility; but too much in the spirit of the
advocate to retain the character of legislative reports--which
admit of nothing but facts stated, inductions drawn, and opinions
expressed. Both, or rather all three sets of reports, were received
as veracious, and lauded as victorious, by the respective parties
which they favored; and quoted, as settling for ever the bank
question, each way. But, alas, for the effect of the progress of
events! In a few brief years all this attack and defence--all this
elaboration of accusation, and refinement of vindication--all this
zeal and animosity, for and against the bank--the whole contest--was
eclipsed and superseded by the actualities of the times the majority
report, as being behind the facts: the minority, as resting upon
vanished illusions. And the great bank itself, antagonist of
Jackson, called imperial by its friends, and actually constituting
a power in the State--prostrate in dust and ashes--and invoking from
the community, through the mouth of the greatest of its advocates
(Mr. Webster), the oblivion and amnesty of an "obsolete idea."
It is not the design of this View to explore these reports for
the names of persons implicated (some perhaps unjustly), in the
criminating statements of the majority. The object proposed in
this work does not require that interference with individuals. The
conduct of the institution is the point of inquiry; and in that
conduct will be found the warning voice against the dangers and
abuses of such an establishment in all time to come.
CHAPTER LXV.
THE THREE PER CENT. DEBT, AND LOSS IN NOT PAYING IT WHEN THE RATE
WAS LOW, AND THE MONEY IN THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT
INTEREST.
There was a part of the revolutionary debt, incurred by the States
and assumed by Congress, amounting to thirteen and a quarter
millions of dollars, on which an interest of only three per centum
was allowed. Of course, the stock of this debt could be but little
over fifty cents in the dollar in a country where legal interest was
six per centum, and actual interest often more. In 1817, when the
Bank of the United States went into operation, the price of that
stock was sixty-four per centum--the money was in bank, more than
enough to pay it--a gratuitous deposit, bringing no interest--and
which was contained in her vaults--her situation soon requiring the
aid of the federal government to enable her to keep her doors open.
I had submitted a resolve early in my term of service to have this
stock purchased at its market value; and for that purpose to enlarge
the power of the commissioners of the sinking fund, then limited to
a price a little below the current rate: a motion which was resisted
and defeated by the friends of the bank. I then moved a resolve
that the bank pay interest on the deposits: which was opposed and
defeated in like manner. Eventually, and when the rest of the public
debt should be paid off, and the payment of these thirteen and
a quarter millions would become obligatory under a policy which
eschewed all debt--a consummation then rapidly approaching, under
General Jackson's administration--it was clear that the treasury
would pay one hundred cents on the dollar on what could be then
purchased for sixty-odd, losing in the mean time the interest on the
money with which it could be paid. It made a case against the bank,
which it felt itself bound to answer, and did so through senator
Johnson, of Louisiana: who showed that the bank paid the debt which
the commissioners of the sinking fund required. This was true; but
it was not the point in the case. The point was that the money was
kept in deposit to sustain the bank, and the enlargement of the
powers of the commissioners resisted to prevent them from purchasing
this stock at a low rate, in view of its rise to par: which soon
took place; and made palpable the loss to the United States. At the
time of the solicited renewal of the charter, this non-payment of
the three per cents was brought up as an instance of loss incurred
on account of the bank; and gave rise to the defence from Mr.
Johnson; to which I replied:
"Mr. Benton had not intended, he said, to say a word in relation
to this question, nor should he now rise to speak upon it, but
from what had fallen from the senator from New Jersey. That
gentleman had gone from the resolution to the bank, and from
the bank he had gone to statements respecting his resolutions
on alum salt, which were erroneous. Day by day, memorials were
poured in upon us by command of the bank, all representing,
in the same terms, the necessity of renewing its charter.
These memorials, the tone of which, and the time of their
presentation, showed their common origin, were daily ordered to
be printed. These papers, forming a larger mass than we ever
had on our tables before, and all singing, to the same tune,
the praises of the bank, were ordered to be printed without
hesitation. The report which he had moved to have printed for
the benefit of the farmers, was struck at by the senator of
New Jersey. In the first place, the senator was in error as to
the cost of printing the report. He had stated it to be one
thousand nine hundred dollars, whereas it was only one thousand
one hundred dollars. A few days ago, two thousand copies of
a report of the British House of Commons on the subject of
railroads was ordered to be printed. Following the language of
that resolution, he had moved the printing of another report
of that body, which would interest a thousand of our citizens,
where that report would interest one. There was not a farmer in
America who would not deem it a treasure. It covered the whole
saline kingdom; and those unacquainted with its nature had no
more idea of it than a blind man had of the solar rays. It was
of the highest value to the farmer and the grazier. It showed
the effect of the mineral kingdom upon the animal kingdom; and
its views were the results of the wisdom, experience, and first
talents of Great Britain. The assertion of the senator, that
the bank aided in producing a sound currency, he would disprove
by facts and dates. In 1817 the bank went into operation. In
three or four years after, forty-four banks were chartered
in Kentucky, and forty in Ohio; and the United States Bank,
so far from being able to put them down, was on the verge of
bankruptcy. With the use of eight millions of public money,
it was hardly able, from day to day to sustain itself. Eleven
millions of dollars, as he could demonstrate, the people had
lost by maintaining the bank during this crisis. But for a
waggon load of specie from the mint, as Mr. Cheves informs us,
it would have become bankrupt. In addition to this, the use
of government deposits, to the extent of eight millions, was
necessary to sustain it; and the country lost eleven millions
by the diversion of those deposits to this purpose. Congress
authorized the purchase of the thirteen millions of three
per cents,--at that time, they could have been purchased at
sixty-five cents, now they were at ninety-six per cent. This
was one item of the amount lost, and the other was the interest
on the stock from that time to the present, amounting to six
millions more. It was shown by Mr. Cheves that the United
States Bank owed its existence to the local banks--to the
indulgence and forbearance of the banks of Philadelphia and
Boston, notwithstanding its receipt of the silver from Ohio and
Kentucky, which drained that country, destroyed its local banks,
and threw down the value of every description of its property.
The United States Bank currency was called by the senator the
poor man's friend. The orders on the branches--these drafts
issued in Dan and made payable in Beersheba--had their origin
with a Scotchman; and, when their character was discovered,
they were stopped as oppressive to the poor; and this bank,
which was cried up as the poor man's friend, issued those same
orders, in paper so similar to that of the bank notes, that the
people could not readily discern the difference between them. It
was thought that the people might mistake the signature of the
little cashier and the little president for the great cashier
and the great president. The stockholders were foreigners, to a
great extent--they were lords and ladies--reverend clergymen and
military officers. The widows, in whose behalf our sympathy was
required, were countess dowagers, and the Barings, some of whom
owned more of the stock than was possessed in sixteen States of
this Union."
CHAPTER LXVI.
BANK OF THE UNITED STATES--BILL FOR THE RECHARTER REPORTED IN THE
SENATE--AND PASSED THAT BODY.
The first bank of the United States, chartered in 1791,
was a federal measure, conducted under the lead of General
Hamilton--opposed by Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison and the republican
party; and became a great landmark of party, not merely for the
bank itself, but for the latitudinarian construction of the
constitution in which it was founded, and the great door which it
opened to the discretion of Congress to do what it pleased, under
the plea of being "_necessary_" to carry into effect some granted
power. The non-renewal of the charter in 1811, was the act of
the republican party, then in possession of the government, and
taking the opportunity to terminate, upon its own limitation, the
existence of an institution, whose creation they had not been able
to prevent. The charter of the second bank, in 1816, was the act
of the republican party, and to aid them in the administration of
the government, and, as such, was opposed by the federal party--not
seeming then to understand that, by its instincts, a great moneyed
corporation was in sympathy with their own party, and would soon
be with it in action--which this bank soon was--and now struggled
for a continuation of its existence under the lead of those who
had opposed its birth, and against the party which created it. Mr.
Webster was a federal leader on both occasions--against the charter,
in 1816; for the recharter, in 1832--and in his opening speech in
favor of the renewal, according to the bill reported by the Senate's
select committee, and in allusion to these reversals of positions,
and in justification of his own, he spoke thus, addressing him self
to the Vice-President, Mr. Calhoun:
"A considerable portion of the active part of life has elapsed,
said Mr. W., since you and I, Mr. President, and three or
four other gentlemen, now in the Senate, acted our respective
parts in the passage of the bill creating the present Bank of
the United States. We have lived to little purpose, as public
men, if the experience of this period has not enlightened our
judgments, and enabled us to revise our opinions; and to correct
any errors into which we may have fallen, if such errors there
were, either in regard to the general utility of a national
bank, or the details of its constitution. I trust it will not
be unbecoming the occasion, if I allude to your own important
agency in that transaction. The bill incorporating the bank,
and giving it a constitution, proceeded from a committee of the
House of Representatives, of which you were chairman, and was
conducted through that House under your distinguished lead.
Having recently looked back to the proceedings of that day, I
must be permitted to say that I have perused the speech by which
the subject was introduced to the consideration of the House,
with a revival of the feeling of approbation and pleasure with
which I heard it; and I will add, that it would not, perhaps,
now, be easy to find a better brief synopsis of those principles
of currency and of banking, which, since they spring from the
nature of money and of commerce, must be essentially the same,
at all times, in all commercial communities, than that speech
contains. The other gentlemen now with us in the Senate, all of
them, I believe, concurred with the chairman of the committee,
and voted for the bill. My own vote was against it. This is a
matter of little importance; but it is connected with other
circumstances, to which I will, for a moment, advert. The
gentlemen with whom I acted on that occasion, had no doubts of
the constitutional power of Congress to establish a national
bank; nor had we any doubts of the general utility of an
institution of that kind. We had, indeed, most of us, voted for
a bank, at a preceding session. But the object of our regard was
not whatever might be called a bank. We required that it should
be established on certain principles, which alone we deemed safe
and useful, made subject to curtain fixed liabilities, and so
guarded that it could neither move voluntarily, nor be moved by
others out of its proper sphere of action. The bill, when first
introduced, contained features, to which we should never have
assented, and we set ourselves accordingly to work with a good
deal of zeal, in order to effect sundry amendments. In some of
those proposed amendments, the chairman, and those who acted
with him, finally concurred. Others they opposed. The result
was, that several most important amendments, as I thought,
prevailed. But there still remained, in my opinion, objections
to the bill, which justified a persevering opposition till they
should be removed."
He spoke forcibly and justly against the evils of paper money,
and a depreciated currency, meaning the debased issues of the
local banks, for the cure of which the national bank was to be the
instrument--not foreseeing that this great bank was itself to be the
most striking exemplification of all the evils which he depicted. He
said:
"A disordered currency is one of the greatest of political
evils. It undermines the virtues necessary for the support
of the social system, and encourages propensities destructive
of its happiness. It wars against industry, frugality, and
economy; and it fosters the evil spirits of extravagance and
speculation. Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring
classes of mankind, none has been more effectual than that which
deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of
inventions to fertilize the rich man's field, by the sweat of
the poor man's brow. Ordinary tyranny, oppression, excessive
taxation, these bear lightly on the happiness of the mass of
the community, compared with fraudulent currencies, and the
robberies committed by depreciated paper. Our own history has
recorded for our instruction enough, and more than enough, of
the demoralizing tendency, the injustice, and the intolerable
oppression on the virtuous and well disposed, of a degraded
paper currency, authorized by law, or any way countenanced by
government."
He also spoke truly on the subject of the small quantity of silver
currency in the United States--only some twenty-two millions--and
not a particle of gold; and deprecated the small bank note currency
as the cause of that evil. He said:
"The paper circulation of the country is, at this time, probably
seventy-five or eighty millions of dollars. Of specie we may
have twenty or twenty-two millions: and this, principally, in
masses in the vaults of the banks. Now, sir, this is a state of
things which, in my judgment, leads constantly to overtrading,
and to the consequent excesses and revulsions which so often
disturb the regular course of commercial affairs.
"Why have we so small an amount of specie in circulation?
Certainly the only reason is, because we do not require more.
We have but to ask its presence, and it would return. But
we voluntarily banish it by the great amount of small bank
notes. In most of the States the banks issue notes of all low
denominations, down even to a single dollar. How is it possible,
under such circumstances, to retain specie in circulation? All
experience shows it to be impossible. The paper will take the
place of the gold and silver. When Mr. Pitt, in the year 1797,
proposed in Parliament to authorize the Bank of England to issue
one pound notes, Mr. Burke lay sick at Bath of an illness from
which he never recovered; and he is said to have written to the
late Mr. Canning, 'Tell Mr. Pitt that if he consents to the
issuing of one pound notes, he must never expect to see guinea
again.'"
The bill provided that a bonus of $500,000 in three equal annual
instalments should be paid by the bank to the United States for its
exclusive privileges: Mr. Webster moved to modify the section, so as
to spread the payment over the entire term of the bank's proposed
existence--$150,000 a year for fifteen years. I was opposed both to
the bonus, and the exclusive privilege, and said:
"The proper compensation for the bank to make, provided this
exclusive privilege was sold to it, would be to reduce the rate
of interest on loans and discounts. A reduction of interest
would be felt by the people; the payment of a bonus would not be
felt by them. It would come into the treasury, and probably be
lavished immediately on some scheme, possibly unconstitutional
in its nature, and sectional in its application. He was not
in favor of any scheme for getting money into the treasury at
present. The difficulty lay the other way. The struggle now was
to keep money out of the treasury,--to prevent the accumulation
of a surplus; and the reception of this bonus would go to
aggravate that difficulty, by increasing that surplus. Kings
might receive bonuses for selling exclusive privileges to
monopolizing companies. In that case his subjects would bear the
loss, and he would receive the profit; but, in a republic, it
was incomprehensible that the people should sell to a company
the privilege of making money out of themselves. He was opposed
to the grant of an exclusive privilege; he was opposed to the
sale of privileges; but if granted, or sold, he was in favor of
receiving the price in the way that would be most beneficial to
the whole body of the people; and, in this case, a reduction of
interest would best accomplish that object. A bank, which had
the benefit of the credit and revenue of the United States to
bank upon, could well afford to make loans and discounts for
less than six per centum. Five per centum would be high interest
for such a bank; and he had no doubt, if time was allowed for
the application, that applications enough would be made to take
the charter upon these terms."
I opposed action on the subject at this session. The bank charter
had yet four years to run, and two years after that to remain in
force for winding up its affairs; in all, six years before the
dissolution of the corporation: and this would remit the final
decision to the Congress which would sit between 1836 and 1838, and
there was not only to be a new Congress elected before that time,
but a new Congress under a new apportionment of the representation,
in which there would be a great augmentation of members, and
especially in the West, where the operation of the present bank was
most injurious. The stockholders had not applied for the recharter
at this session: that was the act of the directors and politicians,
or rather of the politicians and directors; for the former governed
the decision. The stockholders in their meeting last September only
authorized the president and directors to apply at any time before
the next triennial meeting--at any time within three years; and
that would carry the application to the right time. I, therefore,
inveighed against the present application, and insisted that:
"Many reasons oppose the final action of Congress upon this
subject at the present time. We are exhausted with the tedium,
if not with the labors of a six months' session. Our hearts and
minds must be at home, though our bodies are here. Mentally and
bodily we are unable to give the attention and consideration to
this question, which the magnitude of its principles, the extent
and variety of its details, demand from us. Other subjects of
more immediate and pressing interest must be thrown aside, to
make way for it. The reduction of the price of the public lands,
for which the new States have been petitioning for so many
years, and the modification of the tariff, the continuance of
which seems to be weakening the cement which binds this Union
together, must be postponed, and possibly lost for the session,
if we go on with the bank question. Why has the tariff been
dropped in the Senate? Every one recollects the haste with which
that subject was taken up in this chamber; how it was pushed to
a certain point; and how suddenly and gently it has given way to
the bank bill! Is there any union of interest--any conjunction
of forces--any combined plan of action--any alliance, offensive
or defensive, between the United States Bank and the American
system? Certainly they enter the field together, one here, the
other yonder (pointing to the House of Representatives), and
leaving a clear stage to each other, they press at once upon
both wings, and announce a perfect non-interference, if not
mutual aid, in the double victory which is to be achieved. Why
have the two bills reported by the Committee on Manufactures,
and for taking up which notices have been given: why are they
so suddenly, so easily, so gently, abandoned? Why is the land
bill, reported by the same committee, and a pledge given to
call it up when the Committee on Public Lands had made their
counter report, also suffered to sleep on the table? The counter
report is made; it is printed; it lies on every table; why not
go on with the lands, when the settlement of the question of the
amount of revenue to be derived from that source precedes the
tariff question, and must be settled before we can know how much
revenue should be raised from imports.
"An unfinished investigation presented another reason for
delaying the final action of Congress on this subject. The House
of Representatives had appointed a committee to investigate
the affairs of the bank; they had proceeded to the limit of the
time allotted them--had reported adversely to the bank--and
especially against the renewal of the charter at this session;
and had argued the necessity of further examinations. Would the
Senate proceed while this unfinished investigation was depending
in the other end of the building? Would they act so as to limit
the investigation to the few weeks which were allowed to the
committee, when we have from four to six years on hand within
which to make it? The reports of this committee, to the amount
of some 15,000 copies had been ordered to be printed by the two
Houses, to be distributed among the people. For what purpose?
Certainly that the people might read them--make up their minds
upon their contents--and communicate their sentiments to their
representatives. But these reports are not yet distributed; they
are not yet read by the people; and why order this distribution
without waiting for its effect, when there is so much time on
hand? Why treat the people with this mockery of a pretended
consultation--this illusive reference to their judgment--while
proceeding to act before they can read what we have sent to
them? Nay, more; the very documents upon which the reports are
founded are yet unprinted! The Senate is actually pushed into
this discussion without having seen the evidence which has been
collected by the investigating committee, and which the Senate
itself has ordered to be printed for the information of its
members.
"The decision of this question does not belong to this Congress,
but to the Congress to be elected under the new census of 1830.
It looked to him like usurpation for this Congress to seize upon
a question of this magnitude, which required no decision until
the new and full representation of the people shall come in; and
which, if decided now, though prematurely and by usurpation, is
irrevocable, although it cannot take effect until 1836;--that is
to say, until three years after the new and full representation
would be in power. What Congress is this? It is the
apportionment of 1820, formed on a population of ten millions.
It is just going out of existence. A new Congress, apportioned
upon a representation of thirteen millions, is already provided
for by law; and after the 4th of March next--within nine months
from this day--will be in power, and entitled to the seats in
which we sit. That Congress will contain thirty members more
than the present one. Three millions of people--a number equal
to that which made the revolution--are now unrepresented,
who will be then represented. The West alone--that section
of the Union which suffers most from the depredations of the
bank--loses twenty votes! In that section alone a million of
people lose their voice in the decision of this great question.
And why? What excuse? What necessity? What plea for this sudden
haste which interrupts an unfinished investigation--sets aside
the immediate business of the people--and usurps the rights of
our successors? No plea in the world, except that a gigantic
moneyed institution refuses to wait, and must have her imperial
wishes immediately gratified. If a charter was to be granted,
it should be done with as little invasion of the rights of
posterity--with as little encroachment upon the privileges of
our successors--as possible. Once in ten years, and that at the
commencement of each full representation under a new census,
would be the most appropriate time; and then charters should be
for ten, and not twenty years.
"Mr. B. had nothing to do with motives. He neither preferred
accusations, nor pronounced absolutions: but it was impossible
to shut his eyes upon facts, and to close up his reason against
the induction of inevitable inferences. The presidental
election was at hand;--it would come in four months;--and here
was a question which, in the opinion of all, must affect that
election--in the opinion of some, may decide it--which is
pressed on for decision four years before it is necessary to
decide it, and six years before it ought to be decided. Why this
sudden pressure? Is it to throw the bank bill into the hands of
the President, to solve, by a practical reference, the disputed
problem of the executive veto, and to place the President under
a cross fire from the opposite banks of the Potomac River? He
[Mr. B.] knew nothing about that veto, but he knew something
of human nature, and something of the rights of the people
under our representative form of government; and he would be
free to say that a veto which would stop the encroachment of a
minority of Congress upon the rights of its successors--which
would arrest a frightful act of legislative usurpation--which
would retrieve for the people the right of deliberation,
and of action--which would arrest the overwhelming progress
of a gigantic moneyed institution--which would prevent Ohio
from being deprived of five votes, Indiana from losing four,
Tennessee four, Illinois two, Alabama two, Kentucky, Mississippi
and Missouri one each--which would lose six votes to New-York
and two to Pennsylvania; a veto, in short, which would protect
the rights of three millions of people, now unrepresented in
Congress, would be an act of constitutional justice to the
people, which ought to raise the President, and certainly would
raise him, to a higher degree of favor in the estimation of
every republican citizen of the community than he now enjoyed.
By passing on the charter now, Congress would lose all check and
control over the institution for the four years it had yet to
run. The pendency of the question was a rod over its head for
these four years; to decide the question now, is to free it from
all restraint, and turn it loose to play what part it pleased in
all our affairs--elections, State, federal, presidential.
"Mr. B. turned to the example of England, and begged the
republican Senate of the United States to take a lesson from the
monarchial parliament of Great Britain. We copied their evil
ways; why not their good ones? We copied our bank charter from
theirs; why not imitate them in their improvements upon their
own work? At first the bank had a monopoly resulting from an
exclusive privilege: that is now denied. Formerly the charter
was renewed several years before it was out: it now has less
than a year to run, and is not yet rechartered."
A motion was made by Mr. Moore of Alabama, declaratory of the
right of the States to admit, or deny the establishment of
branches of the mother bank within their limits, and to tax
their loans and issues, if she chose to admit them: and in
support of that motion Mr. Benton made this speech:
"The amendment offered by the senator from Alabama [Mr. Moore]
was declaratory of the rights of the States, both to refuse
admission of these branch banks into their limits, and to tax
them, like other property, if admitted: if this amendment was
struck out, it was tantamount to a legislative declaration that
no such rights existed, and would operate as a confirmation of
the decision of the Supreme Court to that effect. It is to no
purpose to say that the rejection of the amendment will leave
the charter silent upon the subject; and the rights of the
States, whatsoever they may be, will remain in full force. That
is the state of the existing charter. It is silent upon the
subject of State taxation; and in that silence the Supreme Court
has spoken, and nullified the rights of the States. That court
has decided that the Bank of the United States is independent
of State legislation! consequently, that she may send branches
into the States in defiance of their laws, and keep them
there without the payment of tax. This is the decision; and
the decision of the court is the law of the land; so that, if
no declaratory clause is put into the charter, it cannot be
said that the new charter will be silent, as the old one was.
The voice of the Supreme Court is now heard in that silence,
proclaiming the supremacy of the bank, and the degradation of
the States; and, unless we interpose now to countervail that
voice by a legislative declaration, it will be impossible for
the States to resit it, except by measures which no one wishes
to contemplate.
"Mr. B. regretted that he had not seen in the papers any report
of the argument of the senator from Virginia [Mr. Tazewell] in
vindication of the right of the States to tax these branches.
It was an argument brief, powerful, and conclusive--lucid as a
sunbeam, direct as an arrow, and mortal as the stroke of fate
to the adversary speakers. Since the delivery of that argument,
they had sat in dumb show, silent as the grave, mute as the
dead, and presenting to our imaginations the realization of
the Abbé Sieyes's famous conception of a dumb legislature.
Before the States surrendered a portion of their sovereignity
to create this federal government, they possessed the unlimited
power of taxation; in the act of the surrender, which is the
constitution, they abridged this unlimited right but in two
particulars--exports and imports--which they agreed no longer
to tax, and therefore retained the taxing power entire over
all other subjects. This was the substance of the argument
which dumbfounded the adversary; and the distinction which was
attempted to be set up between tangible and intangible, visible
and invisible, objects of taxation; between franchises and
privileges on one side, and material substances on the other,
was so completely blasted and annihilated by one additional
stroke of lightning, that the fathers of the distinction really
believed that they had never made it! and sung their palinodes
in the face of the House.
"The argument that these branches are necessary to enable the
federal government to carry on its fiscal operations, and,
therefore, ought to be independent of State legislation, is
answered and expunged by a matter of fact, namely, that Congress
itself has determined otherwise, and that in the very charter of
the bank. The charter limits the right of the federal government
to the establishment of a single branch, and that one in the
District of Columbia! The branch at this place, and the parent
bank at Philadelphia, are all that the federal government has
stipulated for. All beyond that, is left to the bank itself;
to establish branches in the States or not, as it suited its
own interest; or to employ State banks, with the approbation
of the Secretary of the Treasury, to do the business of the
branches for the United States. Congress is contented with State
banks to do the business of the branches in the States; and,
therefore, authorizes the very case which gentlemen apprehend
and so loudly deprecate, that New-York may refuse her assent to
the continuance of the branches within her limits, and send the
public deposits to the State banks. This is what the charter
contemplates. Look at the charter; see the fourteenth article
of the constitution of the bank; it makes it optionary with the
directors of the bank to establish branches in such States as
they shall think fit, with the alternative of using State banks
as their substitutes in States in which they do not choose to
establish branches. This brings the establishment of branches
to a private affair, a mere question of profit and loss to the
bank itself; and cuts up by the roots the whole argument of the
necessity of these branches to the fiscal operations of the
federal government. The establishment of branches in the States
is, then, a private concern, and presents this question: Shall
non-residents and aliens--even alien enemies, for such they may
be--have a right to carry on the trade of banking within the
limits of the States, without their consent, without liability
to taxation, and without amenability to State legislation? The
suggestion that the United States owns an interest in this bank,
is of no avail. If she owned it all, it would still be subject
to taxation, like all other property is which she holds in the
States. The lands which she had obtained from individuals in
satisfaction of debts, were all subject to taxation; the public
lands which she held by grants from the States, or purchases
from foreign powers, were only exempted from taxation by virtue
of compacts, and the payment of five per centum on the proceeds
of the sales for that exemption."
The motion of Mr. Moore was rejected, and by the usual majority.
Mr. Benton then moved to strike out so much of the bill as gave to
the bank exclusive privileges, and to insert a provision making the
stockholders liable for the debts of the institution; and in support
of his motion quoted the case of the three Scottish banks which had
no exclusive privilege, and in which the stockholders were liable,
and the superior excellence of which over the Bank of England was
admitted and declared by English statesmen. He said:
"The three Scottish banks had held each other in check, had
proceeded moderately in all their operations, conducted their
business regularly and prudently, and always kept themselves in
a condition to face their creditors; while the single English
bank, having no check from rival institutions, ran riot in the
wantonness of its own unbridled power, deluging the country,
when it pleased, with paper, and filling it with speculation and
extravagance; drawing in again when it pleased, and filling it
with bankruptcy and pauperism; often transcending its limits,
and twice stopping payment, and once for a period of twenty
years. There can be no question of the incomparable superiority
of the Scottish banking system over the English banking system,
even in a monarchy; and this has been officially announced to
the Bank of England by the British ministry, as far back as
the year 1826, with the authentic declaration that the English
system of banking must be assimilated to the Scottish system,
and that her exclusive privilege could never be renewed. This
was done in a correspondence between the Earl of Liverpool,
first Lord of the Treasury, and Mr. Robinson, Chancellor of the
Exchequer, on one side, and the Governor and Deputy Governor of
the Bank of England on the other. In their letter of the 18th
January, 1826, the two ministers, adverting to the fact of the
stoppage of payment, and repeated convulsions of the Bank of
England, while the Scottish banks had been wholly free from
such calamities, declared their conviction that there existed
an unsound and delusive system of banking in England, and a
sound and solid system in Scotland! And they gave the official
assurance of the British government, that neither His Majesty's
ministers, nor parliament, would ever agree to renew the
charter of the Bank of England with their exclusive privileges!
Exclusive privileges, they said, were out of fashion! Nor is it
renewed to this day, though the charter is within nine months of
its expiration!
"In the peculiar excellence of the Scottish plan, lies a few
plain and obvious principles, closely related to republican
ideas. First. No exclusive privileges. Secondly. Three
independent banks to check and control each other, and diffuse
their benefits, instead of one to do as it pleased, and
monopolize the moneyed power. Thirdly. The liability of each
stockholder for the amount of his stock, on the failure of
the bank to redeem its notes in specie. Fourthly. The payment
of a moderate interest to depositors. Upon these few plain
principles, all of them founded in republican notions, equal
rights, and equal justice, the Scottish banks have advanced
themselves to the first rank in Europe, have eclipsed the Bank
of England, and caused it to be condemned in its own country,
and have made themselves the model of all future banking
institutions in Great Britain. And now, it would be a curious
political phenomenon, and might give rise to some interesting
speculations on the advance of free principles in England, and
their decline in America, if the Scottish republican plan of
banking should be rejected here, while preferred there; and
the British monarchial plan, which is condemned there, should
be perpetuated here! and this double incongruity committed
without necessity, without excuse, without giving the people
time to consider, and to communicate their sentiments to their
constituents, when there is four, if not six years, for them to
consider the subject before final decision is required!"
The clause for continuing the exclusive privilege of the bank, was
warmly contested in the Senate, and arguments against it drawn from
the nature of our government, as well as from the example of the
British parliament, which had granted the monopoly to the Bank of
England in her previous charters, and denied it on the last renewal.
It owed its origin in England to the high tory times of Queen Anne,
and its extinction to the liberal spirit of the present century. Mr.
Benton was the chief speaker on this point; and--
"Pointed out the clauses in the charter which granted the
exclusive privilege, and imposed the restriction, which it
was the object of his motion to abolish; and read a part of
the 21st section, which enacted that no other bank should be
established by any future law of the United States, during the
continuance of that charter, and which pledged the faith of
the United States to the observance of the monopoly thereby
created. He said the privilege of banking, here granted, was
an exclusive privilege, a monopoly, and an invasion of the
rights of all future Congresses, as well as of the rights of
all citizens of the Union, for the term the charter had to
run, and which might be considered perpetual; as this was the
last time that the people could ever make head against the new
political power which raised itself in the form of the bank to
overbalance every other power in the government. This exclusive
privilege is contrary to the genius of our government, which is
a government of equal rights, and not of exclusive privileges;
and it is clearly unauthorized by the constitution, which only
admits of exclusive privileges in two solitary, specified cases,
and each of these founded upon a natural right, the case of
authors and inventors; to whom Congress is authorized to grant,
for a limited time, the exclusive privilege of selling their
own writings and discoveries. But in the case of this charter
there is no natural right, and it may be well said there is
no limited time; and the monopoly is far more glaring and
indefensible now than when first granted; for then the charter
was not granted to any particular set of individuals, but lay
open to all to subscribe to it; but now it is to be continued to
a particular set, and many of them foreigners, and all of whom,
or their assignees, had already enjoyed the privilege for twenty
years. If this company succeeds now in getting their monopoly
continued for fifteen years, they will so intrench themselves
in wealth and power, that they will be enabled to perpetuate
their charter, and transmit it as a private inheritance to their
posterity. Our government delights in rotation of office; all
officers, from the highest to the lowest, are amenable to that
principle; no one is suffered to remain in power thirty-five
years; and why should one company have the command of the
moneyed power of America for that long period? Can it be the
wish of any person to establish an oligarchy with unbounded
wealth and perpetual existence, to lay the foundation for a
nobility and monarchy in this America!
"The restriction upon future Congresses is at war with every
principle of constitutional right and legislative equality. If
the constitution has given to one Congress the right to charter
banks, it has given it to every one. If this Congress has a
right to establish a bank, every other Congress has. The power
to tie the hands of our successors is nowhere given to us; what
we can do our successors can; a legislative body is always
equal to itself. To make, and to amend; to do, and to undo; is
the prerogative of each. But here the attempt is to do what we
ourselves cannot amend--what our successors cannot amend--and
what our successors are forbidden to imitate, or to do in any
form. This shows the danger of assuming implied powers. If the
power to establish a national bank had been expressly granted,
then the exercise of that power, being once exerted, would
be exhausted, and no further legislation would remain to be
done; but this power is now assumed upon construction, after
having been twice rejected, in the convention which framed
the constitution, and is, therefore, without limitation as to
number or character. Mr. Madison was express in his opinions
in the year 1791, that, if there was one bank chartered, there
ought to be several! The genius of the British monarchy, he
said, favored the concentration of wealth and power. In America
the genius of the government required the diffusion of wealth
and power. The establishment of branches did not satisfy the
principle of diffusion. Several independent banks alone could
do it. The branches, instead of lessening the wealth and power
of the single institution, greatly increased both, by giving to
the great central parent bank an organization and ramification
which pervaded the whole Union, drawing wealth from every part,
and subjecting every part to the operations, political and
pecuniary, of the central institution. But this restriction ties
up the hands of Congress from granting other charters. Behave
as it may--plunge into all elections--convulse the country with
expansions and contractions of paper currency--fail in its
ability to help the merchants to pay their bonds--stop payment,
and leave the government no option but to receive its dishonored
notes in revenue payments--and still it would be secure of its
monopoly; the hands of all future Congresses would be tied up;
and no rival or additional banks could be established, to hold
it in check, or to supply its place.
"Is this the Congress to do these things? Is this the Congress
to impose restrictions upon the power of their successors? Is
this the Congress to tie the hands of all Congresses till the
year 1851? In nine months this Congress is defunct! A new and
full representation of the people will come into power. Thirty
additional members will be in the House of Representatives;
three millions of additional people will be represented. The
renewed charter is not to take effect till three years after
this full representation is in power! And are we to forestall
and anticipate them? Take their proper business out of their
hands--snatch the sceptre of legislation from them--do an
act which we cannot amend--which they cannot amend--which
is irrevocable and intangible; and, to crown this act of
usurpation, deliberately set about tying the hands, and imposing
a restriction upon a Congress equal to us in constitutional
power, superior to us in representative numbers, and better
entitled to act upon the subject, because the present charter is
not to expire, nor the new one to take effect, until three years
after the new Congress shall be in power! It is in vain to say
that this reasoning would apply to other legislative measures,
and require the postponement of the land bill and the tariff
bill. Both these bills require immediate decision, and therein
differ from the bank bill, which requires no decision for
three years to come. But the difference is greater still; for
the land bill and tariff bill are ordinary acts of legislation,
open to amendment, or repeal, by ourselves and successors; but
the charter is to be irrevocable, unamendable, binding upon all
Congresses till the year 1851. This is rank usurpation; and if
perpetrated by Congress, and afterwards arrested by an Executive
veto, the President will become the true representative of the
people, the faithful defender of their rights, and the defender
of the rights of the new Congress which will assemble under the
new census.
"Mr. B. concluded his remarks by showing the origin, and also
the extinction, of the doctrine in England. A tory parliament in
the reign of Queen Anne had first granted an exclusive privilege
to the Bank of England, and imposed a restriction upon the
right of future parliaments to establish another bank; and the
ministry of 1826 had condemned this doctrine, and proscribed
its continuance in England. The charter granted to the old Bank
of the United States and to the existing bank had copied those
obnoxious clauses; but now that they were condemned in England
as too unjust and odious for that monarchial country, they
ought certainly to be discarded in this republic, where equal
rights was the vital principle and ruling feature of all our
institutions."
All the amendments proposed by the opponents of the bank being
inexorably voted down, after a debate which, with some cessations,
continued from January to June, the final vote was taken, several
senators first taking occasion to show they had no interest in the
institution. Mr. Benton had seen the names of some members in the
list of stockholders; and early in the debate had required that
the rule of parliamentary law should be read; which excludes the
interested member from voting, and expunges his vote if he does,
and his interest is afterwards discovered. Mr. Dallas said that he
had sold his stock in the institution as soon as it was known that
the question of the recharter would come before him: Mr. Silsbee
said that he had disposed of his interest before the question came
before Congress: Mr. Webster said that the insertion of his name in
the list of stockholders was a mistake in a clerk of the bank. The
vote was then taken on the passage of the bill, and Stood: YEAS:
Messrs. Bell, of New Hampshire; Buckner, of Missouri; Chambers,
of Maryland; Clay, of Kentucky; Clayton, of Delaware; Dallas of
Pennsylvania; Ewing, of Ohio; Foot, of Connecticut; Frelinghuysen,
of New Jersey; Hendricks, of Indiana; Holmes, of Maine; Josiah
S. Johnston, of Louisiana; Knight, of Rhode Island; Naudain, of
Delaware; Poindexter, of Mississippi; Prentiss, of Vermont; Robbins,
of Rhode Island; Robinson, of Illinois; Ruggles, of Ohio; Seymour,
of Vermont; Silsbee, of Massachusetts; Smith (Gen. Samuel), of
Maryland; Sprague, of Maine; Tipton, of Indiana; Tomlinson, of
Connecticut; Waggaman, of Louisiana; Webster, of Massachusetts; and
Wilkins, of Pennsylvania: 28. Nays: Messrs. Benton, of Missouri;
Bibb, of Kentucky; Brown, of North Carolina; Dickerson, of New
Jersey; Dudley, of New-York; Ellis, of Mississippi; Forsyth, of
Georgia; Grundy, of Tennessee; Hayne, of South Carolina; Hill, of
New Hampshire; Kane, of Illinois; King, of Alabama; Mangum, of North
Carolina; Marcy, of New-York; Miller, of South Carolina; Moore,
of Alabama; Tazewell, of Virginia; Troup, of Georgia; Tyler, of
Virginia; Hugh L. White, of Tennessee: 20.
CHAPTER LXVII.
BANK OF THE UNITED STATES--BILL FOR THE RENEWED CHARTER PASSED IN
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
The bill which had passed the Senate, after a long and arduous
contest, quickly passed the House, with little or no contest at
all. The session was near its end; members were wearied; the result
foreseen by every body--that the bill would pass--the veto be
applied--and the whole question of charter or no charter go before
the people in the question of the presidential election. Some
attempts were made by the adversaries of the bill to amend it, by
offering amendments, similar to those which had been offered in the
Senate; but with the same result in one House as in the other. They
were all voted down by an inexorable majority; and it was evident
that the contest was political, and relied upon by one party to
bring them into power; and deprecated by the other as the flagrant
prostitution of a great moneyed corporation to partisan and election
purposes. The question was soon put; and decided by the following
votes:
YEAS.--Messrs. Adams, C. Allan, H. Allen, Allison, Appleton,
Armstrong, Arnold, Ashley, Babcock, Banks, N. Barber, J. S.
Barbour, Barringer, Barstow, I. C. Bates, Briggs, Bucher,
Bullard, Burd, Burges, Choate, Collier, L. Condict, S. Condit,
E. Cooke, B. Cooke, Cooper, Corwin, Coulter, Craig, Crane,
Crawford, Creighton, Daniel, J. Davis, Dearborn, Denny, Dewart,
Doddridge, Drayton, Ellsworth, G. Evans, J. Evans, E. Everett,
H. Everett, Ford, Gilmore, Grennell, Hodges, Heister, Horn,
Hughes, Huntington, Ihrie, Ingersoll, Irvin, Isacks, Jenifer,
Kendall, H. King, Kerr, Letcher, Mann, Marshall, Maxwell, McCoy,
McDuffie, McKennan, Mercer, Milligan, Newton, Pearce, Pendleton,
Pitcher, Potts, Randolph, J. Reed, Root, Russel, Semmes, W.
B. Shepard, A. H. Shepperd, Slade, Smith, Southard, Spence,
Stanberry, Stephens, Stewart, Storrs, Sutherland, Taylor, P.
Thomas, Tompkins, Tracy, Vance, Verplanck, Vinton, Washington,
Watmough, E. Whittlesey, F. Whittlesey, E. D. White, Wickliffe,
Williams, Young--106.
NAYS.--Messrs. Adair, Alexander, Anderson, Archer, J. Bates,
Beardsley, Bell, Bergen, Bethune, James Blair, John Blair,
Bouck, Bouldin, Branch, Cambreleng, Carr, Chandler, Chinn,
Claiborne, Clay, Clayton, Coke, Conner, W. R. Davis, Dayan,
Doubleday, Felder, Fitzgerald, Foster, Gaither, Gordon, Griffin,
T. H. Hall, W. Hall, Hammons, Harper, Hawes, Hawkins, Hoffman,
Hogan, Holland, Howard, Hubbard, Jarvis, Cave Johnson, Kavanagh,
Kennon, A. King, J. King, Lamar, Leavitt, Lecompte, Lewis, Lyon,
Mardis, Mason, McCarty, McIntire, McKay, Mitchell, Newnan,
Nuckolls, Patton, Pierson, Polk, E. C. Reed, Rencher, Roane,
Soule, Speight, Standifer, F. Thomas, W. Thompson, J. Thomson,
Ward, Wardwell, Wayne, Weeks, Wheeler, C. P. White, Wilde,
Worthington.--84.
CHAPTER LXVIII.
THE VETO.
The act which had passed the two Houses for the renewal of the bank
charter, was presented to the President on the 4th day of July,
and returned by him to the House in which it originated, on the
10th, with his objections. His first objection was to the exclusive
privileges which it granted to corporators who had already enjoyed
them, the great value of these privileges, and the inadequacy of the
sum to be paid for them. He said:
"Every monopoly, and all exclusive privileges, are granted
at the expense of the public, which ought to receive a fair
equivalent. The many millions which this act proposes to bestow
on the stockholders of the existing bank, must come directly
or indirectly out of the earnings of the American people. It
is due to them, therefore, if their government sell monopolies
and exclusive privileges, that they should at least exact
for them as much as they are worth in open market. The value
of the monopoly in this case may be correctly ascertained.
The twenty-eight millions of stock would probably be at an
advance of fifty per cent., and command, in market, at least
forty-two millions of dollars, subject to the payment of the
present loans. The present value of the monopoly, therefore, is
seventeen millions of dollars, and this the act proposes to sell
for three millions, payable in fifteen annual instalments of
$200,000 each.
"It is not conceivable how the present stockholders can
have any claim to the special favor of the government. The
present corporation has enjoyed its monopoly during the period
stipulated in the original contract. If we must have such a
corporation, why should not the government sell out the whole
stock, and thus secure to the people the full market value of
the privileges granted? Why should not Congress create and sell
the twenty-eight millions of stock, incorporating the purchasers
with all the powers and privileges secured in this act, and
putting the premium upon the sales into the treasury?
"But this act does not permit competition in the purchase of
this monopoly. It seems to be predicated on the erroneous idea
that the present stockholders have a prescriptive right, not
only to the favor, but to the bounty of the government. It
appears that more than a fourth part of the stock is held by
foreigners, and the residue is held by a few hundred of our
citizens, chiefly of the richest class. For their benefit does
this act exclude the whole American people from competition
in the purchase of this monopoly, and dispose of it for many
millions less than it is worth. This seems the less excusable,
because some of our citizens, not now stockholders, petitioned
that the door of competition might be opened, and offered to
take a charter on terms much more favorable to the government
and country.
"But this proposition, although made by men whose aggregate
wealth is believed to be equal to all the private stock in
the existing bank, has been set aside, and the bounty of our
government is proposed to be again bestowed on the few who have
been fortunate enough to secure the stock, and at this moment
wield the power of the existing institution. I cannot perceive
the justice or policy of this course. If our government must
sell monopolies, it would seem to be its duty to take nothing
less than their full value; and if gratuities must be made
once in fifteen or twenty years, let them not be bestowed on
the subjects of a foreign government, nor upon a designated or
favored class of men in our own country. It is but justice and
good policy, as far as the nature of the case will admit, to
confine our favors to our own fellow-citizens, and let each in
his turn enjoy an opportunity to profit by our bounty. In the
bearings of the act before me upon these points, I find ample
reasons why it should not become a law."
The President objected to the constitutionality of the bank, and
argued against the force of precedents in this case, and against the
applicability and the decision of the Supreme Court in its favor.
That decision was in the case of the Maryland branch, and sustained
it upon an argument which carries error, in point of fact, upon its
face. The ground of the decision was, that the bank was "necessary"
to the successful conducting of the "fiscal operations" of the
government; and that Congress was the judge of that necessity. Upon
this ground the Maryland branch, and every branch except the one in
the District of Columbia, was without the constitutional warrant
which the court required. Congress had given no judgment in favor
of its necessity--but the contrary--a judgment against it: for
after providing for the mother bank at Philadelphia, and one branch
at Washington City, the establishment of all other branches was
referred to the judgment of the bank itself, or to circumstances
over which Congress had no control, as the request of a State
legislature founded upon a subscription of 2000 shares within the
State--with a dispensation in favor of substituting local banks in
places where the Secretary of the Treasury, and the directors of the
national bank should agree. All this was contained in the fourteenth
fundamental article of the constitution of the corporation--which
says:
"The directors of said corporation shall establish a competent
office of discount and deposit in the District of Columbia,
whenever any law of the United States shall require such an
establishment: also one such office of discount and deposit
in any State in which two thousand shares shall have been
subscribed or may be held, whenever, upon application of the
legislature of such State, Congress may, by law, require the
same: _Provided_, the directors aforesaid shall not be bound
to establish such office before the whole of the capital of
the bank shall be paid up. And it shall be lawful for the
directors of the corporation to establish offices of discount
and deposit where they think fit, within the United States or
the territories thereof, and to commit the management of the
said, and the business thereof, respectively to such persons,
and under such regulations, as they shall deem proper, not
being contrary to the laws or the constitution of the bank. Or,
instead of establishing such offices, it shall be lawful for the
directors of the said corporation, from time to time, to employ
any other bank or banks, to be first approved by the Secretary
of the Treasury, at any place or places that they may deem
safe and proper, to manage and transact the business proposed
aforesaid, other than for the purposes of discount; to be
managed and transacted by such offices, under such agreements,
and subject to such regulations as they shall deem just and
proper."
These are the words of the fourteenth fundamental article of the
constitution of the bank, and the conduct of the corporation in
establishing its branches was in accordance with this article.
They placed them where they pleased--at first, governed wholly by
the question of profit and loss to itself--afterwards, and when
it was seen that the renewed charter was to be resisted by the
members from some States, governed by the political consideration
of creating an interest to defeat the election, or control the
action of the dissenting members. Thus it was in my own case. A
branch in St. Louis was refused to the application of the business
community--established afterwards to govern me. And thus, it is
seen the Supreme Court was in error--that the judgment of Congress
in favor of the "necessity" of branches only extended to one in the
District of Columbia; and as for the bank itself, the argument in
its favor and upon which the Supreme Court made its decision, was an
argument which made the constitutionality of a measure dependent,
not upon the words of the constitution, but upon the opinion of
Congress for the time being upon the question of the "necessity"
of a particular measure--a question subject to receive different
decisions from Congress at different times--which actually received
different decisions in 1791, 1811, and 1816: and, we may now add
the decision of experience since 1836--during which term we have
had no national bank; and the fiscal business of the government,
as well as the commercial and trading business of the country, has
been carried on with a degree of success never equalled in the time
of the existence of the national bank. I, therefore, believe that
the President was well warranted in challenging both the validity
of the decision of the Supreme Court, and the obligatory force of
precedents: which he did, as follows:
"It is maintained by the advocates of the bank, that its
constitutionality, in all its features, ought to be considered
as settled by precedent, and by the decision of the Supreme
Court. To this conclusion I cannot assent. Mere precedence is
a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as
deciding questions of constitutional power, except where the
acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as
well settled. So far from this being the case on this subject,
an argument against the bank might be based on precedent. One
Congress, in 1791, decided in favor of a bank; another, in 1811,
decided against it. One Congress, in 1815, decided against a
bank; another, in 1816, decided in its favor. Prior to the
present Congress, therefore, the precedents drawn from that
source were equal. If we report to the States, the expressions
of legislative, judicial, and executive opinions against the
bank have been, probably, to those in its favor, as four to
one. There is nothing in precedent, therefore, which, if its
authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act
before me.
"If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of
this act, it ought not to control the co-ordinate authorities
of this government. The Congress, the Executive, and the
court, must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of
the constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to
support the constitution, swears that he will support it as he
understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as
much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate,
and of the President, to decide upon the constitutionality
of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for
passage or approval, as it is of the supreme judges, when it may
be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the
judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of
Congress has over the judges; and on that point the President
is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must
not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress, or the
Executive, when acting in their legislative capacities, but to
have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may
deserve.
"But in the case relied upon, the Supreme Court have not decided
that all the features of this corporation are compatible with
the constitution. It is true that the court have said that the
law incorporating the bank is a constitutional exercise of
power by Congress. But taking into view the whole opinion of
the court, and the reasoning by which they have come to that
conclusion, I understand them to have decided that, inasmuch
as a bank is an appropriate means for carrying into effect
the enumerated powers of the general government, therefore
the law incorporating it is in accordance with that provision
of the constitution which declares that Congress shall have
power 'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper
for carrying those powers into execution.' Having satisfied
themselves that the word 'necessary,' in the constitution, means
'needful,' 'requisite,' 'essential,' 'conducive to,' and that
'a bank' is a convenient, a useful, and essential instrument
in the prosecution of the government's 'fiscal operations,'
they conclude that to 'use one must be within the discretion
of Congress;' and that 'the act to incorporate the Bank of the
United States, is a law made in pursuance of the constitution.'
'But,' say they, 'where the law is not prohibited, and is
really calculated to effect any of the objects intrusted to the
government, to undertake here to inquire into the degree of its
necessity, would be to pass the line which circumscribes the
judicial department, and to tread on legislative ground.'
"The principle, here affirmed, is, that the 'degree of its
necessity,' involving all the details of a banking institution,
is a question exclusively for legislative consideration. A bank
is constitutional; but it is the province of the legislature
to determine whether this or that particular power, privilege,
or exemption, is 'necessary and proper' to enable the bank to
discharge its duties to the government; and from their decision
there is no appeal to the courts of justice. Under the decision
of the Supreme Court, therefore, it is the exclusive province
of Congress and the President to decide whether the particular
features of this act are 'necessary and proper,' in order to
enable the bank to perform, conveniently and efficiently, the
public duties assigned to it as a fiscal agent, and therefore
constitutional; or unnecessary and improper, and therefore
unconstitutional."
With regard to the misconduct of the institution, both in conducting
its business and in resisting investigation, the message spoke the
general sentiment of the disinterested country when it said:
"Suspicions are entertained, and charges are made, of gross
abuses and violations of its charter. An investigation
unwillingly conceded, and so restricted in time as necessarily
to make it incomplete and unsatisfactory, discloses enough to
excite suspicion and alarm. In the practices of the principal
bank, partially unveiled in the absence of important witnesses,
and in numerous charges confidently made, and as yet wholly
uninvestigated, there was enough to induce a majority of the
committee of investigation, a committee which was selected
from the most able and honorable members of the House of
Representatives, to recommend a suspension of further action
upon the bill, and a prosecution of the inquiry. As the charter
had yet four years to run, and as a renewal now was not
necessary to the successful prosecution of its business, it was
to have been expected that the bank itself, conscious of its
purity, and proud of its character, would have withdrawn its
application for the present, and demanded the severest scrutiny
into all its transactions. In their declining to do so, there
seems to be an additional reason why the functionaries of the
government should proceed with less haste, and more caution, in
the renewal of their monopoly."
The appearance of the veto message was the signal for the delivery
of the great speeches of the advocates of the bank. Thus far
they had held back, refraining from general debate, and limiting
themselves to brief answers to current objections. Now they came
forth in all their strength, in speeches elaborate and studied, and
covering the whole ground of constitutionality and expediency; and
delivered with unusual warmth and vehemence. Mr. Webster, Mr. Clay,
Mr. Clayton of Delaware, and Mr. Ewing of Ohio, thus entered the
lists for the bank. And why these speeches, at this time, when it
was certain that speaking would have no effect in overcoming the
veto--that the constitutional majority of two thirds of each House
to carry it, so far from being attainable, would but little exceed a
bare majority? The reason was told by the speakers themselves--fully
told, as an appeal to the people--as a transfer of the question to
the political arena--to the election fields, and especially to the
presidential election, then impending, and within four months of its
consummation--and a refusal on the part of the corporation to submit
to the decision of the constituted authorities. This was plainly
told by Mr. Webster in the opening of his argument; frightful
distress was predicted: and the change of the chief magistrate was
presented as the only means of averting an immense calamity on one
hand, or of securing an immense benefit on the other. He said:
"It is now certain that, without a change in our public
councils, this bank will not be continued, nor will any other be
established, which, according to the general sense and language
of mankind, can be entitled to the name. In three years and
nine months from the present moment, the charter of the bank
expires; within that period, therefore, it must wind up its
concerns. It must call in its debts, withdraw its bills from
circulation, and cease from all its ordinary operations. All
this is to be done in three years and nine months; because,
although there is a provision in the charter rendering it lawful
to use the corporate name for two years after the expiration of
the charter, yet this is allowed only for the purpose of suits,
and for the sale of the estate belonging to the bank, and for no
other purpose whatever. The whole active business of the bank,
its custody of public deposits, its transfers of public moneys,
its dealing in exchange, all its loans and discounts, and all
its issues of bills for circulation, must cease and determine
on or before the 3d day of March, 1836; and, within the same
period, its debts must be collected, as no new contract can be
made with it, as a corporation, for the renewal of loans, or
discount of notes or bills, after that time."
Mr. Senator White of Tennessee, seizing upon this open entrance into
the political arena by the bank, thanked Mr. Webster for his candor,
and summoned the people to the combat of the great moneyed power,
now openly at the head of a great political party, and carrying
the fortunes of that party in the question of its own continued
existence. He said:
"I thank the senator for the candid avowal that unless the
President will sign such a charter as will suit the directors,
they intend to interfere in the election, and endeavor to
displace him. With the same candor I state that, after this
declaration, this charter shall never be renewed with my consent.
"Let us look at this matter as it is. Immediately before the
election, the directors apply for a charter, which they think
the President at any other time will not sign, for the express
purpose of compelling him to sign contrary to his judgment,
or of encountering all their hostility in the canvass, and
at the polls. Suppose this attempt to have succeeded, and
the President, through fear of his election, had signed this
charter, although he conscientiously believes it will be
destructive of the liberty of the people who have elected him
to preside over them, and preserve their liberties, so far as
in his power. What next? Why, whenever the charter is likely to
expire hereafter, they will come, as they do now, on the eve
of the election, and compel the chief magistrate to sign such
a charter as they may dictate, on pain of being turned out and
disgraced. Would it not be far better to gratify this moneyed
aristocracy, to the whole extent at once, and renew their
charter for ever? The temptation to a periodical interference in
our elections would then be taken away.
"Sir, if, under these circumstances, the charter is renewed,
the elective franchise is destroyed, and the liberties and
prosperity of the people are delivered over to this moneyed
institution, to be disposed of at their discretion. Against this
I enter my solemn protest."
The distress to be brought upon the country by the sudden winding
up of the bank, the sudden calling in of all its debts, the sudden
withdrawal of all its capital, was pathetically dwelt upon by all
the speakers, and the alarming picture thus presented by Mr. Clayton:
"I ask, what is to be done for the country? All thinking men
must now admit that, as the present bank must close its concerns
in less than four years, the pecuniary distress, the commercial
embarrassments, consequent upon its destruction, must exceed
any thing which has ever been known in our history, unless
some other bank can be established to relieve us. Eight and a
half millions of the bank capital, belonging to foreigners,
must be drawn from us to Europe. Seven millions of the capital
must be paid to the government, not to be loaned again, but to
remain, as the President proposes, deposited in a branch of the
treasury, to check the issues of the local banks. The immense
available resources of the present institution, amounting, as
appears by the report in the other House, to $82,057,483, are
to be used for banking no longer, and nearly fifty millions of
dollars in notes discounted, on personal and other security,
must be paid to the bank. The State banks must pay over all
their debts to the expiring institution, and curtail their
discounts to do so, or resort, for the relief of their debtors,
to the old plan of emitting more paper, to be bought up by
speculators at a heavy discount."
This was an alarming picture to present, and especially as the
corporation had it in its power to create the distress which it
foretold--a consummation frightfully realized three years later--but
a picture equally unjustifiable and gratuitous. Two years was the
extent of the time, after the expiration of its charter, that the
corporation had accepted in its charter for winding up its business;
and there were now four years to run before these two years
would commence. The section 21, of the charter, provided for the
contingency thus:
"And notwithstanding the expiration of the term for which the
said corporation is created, it shall be lawful to use the
corporate name, style and capacity, for the purpose of suits for
the final settlement and liquidation of the affairs and accounts
of the corporation, and for the sale and disposition of their
estate real, personal and mixed: but not for any other purpose,
or in any other manner whatever, nor for a period exceeding two
years after the expiration of said term of incorporation."
Besides the two years given to the institution after the expiration
of its charter, it was perfectly well known, and has since been
done in its own case, and was done by the first national bank, and
may be by any expiring corporation, that the directors may appoint
trustees to wind up their concerns; and who will not be subject to
any limited time. The first national bank--that which was created in
1791, and expired in 1811--had no two years, or any time whatever,
allowed for winding up its affairs after the expiration of its
charter--and the question of the renewal was not decided until
within the last days of the existence of its charter--yet there was
no distress, and no pressure upon its debtors. A trust was created;
and the collection of debts conducted so gently that it is not yet
finished. The trustees are still at work: and within this year, and
while this application for a renewed charter to the second bank is
going on, they announce a dividend of some cents on the share out of
the last annual collections; and intimate no time within which they
will finish; so that this menace of distress from the second bank,
if denied a renewal four years before the expiration of its charter,
and four years before the commencement of the two years to which it
is entitled, was entirely gratuitous, and would have been wicked if
executed.
Mr. Clay concluded the debate on the side of the bank application,
and spoke with great ardor and vehemence, and with much latitude of
style and topic--though as a rival candidate for the Presidency, it
was considered by some, that a greater degree of reserve might have
been commendable. The veto, and its imputed undue exercise, was the
theme of his vehement declamation. Besides discrediting its use, and
denouncing it as of monarchial origin, he alluded to the popular
odium brought upon Louis the 16th by its exercise, and the nickname
which it caused to be fastened upon him. He said:
"The veto is hardly reconcilable with the genius of
representative government. It is totally irreconcilable with
it, if it is to be frequently employed in respect to the
expediency of measures, as well as their constitutionality. It
is a feature of our government borrowed from a prerogative of
the British King. And it is remarkable that in England it has
grown obsolete, not having been used for upwards of a century.
At the commencement of the French Revolution, in discussing the
principles of their constitution, in the national convention,
the veto held a conspicuous figure. The gay, laughing population
of Paris bestowed on the King the appellation of Monsieur Veto,
and on the Queen that of Madame Veto."
Mr. Benton saw the advantage which this denunciation and allusion
presented, and made relentless use of it. He first vindicated
the use and origin of the veto, as derived from the institution
of the tribunes of the people among the Romans, and its exercise
always intended for the benefit of the people; and, under our
constitution, its only effect to refer a measure to the people,
for their consideration, and to stay its execution until the
people could pass upon it, and to adopt or reject it at an
ensuing Congress. It was a power eminently just and proper in a
representative government, and intended for the benefit of the
whole people; and, therefore, placed in the hands of the magistrate
elected by the whole. On the allusion to the nickname on the King
and Queen of France, he said:
"He not only recollected the historical incident to which the
senator from Kentucky had alluded, but also the character
of the decrees to which the unfortunate Louis the 16th had
affixed his vetoes. One was the decree against the emigrants,
dooming to death and confiscation of estate every man, woman,
and child who should attempt to save their lives by flying
from the pike, the guillotine, and the lamp-post. The other
was a decree exposing to death the ministers of religion who
could not take an oath which their consciences repulsed. To
save tottering age, trembling mothers, and affrighted children
from massacre--to save the temples and altars of God from
being stained by the blood of his ministers--were the sacred
objects of those vetoes; and was there any thing to justify a
light or reproachful allusion to them in the American Senate?
The King put his constitutional vetoes to these decrees; and
the _canaille_ of Saint Antoine and Marceau--not the gay and
laughing Parisians, but the bloody _canaille_, instigated by
leaders more ferocious than themselves--began to salute the King
as Monsieur Veto, and demand his head for the guillotine. And
the Queen, when seen at the windows of her prison, her locks
pale with premature white, the effect of an agonized mind at the
ruin she witnessed, the _poissardes_ saluted her also as Madame
Veto; and the Dauphin came in for the epithet of the Little
Veto. All this was terrible in France, and in the disorders of a
revolution; but why revive their remembrance in this Congress,
successor to those which were accustomed to call this king our
great ally? and to compliment him on the birth of that child,
stigmatized _le petit veto_, and perishing prematurely under the
inhumanities of the convention inflicted by the hand of Simon,
the jailer? The two elder vetoes, Monsieur and Madame, came to
the guillotine in Paris, and the young one to a death, compared
to which the guillotine was mercy. And now, why this allusion?
what application of its moral? Surely it is not pointless; not
devoid of meaning and practical application. We have no bloody
guillotines here, but we have political ones: sharp axes falling
from high, and cutting off political heads! Is the service of
that axe invoked here upon 'General Andrew Veto?' If so, and
the invocation should be successful, then Andrew Jackson, like
Louis 16th, will cease to be in any body's way in their march to
power."
Mr. Clay also introduced a fable, not taken from Æsop--that of
the cat and the eagle--the moral of which was attempted to be
turned against him. It was in allusion to the President's message
in relation to the bank, and the conduct of his friends since in
"attacking" the institution; and said:
"They have done so; and their condition now reminds mo of the
fable invented by Dr. Franklin, of the Eagle and the Cat, to
demonstrate that Æsop had not exhausted invention, in the
construction of his memorable fables. The eagle, you know, Mr.
President, pounced, from his lofty flight in the air, upon a
cat, taking it to be a pig. Having borne off his prize, he
quickly felt most painfully the claws of the cat thrust deeply
into his sides and body. Whilst flying, he held a parley with
the supposed pig, and proposed to let go his hold, if the other
would let him alone. No, says puss, you brought me from yonder
earth below, and I will hold fast to you until you carry me
back; a condition to which the eagle readily assented."
Mr. Benton gave a poetical commencement to this fable; and said:
"An eagle towering in his pride of height was--not by a
mousing owl, but by a pig under a jimpson weed--not hawked and
killed, but caught and whipt. The opening he thought grand;
the conclusion rather bathotic. The mistake of the sharp-eyed
bird of Jove, he thought might be attributed to old age dimming
the sight, and to his neglect of his spectacles that morning.
He was rather surprised at the whim of the cat in not choosing
to fall, seeing that a cat (unlike a politician sometimes),
always falls on its legs; but concluded it was a piece of pride
in puss, and a wish to assimilate itself still closer to an
æronaut; and having gone up pendant to a balloon, it would come
down artistically, with a parachute spread over its head. It was
a pretty fable, and well told; but the moral--the application?
Æsop always had a moral to his fable; and Dr. Franklin, his
imputed continuator in this particular, though not yet the rival
of his master in fabulous reputation, yet had a large sprinkling
of practical sense; and never wrote or spoke without a point and
an application. And now, what is the point here? And the senator
from Kentucky has not left that to be inferred; he has told it
himself. General Jackson is the eagle; the bank is the cat; the
parley is the proposition of the bank to the President to sign
its charter, and it will support him for the presidency--if not,
will keep his claws stuck in his sides. But, Jackson, different
from the eagle with his cat, will have no compromise, or bargain
with the bank. One or the other shall fall! and be dashed into
atoms!
"Having disposed of these preliminary topics Mr. B. came to
the matter in hand--the debate on the bank, which had only
commenced on the side of the friends of that institution since
the return of the veto message. Why debate the bank question
now, he exclaimed, and not debate it before? Then was the time
to make converts; now, none can be expected. Why are lips
unsealed now, which were silent as the grave when this act was
on its passage through the Senate? The senator from Kentucky
himself, at the end of one of his numerous perorations, declared
that he expected to make no converts. Then, why speak three
hours? and other gentlemen speak a whole day? Why this _post
facto_--_post mortem_--this _posthumous_--debate?--The deed is
done. The bank bill is finished. Speaking cannot change the
minds of senators, and make them reverse their votes; still
less can it change the President, and make him recall his veto.
Then why speak? To whom do they speak? With what object do
they speak? Sir! exclaimed Mr. B., this _post facto_ debate is
not for the Senate, nor the President, nor to alter the fate
of the bank bill. It is to rouse the officers of the bank--to
direct the efforts of its mercenaries in their designs upon
the people--to bring out its stream of corrupting influence,
by inspiring hope, and to embody all its recruits at the polls
to vote against President Jackson. Without an avowal we would
all know this; but we have not been left without an avowal. The
senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster), who opened yesterday,
commenced his speech with showing that Jackson must be put down;
that he stood as an impassable barrier between the bank and a
new charter; and that the road to success was through the ballot
boxes at the presidential election. The object of this debate
is then known, confessed, declared, avowed; the bank is in the
field; enlisted for the war; a battering ram--the _catapulta_,
not of the Romans, but of the National Republicans; not to beat
down the walls of hostile cities, but to beat down the citadel
of American liberty; to batter down the rights of the people;
to destroy a hero and patriot; to command the elections, and to
elect a Bank President by dint of bank power.
"The bank is in the field (said Mr. B.), a combatant, and a
fearful and tremendous one, in the presidential election. If
she succeeds, there is an end of American liberty--an end of
the republic. The forms of election may be permitted for a
while, as the forms of the consular elections were permitted
in Rome, during the last years of the republic; but it will be
for a while only. The President of the bank, and the President
of the United States, will be cousins, and cousins in the
royal sense of the word. They will elect each other. They will
elect their successors; they will transmit their thrones to
their descendants, and that by legislative construction. The
great Napoleon was decreed to be hereditary emperor by virtue
of the 22d article of the constitution of the republic. The
conservative Senate and the Tribunitial Assembly made him
emperor by construction; and the same construction which was
put upon the 22d article of the French constitution of the year
VIII. may be as easily placed upon the 'general welfare' clause
in the constitution of these United States.
"The Bank is in the field, and the West,--the Great West, is
the selected theatre of her operations. There her terrors, her
seductions, her energies, her rewards and her punishments, are
to be directed. The senator from Massachusetts opened yesterday
with a picture of the ruin in the West, if the bank were not
rechartered; and the senator from Kentucky, Mr. Clay, wound up
with a retouch of the same picture to day, with a closeness of
coincidence which showed that this part of the battle ground had
been reviewed in company by the associate generals and duplicate
senators. Both agree that the West is to be ruined if the bank
be not rechartered; and rechartered it cannot be, unless the
_veto_ President is himself _vetoed_. This is certainly candid.
But the gentlemen's candor did not stop there. They went on to
show the _modus operandi_; to show how the ruin would be worked,
how the country would be devastated,--if Jackson was not put
down, and the bank rechartered. The way was this: The West owes
thirty millions of dollars to the bank; the bank will sue every
debtor within two years after its charter expires; there will
be no money in the country to pay the judgments, all property
will be sold at auction; the price of all property will fall;
even the growing crops, quite up to Boon's Lick, will sink in
value and lose half their price! This is the picture of ruin
now drawn by the senator from Massachusetts; these the words
of a voice now pleading the cause of the West against Jackson,
the sound of which voice never happened to be heard in favor of
the West during the late war, when her sons were bleeding under
the British and the Indians, and Jackson was perilling life and
fortune to save and redeem her.
"This is to be the punishment of the West if she votes for
Jackson; and by a plain and natural inference, she is to
have her reward for putting him down and putting up another.
Thirty millions is the bank debt in the West; and these thirty
millions they threaten to collect by writs of execution if
Jackson is re-elected; but if he be not elected, and somebody
else be elected, then they promise no forced payments shall be
exacted,--hardly any payment at all! The thirty millions it is
pretended will almost be forgiven; and thus a bribe of thirty
millions is deceitfully offered for the Western vote, with a
threat of punishment, if it be not taken! But the West, and
especially the State of Ohio, is aware that Mr. Clay does not
use the bank power, in extending charities--coercion is his
mode of appeal--and when President Clay and President Biddle
have obtained their double sway, all these fair promises will
be forgotten. Mr. B. had read in the Roman history of the
empire being put up to sale; he had read of victorious generals,
returning from Asiatic conquests, and loaded with oriental
spoil, bidding in the market for the consulship, and purchasing
their elections with the wealth of conquered kingdoms; but he
had never expected to witness a bid for the presidency in this
young and free republic. He thought he lived too early,--too
near the birth of the republic,--while every thing was yet
too young and innocent,--to see the American presidency put
up at auction. But he affirmed this to be the case now; and
called upon every senator, and every auditor, who had heard the
senator from Massachusetts the day before, or the senator from
Kentucky on that day, to put any other construction, if they
could, upon this seductive offer to the West, of indefinite
accommodation for thirty millions of debt, if she would vote for
one gentleman, and the threat of a merciless exaction of that
debt, if she voted for another?
"Mr. B. demanded how the West came to be selected by these two
senators as the theatre for the operation of all the terrors and
seductions of the bank debt? Did no other part of the country
owe money to the bank? Yes! certainly, fifteen millions in the
South, and twenty-five millions north of the Potomac. Why then
were not the North and the South included in the fancied fate
of the West? Simply because the presidential election could not
be affected by the bank debt in those quarters. The South was
irrevocably fixed; and the terror, or seduction, of the payment,
or non-payment, of her bank debt, would operate nothing there.
The North owed but little, compared to its means of payment, and
the presidential election would turn upon other points in that
region. The bank debt was the argument for the West; and the
bank and the orators had worked hand in hand, to produce, and
to use, this argument. Mr. B. then affirmed, that the debt had
been created for the very purpose to which it was now applied;
an electioneering, political purpose; and this he proved by a
reference to authentic documents.
"_First_: He took the total bank debt, as it existed when
President Jackson first brought the bank charter before the view
of Congress in December, 1829, and showed it to be $40,216,000;
then he took the total debt as it stood at present, being
$70,428,000; and thus showed an increase of thirty millions
in the short space of two years and four months. This great
increase had occurred since the President had delivered opinions
against the bank, and when as a prudent, and law abiding
institution, it ought to have been reducing and curtailing its
business, or at all events, keeping it stationary. He then
showed the annual progress of this increase, to demonstrate
that the increase was faster and faster, as the charter drew
nearer and nearer to its termination, and the question of its
renewal pressed closer and closer upon the people. He showed
that the increase the first year after the message of 1829 was
four millions and a quarter; in the second year, which was
last year, about nineteen millions, to wit, from $44,052,000,
to $63,026,452; and the increase in the four first mouths of
the present year was nearly five millions, being at the rate
of about one million and a quarter a month since the bank had
applied for a renewal of her charter! After having shown this
enormous increase in the sum total of the debt, Mr. B. went
on to show where it had taken place; and this he proved to be
chiefly in the West, and not merely in the West, but principally
in those parts of the West in which the presidential election
was held to be most doubtful and critical.
"He began with the State of Louisiana, and showed that the
increase there, since the delivery of the message of 1829, was
$5,061,161; in Kentucky, that the increase was $3,009,838; that
in Ohio, it was $2,079,207. Here was an increase of ten millions
in three critical and doubtful States. And so on, in others.
Having shown this enormous increase of debt in the West, Mr. B.
went on to show, from the time and circumstances and subsequent
events, that they were created for a political purpose, and had
already been used by the bank with that view. He then recurred
to the two-and-twenty circulars, or writs of execution, as he
called them, issued against the South and West, in January
and February last, ordering curtailments of all debts, and
the supply of reinforcements to the Northeast. He showed that
the reasons assigned by the bank for issuing the orders of
curtailments were false; that she was not deprived of public
deposits, as she asserted; for she then had twelve millions, and
now has twelve millions of these deposits; that she was not in
distress for money, as she asserted, for she was then increasing
her loans in other quarters, at the rate of a million and a
quarter a month, and had actually increased them ten millions
and a half from the date of the first order of curtailment,
in October, 1831, to the end of May, 1832! Her reasons then
assigned for curtailing at the Western branches, were false,
infamously false, and were proved to be so by her own returns.
The true reasons were political: a foretaste and prelude to what
is now threatened. It was a manoeuvre to press the debtors--a
turn of the screw upon the borrowers--to make them all cry out
and join in the clamors and petitions for a renewed charter!
This was the reason, this the object; and a most wanton and
cruel sporting it was with the property and feelings of the
unfortunate debtors. The overflowing of the river at Louisville
and Cincinnati, gave the bank an opportunity of showing its
gracious condescension in the temporary and slight relaxation of
her orders at those places; but there, and every where else in
the West, the screw was turned far enough to make the screams
of the victims reach their representatives in Congress. In
Mobile, alone, half a million was curtailed out of a million
and a half; at every other branch, curtailments are going on;
and all this for political effect, and to be followed up by the
electioneering fabrication that it is the effect of the veto
message. Yes! the veto message and President, are to be held up
as the cause of these curtailments, which have been going on for
half a year past!
"Connected with the creation of this new debt, was the
establishment of several new branches, and the promise of many
more. Instead of remaining stationary, and awaiting the action
of Congress, the bank showed itself determined to spread and
extend its business, not only in debts, but in new branches.
Nashville, Natchez, St. Louis, were favored with branches at the
eleventh hour. New-York had the same favor done her; and, at one
of these (the branch at Utica), the Senate could judge of the
necessity to the federal government which occasioned it to be
established, and which necessity, in the opinion of the Supreme
Court, is sufficient to overturn the laws and constitution of
a State: the Senate could judge of this necessity, from the
fact that twenty-five dollars is rather a large deposit to the
credit of the United States Treasurer, and that, at the last
returns, the federal deposit was precisely two dollars and fifty
cents! This extension of branches and increase of debt, at the
approaching termination of the charter, was evidence of the
determination of the bank to be rechartered at all hazards. It
was done to create an interest to carry her through, in spite
of the will of the people. Numerous promises for new branches,
is another trick of the same kind. Thirty new branches are said
to be in contemplation, and about three hundred villages have
been induced each to believe that itself was the favored spot of
location; but, always upon the condition, well understood, that
Jackson should not be re-elected, and that they should elect a
representative to vote for the re-charter.
"Mr. B., having shown when and why this Western debt was
created, examined next into the alleged necessity for its prompt
and rigorous collection, if the charter was not renewed; he
denied the existence of any such necessity in point of law. He
affirmed that the bank could take as much time as she pleased to
collect her debts, and could be just as gentle with her debtors
as she chose. All that she had to do was to convert a few of
her directors into trustees, as the old Bank of the United
States had done, the affairs of which were wound up so gently
that the country did not know when it ended. Mr. B. appealed to
what would be admitted to be bank authority on this point: it
was the opinion of the senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay), not
in his speech against renewing the bank charter, in 1811, but
in his report of that year against allowing it time to wind up
its affairs. The bank then asked time to wind up its affairs;
a cry was raised that the country would be ruined, if time
was not allowed; but the senator from Kentucky then answered
that cry, by referring the bank to its common law right to
constitute trustees to wind up its affairs. The Congress acted
upon the suggestion by refusing the time; the bank acted upon
the suggestion by appointing trustees; the debtors hushed their
cries, and the public never heard of the subject afterwards. The
pretext of an unrenewed charter is not necessary to stimulate
the bank to the pressure of Western debtors. Look at Cincinnati!
what but a determination to make its power felt and feared
occasioned the pressure at that place? And will that disposition
ever be wanting to such an institution as that of the Bank of
the United States?
"The senator from Kentucky has changed his opinion about the
constitutionality of the bank; but has he changed it about the
legality of the trust? If he has not, he must surrender his
alarms for the ruin of the West; if he has, the law itself is
unchanged. The bank may act under it; and if she does not, it
is because she will not; and because she chooses to punish the
West for refusing to support her candidate for the presidency.
What then becomes of all this cry about ruined fortunes, fallen
prices, and the loss of growing crops? All imagination or cruel
tyranny! The bank debt of the West is thirty millions. She has
six years to pay it in; and, at all events, he that cannot pay
in six years, can hardly do it at all. Ten millions are in bills
of exchange; and, if they are real bills, they will be payable
at maturity, in ninety or one hundred and twenty days; if not
real hills, but disguised loans, drawing interest as a debt, and
premium as a bill of exchange, they are usurious and void, and
may be vacated in any upright court.
"But, the great point for the West to fix its attention upon is
the fact that, once in every ten years, the capital of this debt
is paid in annual interest; and that, after paying the capital
many times over in interest, the principal will have to be paid
at last. The sooner, then, the capital is paid and interest
stopped, the better for the country.
"Mr. Clay and Mr. Webster had dilated largely upon the
withdrawal of bank capital from the West. Mr. B. showed, from
the bank documents, that they had sent but 938,000 dollars of
capital there; that the operation was the other way, a ruinous
drain of capital, and that in hard money, from the West. He went
over the tables which showed the annual amount of these drains,
and demonstrated its ruinous nature upon the South and West.
He showed the tendency of all branch bank paper to flow to the
Northeast; the necessity to redeem it annually with gold and
silver, and bills of exchange, and the inevitable result, that
the West would eventually be left without either hard money, or
branch bank paper.
"Mr. Clay had attributed all the disasters of the late war,
especially the surrender of Detroit, and the Bladensburg rout,
to the want of this bank. Mr. B. asked if bank credits, or
bank advances, could have inspired courage into the bosom of
the unhappy old man who had been the cause of the surrender
of Detroit? or, could have made those fight who could not
be inspired by the view of their capitol, the presence of
their President, and the near proximity of their families and
firesides? Andrew Jackson conquered at New Orleans, without
money, without arms, without credit--aye, without a bank. He got
even his flints from the pirates. He scouted the idea of brave
men being produced by the bank. If it had existed, it would have
been a burthen upon the hands of the government. It was now,
at this hour, a burthen upon the hands of the government, and
an obstacle to the payment of the public debt. It had procured
a payment of six millions of the public debt to be delayed,
from July to October, under the pretext that the merchants
could not pay their bonds, when these bonds were now paid, and
twelve millions of dollars--twice the amount intended to have
been paid--lies in the vaults of the bank to be used by her in
beating down the veto message, the author of the message, and
all who share his opinions. The bank was not only a burthen
upon the hands of the government now, but had been a burthen
upon it in three years after it started--when it would have
stopped payment, as all America knows, in April 1819, had it not
been for the use of eight millions of public deposits, and the
seasonable arrival of wagons loaded with specie from Kentucky
and Ohio.
"Mr. B. defended the old banks in Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee,
from the aspersions which had been cast upon them. They had
aided the government when the Northern bankers, who now scoff
at them, refused to advance a dollar. They had advanced the
money which enabled the warriors of the West to go forth to
battle. They had crippled themselves to aid their government.
After the war they resumed specie payments, which had been
suspended with the consent of the legislatures, to enable them
to extend all their means in aid of the national struggle. This
resumption was made practicable by the Treasury deposit, in
the State institutions. They were withdrawn to give capital to
the branches of the great monopoly, when first extended to the
West. These branches, then, produced again the draining of the
local banks, which they had voluntarily suffered for the sake of
government during the war. They had sacrificed their interests
and credit to sustain the credit of the national treasury--and
the treasury surrendered them, as a sacrifice to the national
bank. They stopped payment under the pressure and extortion of
the new establishments, introduced against the consent of the
people and legislatures of the Western States. The paper of
the Western banks depreciated--the stock of the States and of
individual stockholders was sacrificed--the country was filled
with a spurious currency, by the course of an institution which,
it was pretended, was established to prevent such a calamity.
The Bank of the United States was thus established on the ruins
of the banks, and foreigners and non-residents were fattened on
their spoils. They were stripped of their specie to pamper the
imperial bank. They fell victims to their patriotism, and to the
establishment of the United States bank; and it was unjust and
unkind to reproach them with a fate which their patriotism, and
the establishment of the federal bank brought upon them.
"Mr. Clay and Mr. Webster had rebuked the President for his
allusion to the manner in which the bank charter had been
pushed through Congress, pending an unfinished investigation,
reluctantly conceded. Mr. B. demanded if that was not true? He
asked if it was not wrong to push the charter through in that
manner, and if the President had not done right to stop it,
to balk this hurried process, and to give the people time for
consideration and enable them to act? He had only brought the
subject to the notice of the Congress and the people, but had
not recommended immediate legislation, before the subject had
been canvassed before the nation. It was a gross perversion
of his messages to quote them in favor of immediate decision
without previous investigation. He was not evading the question.
The veto message proved that. He sought time for the people, not
for himself, and in that he coincided with a sentiment lately
expressed by the senator himself (from Kentucky) at Cincinnati;
he was coinciding with the example of the British parliament,
which had not yet decided the question of rechartering the
Bank of England, and which had just raised an extraordinary
committee of thirty-one members to examine the bank through
all her departments; and, what was much more material, he had
coincided with the spirit of our constitution, and the rights
of the people, in preventing an expiring minority Congress
from usurping the powers and rights of their successors. The
President had not evaded the question. He had met it fully. He
might have said nothing about it in his messages of 1829, '30,
and '31. He might have remained silent, and had the support
of both parties; but the safety and interest of the country
required the people to be awakened to the consideration of the
subject. He had waked them up; and now that they are awake, he
has secured them time for consideration. Is this evasion?
"Messrs. C. and W. had attacked the President for objecting
to foreign stockholders in the Bank of the United States. Mr.
B. maintained the solidity of the objection, and exposed the
futility of the argument urged by the duplicate senators. They
had asked if foreigners did not hold stock in road and canal
companies? Mr. B. said, yes! but these road and canal companies
did not happen to be the bankers of the United States! The
foreign stockholders in this bank were the bankers of the United
States. They held its moneys; they collected its revenues; they
almost controlled its finances; they were to give or withhold
aid in war as well as peace, and, it might be, against their own
government. Was the United States to depend upon foreigners in
a point so material to our existence? The bank was a national
institution. Ought a national institution to be the private
property of aliens? It was called the Bank of the United States,
and ought it to be the bank of the nobility and gentry of Great
Britain? The senator from Kentucky had once objected to foreign
stockholders himself. He did this in his speech against the
bank in 1811; and although he had revoked the constitutional
doctrines of that speech, he [Mr. B.] never understood that
he had revoked the sentiments then expressed of the danger of
corruption in our councils and elections, if foreigners wielded
the moneyed power of our country. He told us then that the power
of the purse commanded that of the sword--and would he commit
both to the hands of foreigners? All the lessons of history,
said Mr. B., admonish us to keep clear of foreign influence.
The most dangerous influence from foreigners is through money.
The corruption of orators and statesmen, is the ready way to
poison the councils, and to betray the interest of a country.
Foreigners now own one fourth of this bank; they may own
the whole of it! What a temptation to them to engage in our
elections! By carrying a President, and a majority of Congress,
to suit themselves, they not only become masters of the moneyed
power, but also of the political power, of this republic. And
can it be supposed that the British stockholders are indifferent
to the issue of this election? that they, and their agents,
can see with indifference, the re-election of a man who may
disappoint their hopes of fortune, and whose achievement at New
Orleans is a continued memento of the most signal defeat the
arms of England ever sustained?
"The President, in his message, had characterized the exclusive
privilege of the bank as 'a monopoly.' To this Mr. Webster had
taken exception, and ascended to the Greek root of the word to
demonstrate its true signification, and the incorrectness of
the President's application. Mr. B. defended the President's
use of the term, and said that he would give authority too,
but not Greek authority. He would ascend, not to the Greek
root, but to the English test of the word, and show that a whig
baronet had applied the term to the Bank of England with still
more offensive epithets than any the President had used. Mr. B.
then read, and commented upon several passages of a speech of
Sir William Pulteney, in the British House of Commons, against
renewing the charter of the Bank of England, in which the term
monopoly was repeatedly applied to that bank; and other terms to
display its dangerous and odious charter. In one of the passages
the whig baronet said: 'The bank has been supported, and is
still supported, by the fear and terror which, by the means of
its monopoly, it has had the power to inspire.' In another, he
said: 'I consider the power given by the monopoly to be of the
nature of all other despotic power, which corrupts the despot
as much as it corrupts the slave!' In a third passage he said:
'Whatever language the private bankers may feel themselves
bound to hold, he could not believe they had any satisfaction
in remaining subject to a power which might destroy them at any
moment.' In a fourth: 'No man in France was heard to complain
of the Bastile while it existed; yet when it fell, it came down
amidst the universal acclamations of the nation!'
"Here, continued Mr. B., is authority, English authority, for
calling the British bank in England a monopoly; and the British
bank in America is copied from it. Sir Wm. Pulteney goes further
than President Jackson. He says, that the Bank of England rules
by fear and terror. He calls it a despot, and a corrupt despot.
He speaks of the slaves corrupted by the bank; by whom he
doubtless means the nominal debtors who have received ostensible
loans, real douceurs--never to be repaid, except in dishonorable
services. He considers the praises of the country bankers as the
unwilling homage of the weak and helpless to the corrupt and
powerful. He assimilates the Bank of England, by the terrors
which it inspires, to the old Bastile in France, and anticipates
the same burst of emancipated joy on the fall of the bank, which
was heard in France on the fall of the Bastile. And is he not
right? And may not every word of his invective be applied to the
British bank in America, and find its appropriate application in
well-known, and incontestable facts here? Well has he likened
it to the Bastile; well will the term apply in our own country.
Great is the fear and terror now inspired by this bank. Silent
are millions of tongues, under its terrors which are impatient
for the downfall of the monument of despotism, that they may
break forth into joy and thanksgiving. The real Bastile was
terrible to all France; the figurative Bastile is terrible to
all America; but above all to the West, where the duplicate
senators of Kentucky and Massachusetts, have pointed to the
reign of terror that is approaching, and drawn up the victims
for an anticipated immolation. But, exclaimed Mr. B., this is
the month of July; a month auspicious to liberty, and fatal to
Bastiles. Our dependence on the crown of Great Britain ceased in
the month of July; the Bastile in France fell in the month of
July; Charles X. was chased from France by the three glorious
days of July; and the veto message, which is the Declaration of
Independence against the British bank, originated on the fourth
of July, and is the signal for the downfall of the American
Bastile, and the end of despotism. The time is auspicious; the
work will go on; down with the British bank; down with the
Bastile; away with the tyrant, will be the patriotic cry of
Americans; and down it will go.
"The duplicate senators, said Mr. B., have occupied themselves
with criticising the President's idea of the obligation of his
oath in construing the constitution for himself. They also
think that the President ought to be bound, the Congress ought
to be bound, to take the constitution which the Supreme Court
may deal out to them! If so, why take an oath? The oath is to
bind the conscience, not to enlighten the head. Every officer
takes the oath for himself; the President took the oath for
himself; administered by the Chief Justice, but not _to_ the
Chief Justice. He bound himself to observe the constitution,
not the Chief Justice's interpretation of the constitution;
and his message is in conformity to his oath. This is the oath
of duty and of right. It is the path of Jefferson, also, who
has laid it down in his writings, that each department judges
the constitution for itself, and that the President is as
independent of the Supreme Court as the Supreme Court is of the
President.
"The senators from Kentucky and Massachusetts have not only
attacked the President's idea of his own independence in
construing the constitution, but also the construction he
has put upon it in reference to this bank. They deny its
correctness, and enter into arguments to disprove it, and have
even quoted authorities which may be quoted on both sides. One
of the senators, the gentleman from Kentucky, might have spared
his objection to the President on this point. He happened to
think the same way once himself; and while all will accord to
him the right of changing for himself, few will allow him the
privilege of rebuking others for not keeping up with him in the
rigadoon dance of changeable opinions.
"The President is assailed for showing the drain upon the
resources of the West, which is made by this bank. How assailed?
With any documents to show that he is in error? No! not at all!
no such document exists. The President is right, and the fact
goes to a far greater extent than is stated in his message. He
took the dividend profits of the bank,--the net, and not the
gross profits; the latter is the true measure of the burthen
upon the people. The annual drain for net dividends from the
West, is $1,600,000. This is an enormous tax. But the gross
profits are still larger. Then there is the specie drain, which
now exceeds three millions of dollars per annum. Then there is
the annual mortgage of the growing crop to redeem the fictitious
and usurious bills of exchange which are now substituted for
ordinary loans, and which sweeps off the staple products of
the South and West to the Northeastern cities.--The West is
ravaged by this bank. New Orleans, especially, is ravaged by
it; and in her impoverishment, the whole West suffers; for she
is thereby disabled from giving adequate prices for Western
produce. Mr. B. declared that this British bank, in his opinion,
had done, and would do, more pecuniary damage to New Orleans,
than the British army would have done if they had conquered it
in 1815. He verified this opinion by referring to the immense
dividend, upwards of half a million a year, drawn from the
branch there; the immense amounts of specie drawn from it; the
produce carried off to meet the domestic bills of exchange;
and the eight and a half millions of debt existing there, of
which five millions were created in the last two years to
answer electioneering purposes, and the collection of which
must paralyze, for years, the growth of the city. From further
damage to New Orleans, the veto message would save that great
city. Jackson would be her saviour a second time. He would save
her from the British bank as he had done from the British army;
and if any federal bank must be there, let it be an independent
one; a separate and distinct bank, which would save to that
city, and to the Valley of the Mississippi, of which it was the
great and cherished emporium, the command of their own moneyed
system, the regulation of their own commerce and finances, and
the accommodation of their own citizens.
"Mr. B. addressed himself to the Jackson bank men, present and
absent. They might continue to be for a bank and for Jackson;
but they could not be for _this_ bank, and for Jackson. This
bank is now the open, as it long has been the secret, enemy of
Jackson. It is now in the hands of his enemies, wielding all
its own money--wielding even the revenues and the credit of
the Union--wielding twelve millions of dollars, half of which
were intended to be paid to the public creditors on the first
day of July, but which the bank has retained to itself by a
false representation in the pretended behalf of the merchants.
All this moneyed power, with an organization which pervades
the continent, working every where with unseen hands, is now
operating against the President; and it is impossible to be
in favor of this power and also in favor of him at the same
time. Choose ye between them! To those who think a bank to be
indispensable, other alternatives present themselves. They are
not bound nor wedded to this. New American banks may be created.
Read, sir, Henry Parnell. See his invincible reasoning, and
indisputable facts, to show that the Bank of England is too
powerful for the monarchy of Great Britain! Study his plan for
breaking up that gigantic institution, and establishing three
or four independent banks in its place, which would be so much
less dangerous to liberty, and so much safer and better for the
people. In these alternatives, the friends of Jackson, who are
in favor of national banks, may find the accomplishment of their
wishes without a sacrifice of their principles, and without
committing the suicidal solecism of fighting against him while
professing to be for him.
"Mr. B. addressed himself to the West--the great, the generous,
the brave, the patriotic, the devoted West. It was the selected
field of battle. There the combined forces, the national
republicans, and the national republican bank, were to work
together, and to fight together. The holy allies understand each
other. They are able to speak in each other's names, and to
promise and threaten in each other's behalf. For this campaign
the bank created its debt of thirty millions in the West; in
this campaign the associate leaders use that debt for their own
purposes. Vote for Jackson! and suits, judgments, and executions
shall sweep, like the besom of destruction, throughout the vast
region of the West! Vote against him! and indefinite indulgence
is basely promised! The debt itself, it is pretended, will,
perhaps, be forgiven; or, at all events, hardly ever collected!
Thus, an open bribe of thirty millions is virtually offered
to the West; and, lest the seductions of the bribe may not
be sufficient on one hand, the terrors of destruction are
brandished on the other! Wretched, infatuated men, cried Mr. B.
Do they think the West is to be bought? Little do they know of
the generous sons of that magnificent region! poor, indeed, in
point of money, but rich in all the treasures of the heart! rich
in all the qualities of freemen and republicans! rich in all the
noble feelings which look with equal scorn upon a bribe or a
threat. The hunter of the West, with moccasins on his feet, and
a hunting shirt drawn around him, would repel with indignation
the highest bribe that the bank could offer him. The wretch
(said Mr. Benton, with a significant gesture) who dared to offer
it, would expiate the insult with his blood.
"Mr. B. rapidly summed up with a view of the dangerous power of
the bank, and the present audacity of her conduct. She wielded
a debt of seventy millions of dollars, with an organization
which extended to every part of the Union, and she was sole
mistress of the moneyed power of the republic. She had thrown
herself into the political arena, to control and govern the
presidential election. If she succeeded in that election, she
would wish to consolidate her power by getting control of all
other elections. Governors of States, judges of the courts,
representatives and senators in Congress, all must belong to
her. The Senate especially must belong to her; for, there lay
the power to confirm nominations and to try impeachments;
and, to get possession of the Senate, the legislatures of a
majority of the States would have to be acquired. The war is
now upon Jackson, and if he is defeated, all the rest will
fall an easy prey. What individual could stand in the States
against the power of the bank, and that bank flushed with a
victory over the conqueror of the conquerors of Bonaparte? The
whole government would fall into the hands of this moneyed
power. An oligarchy would be immediately established; and that
oligarchy, in a few generations, would ripen into a monarchy.
All governments must have their end; in the lapse of time, this
republic must perish; but that time, he now trusted, was far
distant; and when it comes, it should come in glory, and not
in shame. Rome had her Pharsalia, and Greece her Chæronea; and
this republic, more illustrious in her birth than Greece or
Rome, was entitled to a death as glorious as theirs. She would
not die by poison--perish in corruption--no! A field of arms,
and of glory, should be her end. She had a right to a battle--a
great, immortal battle--where heroes and patriots could die with
the liberty which they scorned to survive, and consecrate, with
their blood, the spot which marked a nation's fall.
"After Mr. B. had concluded his remarks, Mr. Clay rose and
said:--
"The senator from Missouri expresses dissatisfaction that the
speeches of some senators should fill the galleries. He has no
ground for uneasiness on this score. For if it be the fortune
of some senators to fill the galleries when they speak, it is
the fortune of others to empty them, with whatever else they
fill the chamber. The senator from Missouri has every reason to
be well satisfied with the effect of his performance to-day;
for among his auditors is a lady of great literary eminence.
[Pointing to Mrs. Royal.] The senator intimates, that in my
remarks on the message of the President, I was deficient in
a proper degree of courtesy towards that officer. Whether my
deportment here be decorous or not, I should not choose to be
decided upon by the gentleman from Missouri. I answered the
President's arguments, and gave my own views of the facts and
inferences introduced by him into his message. The President
states that the bank has an injurious operation on the interests
of the West, and dwells upon its exhausting effects, its
stripping the country of its currency, &c., and upon these
views and statements I commented in a manner which the occasion
called for. But, if I am to be indoctrinated in the rules of
decorum, I shall not look to the gentleman for instruction. I
shall not strip him of his Indian blankets to go to Boon's Lick
for lessons in deportment, nor yet to the Court of Versailles,
which he eulogizes. There are some peculiar reasons why I should
not go to that senator for my views of decorum, in regard to
my bearing towards the chief magistrate, and why he is not a
fit instructor. I never had any personal rencontre with the
President of the United States. I never complained of any
outrages on my person committed by him. I never published any
bulletins respecting his private brawls. The gentleman will
understand my allusion. [Mr. B. said: He will understand you,
sir, and so will you him.] I never complained, that while a
brother of mine was down on the ground, senseless or dead, he
received another blow. I have never made any declaration like
these relative to the individual who is President. There is
also a singular prophecy as to the consequences of the election
of this individual, which far surpasses, in evil foreboding,
whatever I may have ever said in regard to his election. I never
made any prediction so sinister, nor made any declaration so
harsh, as that which is contained in the prediction to which I
allude. I never declared my apprehension and belief, that if he
were elected, we should be obliged to legislate with pistols and
dirks by our side. At this last stage of the session I do not
rise to renew the discussion of this question. I only rose to
give the senator from Missouri a full acquittance, and I trust
there will be no further occasion for opening a new account with
him.
"Mr. B. replied. It is true, sir, that I had an affray with
General Jackson, and that I did complain of his conduct. We
fought, sir; and we fought, I hope, like men. When the explosion
was over, there remained no ill will, on either side. No
vituperation or system of petty persecution was kept up between
us. Yes, sir, it is true, that I had the personal difficulty,
which the senator from Kentucky has had the delicacy to bring
before the Senate. But let me tell the senator from Kentucky
there is no 'adjourned question of veracity' between me and
General Jackson. All difficulty between us ended with the
conflict; and a few months after it, I believe that either party
would cheerfully have relieved the other from any peril; and now
we shake hands and are friendly when we meet. I repeat, sir,
that there is no 'adjourned question of veracity' between me
and General Jackson, standing over for settlement. If there had
been, a gulf would have separated us as deep as hell.
"Mr. B. then referred to the prediction alleged by Mr. Clay,
to have been made by him. I have seen, he said, a placard,
first issued in Missouri, and republished lately. It first
appeared in 1825; and stated that I had said, in a public
address, that if General Jackson should be elected, we must
be guarded with pistols and dirks to defend ourselves while
legislating here. This went the rounds of the papers at the
time. A gentleman, well acquainted in the State of Missouri
(Col. Lawless), published a handbill denying the truth of the
statement, and calling upon any person in the State to name
the time and place, when and where, any such address had been
heard from me, or any such declaration made. Colonel Lawless was
perfectly familiar with the campaign, but he could never meet
with a single individual, man, woman, or child, in the State,
who could recollect to have ever heard any such remarks from me.
No one came forward to reply to the call. No one had ever heard
me make the declaration which was charged upon me. The same
thing has lately been printed here, and, in the night, stuck
up in a placard upon the posts and walls of this city. While
its author remained concealed, it was impossible for me to hold
him to account, nor could I make him responsible, who, in the
dark, sticks it to the posts and walls: but since it is in open
day introduced into this chamber I am enabled to meet it as it
deserves to be met. I see who it is that uses it here, and to
his face [pointing to Mr. Clay] I am enabled to pronounce it, as
I now do, an atrocious calumny.
"Mr. Clay.--The assertion that there is 'an adjourned question
of veracity' between me and Gen. Jackson, is, whether made by
man or master absolutely false. The President made a certain
charge against me, and he referred to witnesses to prove it.
I denied the truth of the charge. He called upon his witness
to prove it. I leave it to the country to say, whether that
witness sustained the truth of the President's allegation.
That witness is now on his passage to St. Petersburg, with
a commission in his pocket. [Mr. B. here said aloud, in his
place, the Mississippi and the fisheries--Mr. Adams and the
fisheries--every body understands it.] Mr. C. said, I do not yet
understand the senator. He then remarked upon the 'prediction'
which the senator from Missouri had disclaimed. Can he, said
Mr. C, look to me, and say that he never used the language
attributed to him in the placard which he refers to? He says,
Col. Lawless denies that he used the words in the State of
Missouri. Can you look me in the face, sir [addressing Mr. B.],
and say that you never used that language out of the State of
Missouri?
"Mr. B. I look, sir, and repeat that it is an atrocious calumny;
and I will pin it to him who repeats it here.
"Mr. Clay. Then I declare before the Senate that you said to me
the very words--
"[Mr. B. in his place, while Mr. Clay was yet speaking, several
times loudly repeated the word 'false, false, false.']
Mr. Clay said, I fling back the charge of atrocious calumny upon
the senator from Missouri.
A call to order was here heard from several senators.
"The President, pro tem., said, the senator from Kentucky is not
in order, and must take his seat.
"Mr. Clay. Will the Chair state the point of order?
"The Chair, said Mr. Tazewell (the President pro tem.), can
enter in no explanations with the senator.
"Mr. Clay. I shall be heard. I demand to know what point of
order can be taken against me, which was not equally applicable
to the senator from Missouri.
"The President, pro tem., stated, that he considered the whole
discussion as out of order. He would not have permitted it, had
he been in the chair at its commencement.
"Mr. Poindexter said, he was in the chair at the commencement of
the discussion, and did not then see fit to check it. But he was
now of the opinion that it was not in order.
"Mr. B. I apologize to the Senate for the manner in which I have
spoken; but not to the senator from Kentucky.
"Mr. Clay. To the Senate I also offer an apology. To the senator
from Missouri none.
"The question was here called for, by several senators, and it
was taken, as heretofore reported."
The conclusion of the debate on the side of the bank was in the
most impressive form to the fears and apprehensions of the country,
and well calculated to alarm and rouse a community.' Mr. Webster
concluded with this peroration, presenting a direful picture of
distress if the veto was sustained, and portrayed the death of the
constitution before it had attained the fiftieth year of its age. He
concluded thus--little foreseeing in how few years he was to invoke
the charity of the world's silence and oblivion for the institution
which his rhetoric then exalted into a great and beneficent power,
indispensable to the well working of the government, and the well
conducting of their affairs by all the people:
"Mr. President, we have arrived at a new epoch. We are entering
on experiments with the government and the constitution of
the country, hitherto untried, and of fearful and appalling
aspect. This message calls us to the contemplation of a future,
which little resembles the past. Its principles are at war
with all that public opinion has sustained, and all which the
experience of the government has sanctioned. It denies first
principles. It contradicts truths heretofore received as
indisputable. It denies to the judiciary the interpretation of
law, and demands to divide with Congress the origination of
statutes. It extends the grasp of Executive pretension over
every power of the government. But this is not all. It presents
the Chief Magistrate of the Union in the attitude of arguing
away the powers of that government over which he has been
chosen to preside; and adopting, for this purpose, modes of
reasoning which, even under the influence of all proper feeling
towards high official station, it is difficult to regard as
respectable. It appeals to every prejudice which may betray
men into a mistaken view of their own interests; and to every
passion which may lead them to disobey the impulses of their
understanding. It urges all the specious topics of State rights,
and national encroachment, against that which a great majority
of the States have affirmed to be rightful, and in which all
of them have acquiesced. It sows, in an unsparing manner, the
seeds of jealousy and ill-will against that government of which
its author is the official head. It raises a cry that liberty
is in danger, at the very moment when it puts forth claims to
power heretofore unknown and unheard of. It affects alarm for
the public freedom, when nothing so much endangers that freedom
as its own unparalleled pretences. This, even, is not all. It
manifestly seeks to influence the poor against the rich. It
wantonly attacks whole classes of the people, for the purpose
of turning against them the prejudices and resentments of other
classes. It is a state paper which finds no topic too exciting
for its use; no passion too inflammable for its address and its
solicitation. Such is this message. It remains, now, for the
people of the United States to choose between the principles
here avowed and their government. These cannot subsist together.
The one or the other must be rejected. If the sentiments of the
message shall receive general approbation, the constitution will
have perished even earlier than the moment which its enemies
originally allowed for the termination of its existence. It will
not have survived to its fiftieth year."
On the other hand, Mr. White, of Tennessee, exalted the merit of
the veto message above all the acts of General Jackson's life, and
claimed for it a more enduring fame, and deeper gratitude than for
the greatest of his victories: and concluded his speech thus:
"When the excitement of the time in which we act shall have
passed away, and the historian and biographer shall be employed
in giving his account of the acts of our most distinguished
public men, and comes to the name of Andrew Jackson; when he
shall have recounted all the great and good deeds done by
this man in the course of a long and eventful life, and the
circumstances under which this message was communicated shall
have been stated, the conclusion will be, that, in doing this,
he has shown a willingness to risk more to promote the happiness
of his fellow-men, and to secure their liberties, than by the
doing of any other act whatever."
And such, in my opinion, will be the judgment of posterity--the
judgment of posterity, if furnished with the material to appreciate
the circumstances under which he acted when signing the message
which was to decide the question of supremacy between the bank and
the government.
CHAPTER LXIX.
THE PROTECTIVE SYSTEM.
The cycle had come round which, periodically, and once in four
years, brings up a presidential election and a tariff discussion.
The two events seemed to be inseparable; and this being the fourth
year from the great tariff debate of 1828, and the fourth year from
the last presidential election, and being the long session which
precedes the election, it was the one in regular course in which the
candidates and their friends make the greatest efforts to operate
upon public opinion through the measures which they propose, or
oppose in Congress. Added to this, the election being one on which
not only a change of political parties depended, but also a second
trial of the election in the House of Representatives in 1824-'25,
in which Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay triumphed over General Jackson,
with the advantage on their side now of both being in Congress: for
these reasons this session became the most prolific of party topics,
and of party contests, of any one ever seen in the annals of our
Congress. And certainly there were large subjects to be brought
before the people, and great talents to appear in their support and
defence. The renewal of the national bank charter--the continuance
of the protective system--internal improvement by the federal
government--division of the public land money, or of the lands
themselves--colonization society--extension of pension list--Georgia
and the Cherokees--Georgia and the Supreme Court--imprisoned
missionaries--were all brought forward, and pressed with zeal,
by the party out of power; and pressed in a way to show their
connection with the presidential canvass, and the reliance upon
them to govern its result. The party in power were chiefly on
the defensive; and it was the complete civil representation of a
military attack and defence of a fortified place--a siege--with its
open and covert attacks on one side, its repulses and sallies on
the other--its sappings and minings, as well as its open thundering
assaults. And this continued for seven long months--from December to
July; fierce in the beginning, and becoming more so from day to day
until the last hour of the last day of the exhausted session. It was
the most fiery and eventful session that I had then seen--or since
seen, except one--the panic session of 1834-'35.
The two leading measures in this plan of operations--the bank and
the tariff--were brought forward simultaneously and quickly--on the
same day, and under the same lead. The memorial for the renewal
of the bank charter was presented in the Senate on the 9th day of
January: on the same day, and as soon as it was referred, Mr. Clay
submitted a resolution in relation to the tariff, and delivered a
speech of three days' duration in support of the American system.
The President, in his message, and in view of the approaching
extinction of the public debt--then reduced to an event of certainty
within the ensuing year--recommended the abolition of duties on
numerous articles of necessity or comfort, not produced at home.
Mr. Clay proposed to make the reduction in subordination to the
preservation of the "American system" and this opened the whole
question of free trade and protection; and occasioned that field to
be trod over again with all the vigor of a fresh exploration. Mr.
Clay opened his great speech with a retrospect of what the condition
of the country was for seven years before the tarriff of 1824,
and what it had been since--the first a period of unprecedented
calamity, the latter of equally unprecedented prosperity:--and he
made the two conditions equally dependent upon the absence and
presence of the protective system. He said:
"Eight years ago, it was my painful duty to present to the
other House of Congress an unexaggerated picture of the general
distress pervading the whole land. We must all yet remember some
of its frightful features. We all know that the people were
then oppressed and borne down by an enormous load of debt; that
the value of property was at the lowest point of depression;
that ruinous sales and sacrifices were every where made of
real estate; that stop laws and relief laws and paper money
were adopted to save the people from impending destruction;
that a deficit in the public revenue existed, which compelled
government to seize upon, and divert from its legitimate object,
the appropriation to the sinking fund, to redeem the national
debt; and that our commerce and navigation were threatened
with a complete paralysis. In short, sir, if I were to select
any term of seven years since the adoption of the present
constitution, which exhibited a scene of the most wide-spread
dismay and desolation, it would be exactly the term of seven
years which immediately preceded the establishment of the tariff
of 1824."
This was a faithful picture of that calamitous period, but the
argument derived from it was a two-edged sword, which cut, and
deeply, into another measure, also lauded as the cause of the
public prosperity. These seven years of national distress which
immediately preceded the tariff of 1824, were also the same
seven years which immediately followed the establishment of the
national bank; and which, at the time it was chartered, was to be
the remedy for all the distress under which the country labored:
besides, the protective system was actually commenced in the year
1816--contemporaneously with the establishment of the national bank.
Before 1816, protection to home industry had been an incident to the
levy of revenue; but in 1816 it became an object. Mr. Clay thus
deduced the origin and progress of the protective policy:
"It began on the ever memorable 4th day of July--the 4th of
July, 1789. The second act which stands recorded in the statute
book, bearing the illustrious signature of George Washington,
laid the corner stone of the whole system. That there might be
no mistake about the matter, it was then solemly proclaimed to
the American people and to the world, that it was _necessary_
for "the encouragement and _protection_ of manufactures," that
duties should be laid. It is in vain to urge the small amount
of the measure of protection then extended. The great principle
was then established by the fathers of the constitution, with
the father of his country at their head. And it cannot now be
questioned, that, if the government had not then been new and
the subject untried, a greater measure of protection would have
been applied, if it had been supposed necessary. Shortly after,
the master minds of Jefferson and Hamilton were brought to act
on this interesting subject. Taking views of it appertaining to
the departments of foreign affairs and of the treasury, which
they respectively filled, they presented, severally, reports
which yet remain monuments of their profound wisdom, and came
to the same conclusion of protection to American industry.
Mr. Jefferson argued that foreign restrictions, foreign
prohibitions, and foreign high duties, ought to be met, at home,
by American restrictions, American prohibitions, and American
high duties. Mr. Hamilton, surveying the entire ground, and
looking at the inherent nature of the subject, treated it with
an ability which, if ever equalled, has not been surpassed, and
earnestly recommended protection.
"The wars of the French revolution commenced about this period,
and streams of gold poured into the United States through a
thousand channels, opened or enlarged by the successful commerce
which our neutrality enabled us to prosecute. We forgot,
or overlooked, in the general prosperity, the necessity of
encouraging our domestic manufactures. Then came the edicts of
Napoleon, and the British orders in council; and our embargo,
non-intercourse, non-importation, and war, followed in rapid
succession. These national measures, amounting to a total
suspension, for the period of their duration, of our foreign
commerce, afforded the most efficacious encouragement to
American manufactures; and accordingly, they every where sprung
up. Whilst these measures of restriction and this state of war
continued the manufacturers were stimulated in their enterprises
by every assurance of support, by public sentiment, and by
legislative resolves. It was about that period (1808) that South
Carolina bore her high testimony to the wisdom of the policy,
in an act of her legislature, the preamble of which, now before
me, reads: 'Whereas the establishment and _encouragement_ of
domestic manufactures is conducive to the interest of a State,
by adding new _incentives to industry_, and as being the means
of disposing, to advantage, the surplus productions of the
_agriculturist_: And whereas, in the present unexampled state
of the world, their establishment in our country is not only
_expedient_, but politic, in rendering us _independent_ of
foreign nations.' The legislature, not being competent to afford
the most efficacious aid, by imposing duties on foreign rival
articles, proceeded to incorporate a company.
"Peace, under the Treaty of Ghent, returned in 1815, but there
did not return with it the golden days which preceded the
edicts levelled at our commerce by Great Britain and France. It
found all Europe tranquilly resuming the arts and the business
of civil life. It found Europe no longer the consumer of our
surplus, and the employer of our navigation, but excluding, or
heavily burdening, almost all the productions of our agriculture
and our rivals in manufactures, in navigation, and in commerce.
It found our country, in short, in a situation totally different
from all the past--new and untried. It became necessary to
adapt our laws, and especially our laws of impost, to the new
circumstances in which we found ourselves. It has been said that
the tariff of 1816 was a measure of mere revenue; and that it
only reduced the war duties to a peace standard. It is true that
the question then was, how much, and in what way, should the
double duties of the war be reduced? Now, also, the question is,
on what articles shall the duties be reduced so as to subject
the amount of the future revenue to the wants of the government?
Then it was deemed an inquiry of the first importance, as it
should be now, how the reduction should be made, so as to secure
proper encouragement to domestic industry. That this was a
leading object in the arrangement of the tariff of 1816, I well
remember, and it is demonstrated by the language of Mr. Dallas.
"The subject of the American system was again brought up in
1820, by the bill reported by the chairman of the Committee
on Manufactures, now a member of the bench of the Supreme
Court of the United States, and the principle was successfully
maintained by the representatives of the people; but the bill
which they passed was defeated in the Senate. It was revived
in 1824, the whole ground carefully and deliberately explored,
and the bill then introduced, receiving all the sanctions of
the constitution. This act of 1824 needed amendments in some
particulars, which were attempted in 1828, but ended in some
injuries to the system; and now the whole aim was to save an
existing system--not to create a new one."
And he summed up his policy thus:
"1. That the policy which we have been considering ought to
continue to be regarded as the genuine American system.
"2. That the free trade system, which is proposed as its
substitute, ought really to be considered as the British
colonial system.
"3. That the American system is beneficial to all parts of the
Union, and absolutely necessary to much the larger portion.
"4. That the price of the great staple of cotton, and of all our
chief productions of agriculture, has been sustained and upheld,
and a decline averted by the protective system.
"5. That, if the foreign demand for cotton has been at all
diminished by the operation of that system, the diminution has
been more than compensated in the additional demand created at
home.
"6. That the constant tendency of the system, by creating
competition among ourselves, and between American and European
industry, reciprocally acting upon each other, is to reduce
prices of manufactured objects.
"7. That, in point of fact, objects within the scope of the
policy of protection have greatly fallen in price.
"8. That if, in a season of peace, these benefits are
experienced, in a season of war, when the foreign supply might
be cut off, they would be much more extensively felt.
"9. And, finally, that the substitution of the British colonial
system for the American system, without benefiting any section
of the Union, by subjecting us to a foreign legislation,
regulated by foreign interests, would lead to the prostration of
our manufactures, general impoverishment, and ultimate ruin."
Mr. Clay was supported in his general views by many able
speakers--among them, Dickerson and Frelinghuysen of New Jersey;
Ewing of Ohio; Holmes of Maine; Bell of New Hampshire; Hendricks of
Indiana; Webster and Silsbee of Massachusetts; Robbins and Knight of
Rhode Island; Wilkins and Dallas of Pennsylvania; Sprague of Maine;
Clayton of Delaware; Chambers of Maryland; Foot of Connecticut. On
the other hand the speakers in opposition to the protective policy
were equally numerous, ardent and able. They were: Messrs. Hayne
and Miller of South Carolina; Brown and Mangum of North Carolina;
Forsyth and Troup of Georgia; Grundy and White of Tennessee; Hill
of New Hampshire; Kane of Illinois; Benton of Missouri; King and
Moore of Alabama; Poindexter of Mississippi; Tazewell and Tyler of
Virginia; General Samuel Smith of Maryland. I limit the enumeration
to the Senate. In the House the subject was still more fully
debated, according to its numbers; and like the bank question, gave
rise to heat; and was kept alive to the last day.
General Smith of Maryland, took up the question at once as bearing
upon the harmony and stability of the Union--as unfit to be pressed
on that account as well as for its own demerits--avowed himself a
friend to incidental protection, for which he had always voted,
and even voted for the act of 1816--which he considered going far
enough; and insisted that all "manufacturers" were doing well under
it, and did not need the acts of 1824 and 1828, which were made for
"capitalists"--to enable them to engage in manufacturing; and who
had not the requisite skill and care, and suffered, and called upon
Congress for more assistance. He said:
"We have arrived at a crisis. Yes, Mr. President, at a crisis
more appalling than a day of battle. I adjure the Committee on
Manufactures to pause--to reflect on the dissatisfaction of
all the South. South Carolina has expressed itself strongly
against the tariff of 1828--stronger than the other States
are willing to speak. But, sir, the whole of the South feel
deeply the oppression of that tariff. In this respect there
is no difference of opinion. The South--the whole Southern
States--all, consider it as oppressive. They have not yet
spoken; but when they do speak, it will be with a voice that
will not implore, but will demand redress. How much better,
then, to grant redress? How much better that the Committee on
Manufactures heal the wound which has been inflicted? I want
nothing that shall injure the manufacturer. I only want justice.
"I am, Mr. President, one of the few survivors of those who
fought in the war of the revolution. We then thought we fought
for liberty--for equal rights. We fought against taxation, the
proceeds of which were for the benefit of others. Where is the
difference, if the people are to be taxed by the manufacturers
or by any others? I say manufacturers--and why do I say so?
When the Senate met, there was a strong disposition with all
parties to ameliorate the tariff of 1828; but I now see a
change, which makes me almost despair of any thing effectual
being accomplished. Even the small concessions made by the
senator from Kentucky [Mr. Clay] have been reprobated by the
lobby members, the agents of the manufacturers. I am told they
have put their fiat on any change whatever, and hence, as a
consequence, the change in the course and language of gentlemen,
which almost precludes all hope. Those interested men hang on
the Committee on Manufactures like an incubus. I say to that
committee, depend upon your own good judgments--survey the whole
subject as politicians--discard sectional interests, and study
only the common weal--act with these views--and thus relieve the
oppressions of the South.
"I have ever, Mr. President, supported the interest of
manufactures, as far as it could be done incidentally. I
supported the late Mr. Lowndes's bill of 1816. I was a member
of his committee, and that bill protected the manufactures
sufficiently, except bar iron. Mr. Lowndes had reported fifteen
dollars per ton. The House reduced it to nine dollars per ton.
That act enabled the manufacturers to exclude importations of
certain articles. The hatters carry on their business by their
sons and apprentices, and few, if any, hats are now imported.
Large quantities are exported, and preferred. All articles of
leather, from tanned side to the finest harness or saddle, have
been excluded from importation; and why? Because the business
is conducted by their own hard hands, their own labor, and they
are now heavily taxed by the tariff of 1828, to enable the rich
to enter into the manufactures of the country. Yes, sir, I say
the rich, who entered into the business after the act of 1824,
which proved to be a mushroom affair, and many of them suffered
severely. The act of 1816, I repeat, gave all the protection
that was necessary or proper, under which the industrious and
frugal completely succeeded. But, sir, the capitalist who had
invested his capital in manufactures, was not to be satisfied
with ordinary profit; and therefore the act of 1828."
Mr. Clay, in his opening speech had adverted to the Southern
discontent at the working of the protective tariff, in a way that
showed he felt it to be serious, and entitled to enter into the
consideration of statesmen; but considered this system an overruling
necessity of such want and value to other parts of the Union, that
the danger to its existence laid in the abandonment, and not in the
continuance of the "American system." On this point he expressed
himself thus:
"And now, Mr. President, I have to make a few observations
on a delicate subject, which I approach with all the respect
that is due to its serious and grave nature. They have not,
indeed, been rendered necessary by the speech of the gentleman
from South Carolina, whose forbearance to notice the topic
was commendable, as his argument throughout was characterized
by an ability and dignity worthy of him and of the Senate.
The gentleman made one declaration which might possibly be
misinterpreted, and I submit to him whether an explanation of
it be not proper. The declaration, as reported in his printed
speech, is: 'the instinct of self-interest might have taught
us an easier way of relieving ourselves from this oppression.
It wanted but the will to have supplied ourselves with every
article embraced in the protective system, free of duty,
without any other participation, on our part than a simple
consent to receive them.' [Here Mr. Hayne rose, and remarked
that the passages, which immediately preceded and followed the
paragraph cited, he thought, plainly indicated his meaning,
which related to evasions of the system, by illicit introduction
of goods, which they were not disposed to countenance in South
Carolina.] I am happy to hear this explanation. But, sir, it
is impossible to conceal from our view the fact that there is
great excitement in South Carolina; that the protective system
is openly and violently denounced in popular meetings; and that
the legislature itself has declared its purpose of resorting
to counteracting measures: a suspension of which has only been
submitted to, for the purpose of allowing Congress time to
retrace its steps. With respect to this Union, Mr. President,
the truth cannot be too generally proclaimed, nor too strongly
inculcated, that it is necessary to the whole and to all the
parts--necessary to those parts, indeed, in different degrees,
but vitally necessary to each; and that, threats to disturb or
dissolve it, coming from any of the parts, would be quite as
indiscreet and improper, as would be threats from the residue
to exclude those parts from the pale of its benefits. The great
principle, which lies at the foundation of all free governments,
is, that the majority must govern; from which there is nor can
be no appeal but to the sword. That majority ought to govern
wisely, equitably, moderately, and constitutionally; but,
govern it must, subject only to that terrible appeal. If ever
one, or several States, being a minority, can, by menacing a
dissolution of the Union, succeed in forcing an abandonment of
great measures, deemed essential to the interests and prosperity
of the whole, the Union, from that moment, is practically
gone. It may linger on, in form and name, but its vital spirit
has fled for ever! Entertaining these deliberate opinions,
I would entreat the patriotic people of South Carolina--the
land of Marion, Sumpter, and Pickens; of Rutledge, Laurens,
the Pickneys; and Lowndes; of living and present names, which
I would mention if they were not living or present--to pause,
solemnly pause! and contemplate the frightful precipice which
lies directly before them. To retreat, may be painful and
mortifying to their gallantry and pride; but it is to retreat
to the Union, to safety, and to those brethren, with whom, or,
with whose ancestors, they, or their ancestors, have won, on the
fields of glory, imperishable renown. To advance, is to rush on
certain and inevitable disgrace and destruction.
"The danger to our Union does not lie on the side of persistance
in the American system, but on that of its abandonment. If, as
I have supposed and believe, the inhabitants of all north and
east of James River, and all west of the mountains, including
Louisiana are deeply interested in the preservation of that
system, would they be reconciled to its overthrow? Can it be
expected that two thirds, if not three fourths, of the people of
the United States would consent to the destruction of a policy
believed to be indispensably necessary to their prosperity?
When too, this sacrifice is made at the instance of a single
interest, which they verily believe will not be promoted by
it? In estimating the degree of peril which may be incident to
two opposite courses of human policy, the statesman would be
short-sighted who should content himself with viewing only the
evils, real or imaginary, which belong to that course which
is in practical operation. He should lift himself up to the
contemplation of those greater and more certain dangers which
might inevitably attend the adoption of the alternative course.
What would be the condition of this Union, if Pennsylvania
and New-York, those mammoth members of our confederacy, were
firmly persuaded that their industry was paralyzed, and their
prosperity blighted, by the enforcement of the British colonial
system, under the delusive name of free trade? They are now
tranquil, and happy, and contented, conscious of their welfare
and feeling a salutary and rapid circulation of the products
of home manufactures and home industry throughout all their
great arteries. But let that be checked, let them feel that
a foreign system is to predominate, and the sources of their
subsistence and comfort dried up; let New England and the West,
and the Middle States, all feel that they too are the victims of
a mistaken policy, and let these vast portions of our country
despair of any favorable change, and then, indeed, might we
tremble for the continuance and safety of this Union!"
Here was an appalling picture presented: dissolution of the Union,
on either hand, and one or the other of the alternatives obliged
to be taken. If persisted in, the opponents to the protective
system, in the South, were to make the dissolution; if abandoned,
its friends, in the North, were to do it. Two citizens, whose
word was law to two great parties, denounced the same event, from
opposite causes, and one of which causes was obliged to occur. The
crisis required a hero-patriot at the head of the government, and
Providence had reserved one for the occasion. There had been a
design, in some, to bring Jackson forward for the Presidency, in
1816, and again, in 1820, when he held back. He was brought forward,
in 1824, and defeated. These three successive postponements brought
him to the right years, for which Providence seemed to have destined
him, and which he would have missed, if elected at either of the
three preceding elections. It was a reservation above human wisdom
or foresight; and gave to the American people (at the moment they
wanted him) the man of head, and heart, and nerve, to do what the
crisis required: who possessed the confidence of the people, and who
knew no course, in any danger, but that of duty and patriotism; and
had no feeling, in any extremity but that God and the people would
sustain him. Such a man was wanted, in 1832, and was found--found
before, but reserved for use now.
The representatives from the South, generally but especially those
from South Carolina, while depicting the distress of their section
of the Union, and the reversed aspect which had come upon their
affairs, less prosperous now than before the formation of the
Union, attributed the whole cause of this change to the action
of the federal government, in the levy and distribution of the
public revenue; to the protective system, which was now assuming
permanency, and increasing its exactions; and to a course of
expenditure which carried to the North what was levied on the South.
The democratic party generally concurred in the belief that this
system was working injuriously upon the South, and that this injury
ought to be relieved; that it was a cause of dissatisfaction with
the Union, which a regard for the Union required to be redressed;
but all did not concur in the cause of Southern eclipse in the race
of prosperity which their representatives assigned; and, among them,
Mr. Dallas, who thus spoke:
"The impressive and gloomy description of the senator from
South Carolina [Mr. Hayne], as to the actual state and
wretched prospects of his immediate fellow-citizens, awakens
the liveliest sympathy, and should command our attention. It
is their right; it is our duty. I cannot feel indifferent to
the sufferings of any portion of the American people; and
esteem it inconsistent with the scope and purpose of the
federal constitution, that any majority, no matter how large,
should connive at, or protract the oppression or misery of any
minority, no matter how small. I disclaim and detest the idea
of making one part subservient to another; of feasting upon the
extorted substance of my countrymen; of enriching my own region,
by draining the fertility and resources of a neighbor; of
becoming wealthy with spoils which leave their legitimate owners
impoverished and desolate. But, sir, I want proof of a fact,
whose existence, at least as described, it is difficult even to
conceive; and, above all, I want the true causes of that fact to
be ascertained; to be brought within the reach of legislative
remedy, and to have that remedy of a nature which may be applied
without producing more mischiefs than those it proposes to
cure. The proneness to exaggerate social evils is greatest with
the most patriotic. Temporary embarrassment is sensitively
apprehended to be permanent. Every day's experience teaches
how apt we are to magnify partial into universal distress,
and with what difficulty an excited imagination rescues itself
from despondency. It will not do, sir, to act upon the glowing
or pathetic delineations of a gifted orator; it will not do to
become enlisted, by ardent exhortations, in a crusade against
established systems of policy; it will not do to demolish the
walls of our citadel to the sounds of plaintiff eloquence, or
fire the temple at the call of impassioned enthusiasm.
"What, sir, is the cause of Southern distress? Has any gentleman
yet ventured to designate it? Can any one do more than suppose,
or argumentatively assume it? I am neither willing nor competent
to flatter. To praise the honorable senator from South Carolina,
would be
'To add perfume to the violet--
Wasteful and ridiculous excess.'
But, if he has failed to discover the source of the evils he
deplores, who can unfold it? Amid the warm and indiscriminating
denunciations with which he has assailed the policy of
protecting domestic manufactures and native produce, he frankly
avows that he would not 'deny that there are other causes,
besides the tariff, which have contributed to produce the evils
which he has depicted.' What are those 'other causes?' In what
proportion have they acted? How much of this dark shadowing is
ascribable to each singly, and to all in combination? Would
the tariff be at all felt or denounced, if these other causes
were not in operation? Would not, in fact, its influence, its
discriminations, its inequalities, its oppressions, but for
these 'other causes,' be shaken, by the elasticity and energy,
and exhaustless spirit of the South, as 'dew-drops from the
lion's mane?' These inquiries, sir, must be satisfactorily
answered before we can be justly required to legislate away an
entire system. If it be the root of all evil, let it be exposed
and demolished. If its poisonous exhalations be but partial, let
us preserve such portions as are innoxious. If, as the luminary
of day, it be pure and salutary in itself, let us not wish it
extinguished, because of the shadows, clouds, and darkness which
obscure its brightness or impede its vivifying power.
"That other causes still, Mr. President, for Southern distress,
do exist, cannot be doubted. They combine with the one I have
indicated, and are equally unconnected with the manufacturing
policy. One of these it is peculiarly painful to advert to;
and when I mention it, I beg honorable senators not to suppose
that I do it in the spirit of taunt, of reproach, or of idle
declamation. Regarding it as a misfortune merely, not as a
fault; as a disease inherited, not incurred; perhaps to be
alleviated, but not eradicated, I should feel self-condemned
were I to treat it other than as an existing fact, whose merit
or demerit, apart from the question under debate, is shielded
from commentary by the highest and most just considerations. I
refer, sir, to the character of Southern labor, in itself, and
in its influence on others. Incapable of adaptation to the
ever-varying charges of human society and existence, it retains
the communities in which it is established, in a condition of
apparent and comparative inertness. The lights of science, and
the improvements of art, which vivify and accelerate elsewhere,
cannot penetrate, or, if they do, penetrate with dilatory
inefficiency, among its operatives. They are merely instinctive
and passive. While the intellectual industry of other parts of
this country springs elastically forward at every fresh impulse,
and manual labor is propelled and redoubled by countless
inventions, machines, and contrivances, instantly understood and
at once exercised, the South remains stationary, inaccessible to
such encouraging and invigorating aids. Nor is it possible to be
wholly blind to the moral effect of this species of labor upon
those freemen among whom it exists. A disrelish for humble and
hardy occupation; a pride adverse to drudgery and toil; a dread
that to partake in the employments allotted to color, may be
accompanied also by its degradation, are natural and inevitable.
The high and lofty qualities which, in other scenes and for
other purposes, characterize and adorn our Southern brethren,
are fatal to the enduring patience, the corporal exertion,
and the painstaking simplicity, by which only a successful
yeomanry can be formed. When, in fact, sir, the senator from
South Carolina asserts that 'slaves are too improvident, too
incapable of that minute, constant, delicate attention, and
that persevering industry which is essential to the success of
manufacturing establishments,' he himself admits the defect in
the condition of Southern labor, by which the progress of his
favorite section must be retarded. He admits an inability to
keep pace with the rest of the world. He admits an inherent
weakness; a weakness neither engendered nor aggravated by the
tariff--which, as societies are now constituted and directed,
must drag in the rear, and be distanced in the common race."
Thus spoke Mr. Dallas, senator from Pennsylvania; and thus speaking,
gave offence to no Southern man; and seemed to be well justified
in what he said, from the historical fact that the loss of ground,
in the race of prosperity, had commenced in the South before the
protective system began--before that epoch year, 1816, when it was
first installed as a system, and so installed by the power of the
South Carolina vote and talent. But the levy and expenditure of the
federal government was, doubtless, the main cause of this Southern
decadence--so unnatural in the midst of her rich staples--and which
had commenced before 1816.
It so happened, that while the advocates of the American system
were calling so earnestly for government protection, to enable
them to sustain themselves at home, that the custom-house books
were showing that a great many species of our manufactures,
and especially the cotton, were going abroad to far distant
countries; and sustaining themselves on remote theatres against all
competition, and beyond the range of any help from our laws. Mr.
Clay, himself, spoke of this exportation, to show the excellence of
our fabrics, and that they were worth protection; I used the same
fact to show that they were independent of protection; and said:
"And here I would ask, how many and which are the articles that
require the present high rate of protection? Certainly not the
cotton manufacture; for, the senator from Kentucky [Mr. Clay],
who appears on this floor as the leading champion of domestic
manufactures, and whose admissions of fact must be conclusive
against his arguments of theory! this senator tells you, and
dwells upon the disclosure with triumphant exultation, that
American cottons are now exported to Asia, and sold at a profit
in the cotton markets of Canton and Calcutta! Surely, sir,
our tariff laws of 1824 and 1828 are not in force in Bengal
and China. And I appeal to all mankind for the truth of the
inference, that, if our cottons can go to these countries, and
be sold at a profit without any protection at all, they can
stay at home, and be sold to our own citizens, without loss,
under a less protection than fifty and two hundred and fifty per
centum! One fact, Mr. President, is said to be worth a thousand
theories; I will add that it is worth a hundred thousand
speeches; and this fact that the American cottons now traverse
the one-half of the circumference of this globe--cross the
equinoctial line; descend to the antipodes; seek foreign markets
on the double theatre of British and Asiatic competition,
and come off victorious from the contest--is a full and
overwhelming answer to all the speeches that have been made,
or ever can be made, in favor of high protecting duties on
these cottons at home. The only effect of such duties is to
cut off importations--to create monopoly at home--to enable
our manufacturers to sell their goods higher to their own
christian fellow-citizens than to the pagan worshippers of Fo
and of Brahma! to enable the inhabitants of the Ganges and the
Burrampooter to wear American cottons upon cheaper terms than
the inhabitants of the Ohio and Mississippi. And every Western
citizen knows the fact, that when these shipments of American
cottons were making to the extremities of Asia, the price of
these same cottons was actually raised twenty and twenty-five
per cent., in all the towns of the West; with this further
difference to our prejudice, that we can only pay for them
in money, while the inhabitants of Asia make payment in the
products of their own country.
"This is what the gentleman's admission proved; but I do not
come here to argue upon admissions, whether candid or unguarded,
of the adversary speakers. I bring my own facts and proofs; and,
really, sir, I have a mind to complain that the gentleman's
admission about cottons has crippled the force of my argument;
that it has weakened its effect by letting out half at a time,
and destroyed its novelty, by an anticipated revelation. The
truth is, I have this fact (that we exported domestic cottons)
treasured up in my magazine of material! and intended to produce
it, at the proper time, to show that we exported this article,
not to Canton and Calcutta alone, but to all quarters of the
globe; not a few cargoes only, by way of experiment, but in
great quantities, as a regular trade, to the amount of a million
and a quarter of dollars, annually; and that, of this amount,
no less than forty thousand dollars' worth, in the year 1880,
had done what the combined fleets and armies of the world could
not do; it had scaled the rock of Gibraltar, penetrated to the
heart of the British garrison, taken possession of his Britannic
Majesty's soldiers, bound their arms, legs, and bodies, and
strutted in triumph over the ramparts and batteries of that
unattackable fortress. And now, sir, I will use no more of the
gentleman's admissions; I will draw upon my own resources; and
will show nearly the whole list of our domestic manufacture to
be in the same flourishing condition with cottons, actually
going abroad to seek competition, without protection, in
every foreign clime, and contending victoriously with foreign
manufactures wherever they can encounter them. I read from the
custom-house returns, of 1830--the last that has been printed.
Listen to it:
"This is the list of domestic manufactures exported to foreign
countries. It comprehends the whole, or nearly the whole, of
that long catalogue of items which the senator from Kentucky
[Mr. Clay] read to us, on the second day of his discourse;
and shows the whole to be going abroad, without a shadow of
protection, to seek competition, in foreign markets, with the
foreign goods of all the world. The list of articles I have
read, contains near fifty varieties of manufactures (and I
have omitted many minor articles) amounting, in value, to
near six millions of dollars! And now behold the diversity of
human reasoning! The senator from Kentucky exhibits a list of
articles manufactured in the United States, and argues that the
slightest diminution in the enormous protection they now enjoy,
will overwhelm the whole in ruin, and cover the country with
distress; I read the same identical list, to show that all these
articles go abroad and contend victoriously with their foreign
rivals in all foreign markets."
Mr. Clay had attributed to the tariffs of 1824 and 1828 the reviving
and returning prosperity of the country, while in fact it was the
mere effect of recovery from prostration, and in spite of these
tariffs, instead of by their help. Business had been brought to a
stand during the disastrous period which ensued the establishment
of the Bank of the United States. It was a period of stagnation, of
settlement, of paying up, of getting clear of loads of debt; and
starting afresh. It was the strong man, freed from the burthen under
which he had long been prostrate, and getting on his feet again.
In the West I knew that this was the process, and that our revived
prosperity was entirely the result of our own resources, independent
of, and in spite of federal legislation; and so declared it in my
speech. I said:
"The fine effects of the high tariff upon the prosperity of the
West have been celebrated on this floor: with how much reason,
let facts respond, and the people judge! I do not think we
are indebted to the high tariff for our fertile lands and our
navigable rivers; and I am certain we are indebted to these
blessings for the prosperity we enjoy. In all that comes from
the soil, the people of the West are rich. They have an abundant
supply of food for man and beast, and a large surplus to send
abroad. They have the comfortable living which industry creates
for itself in a rich soil; but, beyond this, they are poor. They
have none of the splendid works which imply the presence of
the moneyed power! No Appian or Flaminian ways; no roads paved
or McAdamized; no canals, except what are made upon borrowed
means; no aqueducts; no bridges of stone across our innumerable
streams; no edifices dedicated to eternity; no schools for the
fine arts: not a public library for which an ordinary scholar
would not apologize. And why none of those things? Have the
people of the West no taste for public improvements, for the
useful and the fine arts, and for literature? Certainly they
have a very strong taste for them; but they have no money!
not enough for private and current uses, not enough to defray
our current expenses, and buy necessaries! without thinking
of public improvements. We have no money! and that is a tale
which has been told too often here--chanted too dolefully in
the book of lamentations which was composed for the death of
the Maysville road--to be denied or suppressed now. They have
no adequate supply of money. And why? Have they no exports?
Nothing to send abroad? Certainly they have exports. Behold
the marching myriads of living animals annually taking their
departure from the heart of the West, defiling through the
gorges of the Cumberland, the Alleghany, and the Apalachian
mountains, or traversing the plains of the South, diverging as
they march, and spreading themselves all over that vast segment
of our territorial circle which lies between the _debouches_
of the Mississippi and the estuary of the Potomac! Behold,
on the other hand, the flying steamboats, and the fleets of
floating arks, loaded with the products of the forest, the farm,
and the pasture, following the course of our noble rivers, and
bearing their freights to that great city which revives, upon
the banks of the Mississippi, the name[5] of the greatest of
the emperors that ever reigned upon the banks of the Tiber, and
who eclipsed the glory of his own heroic exploits by giving an
order to his legions never to levy a contribution of salt upon a
Roman citizen! Behold this double line of exports, and observe
the refluent currents of gold and silver which result from
them! Large are the supplies--millions are the amount which is
annually poured into the West from these double exportations;
enough to cover the face of the earth with magnificent
improvements, and to cram every industrious pocket with gold and
silver. But where is this money? for it is not in the country!
Where does it go? for go it does, and scarcely leaves a vestige
of its transit behind! Sir, it goes to the Northeast! to the
seat of the American system! there it goes! and thus it goes!"
[5] "Aurelian," whose name was given to the military station
(presidium) which was afterwards corrupted into "Orleans."
Mr. Clay had commenced his speech with an apology for what might
be deemed failing powers on account of advancing age. He said he
was getting old, and might not be able to fulfil the expectation,
and requite the attention, of the attending crowd; and wished the
task could have fallen to younger and abler hands. This apology for
age when no diminution of mental or bodily vigor was perceptible,
induced several speakers to commence their replies with allusions
to it, generally complimentary, but not admitting the fact. Mr.
Hayne gracefully said, that he had lamented the advances of age,
and mourned the decay of his eloquence, so eloquently as to prove
that it was still in full vigor; and that he had made an able and
ingenious argument, fully sustaining his high reputation as an
accomplished orator. General Smith, of Maryland, said that he could
not complain himself of the infirmities of age, though older than
the senator from Kentucky, nor could find in his years any apology
for the insufficiency of his speech. Mr. Clay thought this was
intended to be a slur upon him, and replied in a spirit which gave
rise to the following sharp encounter:
"Mr. Smith then rose, and said he was sorry to find that he had
unintentionally offended the honorable gentleman from Kentucky.
In referring to the vigorous age he himself enjoyed, he had not
supposed he should give offence to others who complained of the
infirmities of age. The gentleman from Kentucky was the last who
should take the remark as disparaging to his vigor and personal
appearance; for, when that gentleman spoke to us of his age, he
heard a young lady near him exclaim--"Old, why I think he is
mighty pretty." The honorable gentleman, on Friday last, made
a similitude where none existed. I, said Mr. S., had suggested
the necessity of mutual forbearance in settling the tariff,
and, thereupon, the gentleman vociferated loudly and angrily
about removals from office. He said I was a leader in the
system. I deny the fact. I never exercised the least influence
in effecting a removal, and on the contrary, I interfered,
successfully, to prevent the removal of two gentlemen in
office. I am charged with making a committee on roads and
canals, adverse to internal improvement. If this be so, it is
by mistake. I certainly supposed every gentleman named on that
committee but one to be friendly to internal improvement. To the
committee on manufactures I assigned four out of five who were
known to be friendly to the protective system. The rights of the
minority, he had endeavored, also, in arranging the committee,
to secure. The appointment of the committees he had found one
of the most difficult and onerous tasks he had ever undertaken.
One-third of the house were lawyers, all of whom wanted to be
put upon some important committee. The oath which the senator
had tendered, he hoped he would not take. In the year 1795,
Mr. S. said, he had sustained a protective duty against the
opposition of a member from Pittsburg. Previous to the year
1822, he had always given incidental support to manufactures, in
fixing the tariff. He was a warm friend to the tariff of 1816,
which he still regarded as a wise and beneficial law. He hoped,
then, the gentleman would not take his oath.
"Mr. Clay placed, he said, a high value on the compliment of
which the honorable senator was the channel of communication;
and he the more valued it, inasmuch as he did not recollect
more than once before, in his life, to have received a similar
compliment. He was happy to find that the honorable gentleman
disclaimed the system of proscription; and he should, with his
approbation, hereafter cite his authority in opposition to it.
The Committee on Roads and Canals, whatever were the gentleman's
intentions in constructing it, had a majority of members whose
votes and speeches against internal improvements were matter
of notoriety. The gentleman's appeal to his acts in '95, is
perfectly safe; for, old as I am, my knowledge of his course
does not extend back that far. He would take the period which
the gentleman named, since 1822. It comes, then, to this: The
honorable gentleman was in favor of protecting manufactures;
but he had turned--I need not use the word--he has abandoned
manufactures. Thus:
"Old politicians chew on wisdom past,
And _totter_ on in blunders to the last."
"Mr. Smith.--The last allusion is unworthy of the gentleman.
Totter, sir, I totter? Though some twenty years older than the
gentleman, I can yet stand firm, and am yet able to correct his
errors. I could take a view of the gentleman's course, which
would show how inconsistent he has been. Mr. Clay exclaimed:
'Take it, sir, take it--I dare you.' [Cries of "order."]
No, sir, said Mr. S., I will not take it. I will not so far
disregard what is due to the dignity of the Senate."
Mr. Hayne concluded one of his speeches with a declaration of the
seriousness of the Southern resistance to the tariff, and with a
feeling appeal to senators on all sides of the house to meet their
Southern brethren in the spirit of conciliation, and restore harmony
to a divided people by removing from among them the never-failing
source of contention. He said:
"Let not gentlemen so far deceive themselves as to suppose
that the opposition of the South to the protecting system is
not based on high and lofty principles. It has nothing to do
with party politics, or the mere elevation of men. It rises far
above all such considerations. Nor is it influenced chiefly
by calculations of interest, but is founded in much nobler
impulses. The instinct of self-interest might have taught us
an easier way of relieving ourselves from this oppression. It
wanted but the will, to have supplied ourselves with every
article embraced in the protective system, free of duty, without
any other participation on our part than a simple consent to
receive them. But, sir, we have scorned, in a contest for our
rights, to resort to any but open and fair means to maintain
them. The spirit with which we have entered into this business,
is akin to that which was kindled in the bosom of our fathers
when they were made the victims of oppression; and if it has not
displayed itself in the same way, it is because we have ever
cherished the strongest feelings of confraternity towards our
brethren, and the warmest and most devoted attachment to the
Union. If we have been, in any degree, divided among ourselves
in this matter, the source of that division, let gentlemen
be assured, has not arisen so much from any difference of
opinion as to the true character of the oppression, as from the
different degrees of hope of redress. All parties have for years
past been looking forward to this crisis for the fulfilment of
their hopes, or the confirmation of their fears. And God grant
that the result may be auspicious.
"Sir, I call upon gentlemen on all sides of the House to meet
us in the true spirit of conciliation and concession. Remove,
I earnestly beseech you, from among us, this never-failing
source of contention. Dry up at its source this fountain of
the waters of bitterness. Restore that harmony which has been
disturbed--that mutual affection and confidence which has been
impaired. And it is in your power to do it this day; but there
is but one means under heaven by which it can--by doing equal
justice to all. And be assured that he to whom the country shall
be indebted for this blessing, will be considered as the second
founder of the republic. He will be regarded, in all aftertimes,
as the ministering angel visiting the troubled waters of our
political dissensions, and restoring to the element its healing
virtues."
I take pleasure in quoting these words of Mr. Hayne. They are
words of moderation and of justice--of sorrow more than anger--of
expostulation more than menace--of loyalty to the Union--of
supplication for forbearance;--and a moving appeal to the high
tariff party to avert a national catastrophe by ceasing to be
unjust. His moderation, his expostulation, his supplication, his
appeal--had no effect on the majority. The protective system
continued to be an exasperating theme throughout the session, which
ended without any sensible amelioration of the system, though with
a reduction of duty on some articles of comfort and convenience: as
recommended by President Jackson.
CHAPTER LXX.
PUBLIC LANDS.--DISTRIBUTION TO THE STATES.
The efforts which had been making for years to ameliorate the public
land system in the feature of their sale and disposition, had begun
to have their effect--the effect which always attends perseverance
in a just cause. A bill had ripened to a third reading in the
Senate reducing the price of lands which had been long in market
less than one half--to fifty cents per acre--and the pre-emption
principle had been firmly established, securing the settler in his
home at a fixed price. Two other principles, those of donations to
actual settlers, and of the cession to the States in which they lie
of all land not sold within a reasonable and limited period, were
all that was wanting to complete the ameliorated system which the
graduation bills proposed; and these bills were making a progress
which promised them an eventual success. All the indications were
favorable for the speedy accomplishment of these great reforms in
the land system when the session of 1831-'32 opened, and with it
the authentic annunciation of the extinction of the public debt
within two years--which event would remove the objection of many
to interfering with the subject, the lands being pledged to that
object. This session, preceding the presidential election, and
gathering up so many subjects to go into the canvass, fell upon
the lands for that purpose, and in the way in which magazines of
grain in republican Rome, and money in the treasury in democratic
Athens, were accustomed to be dealt with by candidates for office
in the periods of election; that is to say, were proposed for
distribution. A plan for dividing out among the States for a given
period the money arising from the sale of the lands, was reported
from the Committee on Manufactures by Mr. Clay, a member of that
committee--and which properly could have nothing to do with the sale
and disposition of the lands. That report, after a general history,
and view of the public lands, came to these conclusions:
"Upon full and thorough consideration, the committee have come
to the conclusion that it is inexpedient either to reduce the
price of the public lands, or to cede them to the new States.
They believe, on the contrary, that sound policy coincides with
the duty which has devolved on the general government to the
whole of the States, and the whole of the people of the Union,
and enjoins the preservation of the existing system as having
been tried and approved after long and triumphant experience.
But, in consequence of the extraordinary financial prosperity
which the United States enjoy, the question merits examination,
whether, whilst the general government steadily retains the
control of this great national resource in its own hands, after
the payment of the public debt, the proceeds of the sales of the
public lands, no longer needed to meet the ordinary expenses of
government, may not be beneficially appropriated to some other
objects for a limited time.
"Governments, no more than individuals, should be seduced or
intoxicated by prosperity, however flattering or great it may
be. The country now happily enjoys it in a most unexampled
degree. We have abundant reason to be grateful for the blessings
of peace and plenty, and freedom from debt. But we must be
forgetful of all history and experience, if we indulge the
delusive hope that we shall always be exempt from calamity and
reverses. Seasons of national adversity, of suffering, and of
war, will assuredly come. A wise government should expect,
and provide for them. Instead of wasting or squandering its
resources in a period of general prosperity, it should husband
and cherish them for those times of trial and difficulty,
which, in the dispensations of Providence, may be certainly
anticipated. Entertaining these views, and as the proceeds
of the sales of the public lands are not wanted for ordinary
revenue, which will be abundantly supplied from the imposts,
the committee respectfully recommend that an appropriation
of them be made to some other purpose, for a limited time,
subject to be resumed in the contingency of war. Should such
an event unfortunately occur, the fund may be withdrawn from
its peaceful destination, and applied in aid of other means,
to the vigorous prosecution of the war, and, afterwards to the
payment of any debt which may be contracted in consequence of
its existence. And when peace shall be again restored, and the
debt of the new war shall have been extinguished, the fund may
be again appropriated to some fit object other than that of the
ordinary expenses of government. Thus may this great resource be
preserved and rendered subservient, in peace and in war, to the
common benefit of all the States composing the Union.
"The inquiry remains, what ought to be the specific application
of the fund under the restriction stated? After deducting the
ten per cent. proposed to be set apart for the new States, a
portion of the committee would have preferred that the residue
should be applied to the objects of internal improvement, and
colonization of the free blacks, under the direction of the
general government. But a majority of the committee believes it
better, as an alternative for the scheme of cession to the new
States, and as being most likely to give general satisfaction,
that the residue be divided among the twenty-four States,
according to their federal representative population; to be
applied to education, internal improvement, or colonization, or
to the redemption of any existing debt contracted for internal
improvements, as each State, judging for itself, shall deem
most conformable with its own interests and policy. Assuming
the annual product of the sales of the public lands to be three
millions of dollars, the table hereto annexed, marked C, shows
what each State would be entitled to receive, according to the
principle of division which has been stated. In order that the
propriety of the proposed appropriation should again, at a day
not very far distant, be brought under the review of Congress,
the committee would recommend that it be limited to a period
of five years, subject to the condition of war not breaking
out in the mean time. By an appropriation so restricted as to
time, each State will be enabled to estimate the probable extent
of its proportion, and to adapt its measures of education,
improvement, colonization, or extinction of existing debt,
accordingly.
"In conformity with the views and principles which the committee
have now submitted, they beg leave to report a bill, entitled
'An act to appropriate, for a limited time, the proceeds of the
sales of the public lands of the United States.'"
The impropriety of originating such a bill in the committee on
manufactures was so clear that acquiescence in it was impossible.
The chairman of the committee on public lands immediately moved its
reference to that committee; and although there was a majority for
it in the Senate, and for the bill as it came from the committee
on manufactures, yet the reference was immediately voted; and Mr.
Clay's report and bill sent to that committee, invested with general
authority over the whole subject. That committee, through its
chairman, Mr. King of Alabama, made a counter report, from which
some extracts are here given:
"The committee ventures to suggest that the view which the
committee on manufactures has taken of the federal domain, is
fundamentally erroneous; that it has misconceived the true
principles of national policy with respect to wild lands; and,
from this fundamental mistake, and radical misconception, have
resulted the great errors which pervade the whole structure of
their report and bill.
"The committee on manufactures seem to contemplate the federal
domain merely as an object of revenue, and to look for that
revenue solely from the receivers of the land offices; when
the science of political economy has ascertained such a fund
to be chiefly, if not exclusively, valuable under the aspect
of population and cultivation, and the eventual extraction of
revenue from the people in its customary modes of taxes and
imposts.
"The celebrated Edmund Burke is supposed to have expressed the
sum total of political wisdom on this subject, in his well-known
propositions to convert the forest lands of the British crown
into private property; and this committee, to spare themselves
further argument, and to extinguish at once a political fallacy
which ought not to have been broached in the nineteenth century,
will make a brief quotation from the speech of that eminent man.
"'The revenue to be derived from the sale of the forest lands
will not be so considerable as many have imagined; and I
conceive it would be unwise to screw it up to the utmost, or
even to suffer bidders to enhance, according to their eagerness,
the purchase of objects wherein the expense of that purchase
may weaken the capital to be employed in their cultivation. *
* * The principal revenue which I propose to draw from these
uncultivated wastes, is to spring from the improvement and
cultivation of the kingdom events infinitely more advantageous
to the revenues of the Crown, than the rents of the best landed
estates which it can hold. * * * * It is thus that I would
dispose of the unprofitable landed estates of the Crown--throw
them into the mass of private property--by which they will come,
through the course of circulation, and through the political
secretions of the state, into well-regulated revenue. * * * *
Thus would fall an expensive agency, with all the influence
which attends it.'
"This committee takes leave to say that the sentiments here
expressed by Mr. Burke are the inspirations of political
wisdom; that their truth and justice have been tested in all
ages and all countries, and particularly in our own age and
in our own country. The history of the public lands of the
United States furnishes the most instructive lessons of the
inutility of sales, the value of cultivation, and the fallacy
of large calculations. These lands were expected, at the time
they were acquired by the United States, to pay off the public
debt immediately, to support the government, and to furnish
large surplusses for distribution. Calculations for a thousand
millions were made upon them, and a charge of treachery was
raised against General Hamilton, then Secretary of the Treasury,
for his report in the year 1791, in which the fallacy of all
these visionary calculations was exposed, and the real value
of the lands soberly set down at an average of twenty cents
per acre. Yet, after an experiment of nearly fifty years,
it is found that the sales of the public lands, so far from
paying the public debt, have barely defrayed the expenses of
managing the lands; while the revenue derived from cultivation
has paid both principal and interest of the debts of two wars,
and supported the federal government in a style of expenditure
infinitely beyond the conceptions of those who established it.
The gross proceeds of the sales are but thirty-eight millions
of dollars, from which the large expenses of the system are to
be deducted; while the clear receipts from the customs, after
paying all expenses of collection, amount to $556,443,830. This
immense amount of revenue springs from the use of soil reduced
to private property. For the duties are derived from imported
goods; the goods are received in exchange for exports; and the
exports, with a small deduction for the products of the sea, are
the produce of the farm and the forest. This is a striking view,
but it is only one half of the picture. The other half must be
shown, and will display the cultivation of the soil, in its
immense exports, as giving birth to commerce and navigation, and
supplying employment to all the trades and professions connected
with these two grand branches of national industry; while the
business of selling the land is a meagre and barren operation,
auxiliary to no useful occupation, injurious to the young
States, by exhausting them of their currency, and extending
the patronage of the federal government in the complicated
machinery of the land office department. Such has been the
difference between the revenue received from the sales and from
the cultivation of the land; but no powers of cultivation can
carry out the difference, and show what it will be: for, while
the sale of the land is a single operation, and can be performed
but once, the extraction of revenue from its cultivation is
an annual and perpetual process, increasing in productiveness
through all time, with the increase of population, the
amelioration of soils, the improvement of the country, and the
application of science to the industrial pursuits.
"This committee have said that the bill reported by the
Committee on Manufactures, to divide the proceeds of the sales
of public lands among the several States for a limited time,
is a bill wholly inadmissible in principle, and essentially
erroneous in its details.
"They object to the principle of the bill, because it proposes
to change--and that most injuriously and fatally for the
new States, the character of their relation to the federal
government, on the subject of the public lands. That relation,
at present, imposes on the federal government the character of a
trustee, with the power and the duty of disposing of the public
lands in a liberal and equitable manner. The principle of the
bill proposes to substitute an individual State interest in the
lands, and would be perfectly equivalent to a division of the
lands among the States; for, the power of legislation being
left in their hands, with a direct interest in their sales, the
old and populous States would necessarily consider the lands as
their own, and govern their legislation accordingly. Sales would
be forbid or allowed; surveys stopped or advanced; prices raised
or lowered; donations given or denied; old French and Spanish
claims confirmed or rejected; settlers ousted; emigrations
stopped, precisely as it suited the interest of the old States;
and this interest, in every instance, would be precisely
opposite to the interest of the new States. In vain would some
just men wish to act equitably by these new States; their
generous efforts would expose them to attacks at home. A new
head of electioneering would be opened; candidates for Congress
would rack their imaginations, and exhaust their arithmetic, in
the invention and display of rival projects for the extraction
of gold from the new States; and he that would promise best for
promoting the emigration of dollars from the new States, and
preventing the emigration of people to them, would be considered
the best qualified for federal legislation. If this plan of
distribution had been in force heretofore, the price of the
public lands would not have been reduced, in 1819-'20, nor the
relief laws passed, which exonerated the new States from a debt
of near twenty millions of dollars. If adopted now, these States
may bid adieu to their sovereignty and independence! They will
become the feudatory vassals of the paramount States! Their
subjection and dependence will be without limit or remedy. The
five years mentioned in the bill had as well be fifty or five
hundred. The State that would surrender its sovereignty, for ten
per centum of its own money, would eclipse the folly of Esau,
and become a proverb in the annals of folly with those who have
sold their birthright for 'a mess of pottage.'"
After these general objections to the principle and policy of the
distribution project, the report of the Committee on Public Lands
went on to show its defects, in detail, and to exhibit the special
injuries to which it would subject the new States, in which the
public lands lay. It said:
"The details of the bill are pregnant with injustice and unsound
policy.
"1. The rule of distribution among the States makes no
distinction between those States which did or did not make
cessions of their vacant land to the federal government.
Massachusetts and Maine, which are now selling and enjoying
their vacant lands in their own right, and Connecticut, which
received a deed for two millions of acres from the federal
government, and sold them for her own benefit, are put upon
an equal footing with Virginia, which ceded the immense
domain which lies in the forks of the Ohio and Mississippi,
and Georgia, which ceded territory for two States. This is
manifestly unjust.
"2. The bill proposes benefits to some of the States, which
they cannot receive without dishonor, nor refuse without
pecuniary prejudice. Several States deny the power of the
federal government to appropriate the public moneys to objects
of internal improvement or to colonization. A refusal to accept
their dividends would subject such States to loss; to receive
them, would imply a sale of their constitutional principles for
so much money. Considerations connected with the harmony and
perpetuity of our confederacy should forbid any State to be
compelled to choose between such alternatives.
"3. The public lands, in great part, were granted to the federal
government to pay the debts of the Revolutionary War; it is
notorious that other objects of revenue, to wit, duties on
imported goods, have chiefly paid that debt. It would seem,
then, to be just to the donors of the land, after having taxed
them in other ways to pay the debt, that the land should go
in relief of their present taxes; and that, so long as any
revenue may be derived from them, it should go into the common
treasury, and diminish, by so much, the amount of their annual
contributions.
"4. The colonization of free people of color, on the western
coast of Africa, is a delicate question for Congress to touch.
It connects itself indissolubly with the slave question, and
cannot be agitated by the federal legislature, without rousing
and alarming the apprehensions of all the slaveholding States,
and lighting up the fires of the extinguished conflagration
which lately blazed in the Missouri question. The harmony of
the States, and the durability of this confederacy, interdict
the legislation of the federal legislature upon this subject.
The existence of slavery in the United States is local and
sectional. It is confined to the Southern and Middle States. If
it is an evil, it is an evil to them, and it is their business
to say so. If it is to be removed, it is their business to
remove it. Other States put an end to slavery, at their own
time, and in their own way, and without interference from
federal or State legislation, or organized societies. The rights
of equality demand, for the remaining States, the same freedom
of thought and immunity of action. Instead of assuming the
business of colonization, leave it to the slave-holding States
to do as they please; and leave them their resources to carry
into effect their resolves. Raise no more money from them than
the exigencies of the government require, and then they will
have the means, if they feel the inclination, to rid themselves
of a burden which it is theirs to bear and theirs to remove.
"5. The sum proposed for distribution, though nominally to
consist of the net proceeds of the sales of the public lands,
is, in reality, to consist of their gross proceeds. The term
net, as applied to revenue from land offices or custom-houses,
is quite different. In the latter, its signification corresponds
with the fact, and implies a deduction of all the expenses of
collection; in the former, it has no such implication, for the
expenses of the land system are defrayed by appropriations out
of the treasury. To make the whole sum received from the land
offices a fund for distribution, would be to devolve the heavy
expenses of the land system upon the custom-house revenue: in
other words, to take so much from the custom-house revenue to be
divided among the States. This would be no small item. According
to the principles of the account drawn up against the lands, it
would embrace--
"1. Expenses of the general land office.
"2. Appropriations for surveying.
"3. Expenses of six surveyor generals' offices.
"4. Expenses of forty-four land offices.
"5. Salaries of eighty-eight registers and receivers.
"6. Commissions on sales to registers and receivers.
"7. Allowance to receivers for depositing money.
"8. Interest on money paid for extinguishing Indian titles.
"9. Annuities to Indians.
"10. Future Indian treaties for extinguishing title.
"11. Expenses of annual removal of Indians.
"These items exceed a million of dollars. They are on the
increase, and will continue to grow at least until the one
hundred and thirteen million five hundred and seventy-seven
thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine acres of land within the
limits of the States and territories now covered by Indian
title shall be released from such title. The reduction of
these items, present and to come, from the proposed fund for
distribution, must certainly be made to avoid a contradiction
between the profession and the practice of the bill; and this
reduction might leave little or nothing for division among the
distributees. The gross proceeds of the land sales for the
last year were large; they exceeded three millions of dollars;
but they were equally large twelve years ago, and gave birth
to some extravagant calculations then, which vanished with a
sudden decline of the land revenue to less than one million. The
proceeds of 1819 were $3,274,422; those of 1823 were $916,523.
The excessive sales twelve years ago resulted from the excessive
issue of bank paper, while those of 1831 were produced by the
several relief laws passed by Congress. A detached year is no
evidence of the product of the sales; an average of a series
of years presents the only approximation to correctness; and
this average of the last ten years would be about one million
and three quarters. So that after all expenses are deducted,
with the five per centum now payable to the new States, and ten
per centum proposed by the bill, there may be nothing worth
dividing among the States; certainly nothing worth the alarm
and agitation which the assumption of the colonization question
must excite among the slaveholding States; nothing worth the
danger of compelling the old States which deny the power of
federal internal improvement, to choose between alternatives
which involve a sale of their principles on one side, or a loss
of their dividends on the other; certainly nothing worth the
injury to the new States, which must result from the conversion
of their territory into the private property of those who are to
have the power of legislation over it, and a direct interest in
using that power to degrade and impoverish them."
The two sets of reports were printed in extra numbers, and the
distribution bill largely debated in the Senate, and passed that
body: but it was arrested in the House of Representatives. A
motion to postpone it to a day beyond the session--equivalent to
rejection--prevailed by a small majority: and thus this first
attempt to make distribution of public property, was, for the time,
gotten rid of.
CHAPTER LXXI.
SETTLEMENT OF FRENCH AND SPANISH LAND CLAIMS.
It was now near thirty years since the province of Louisiana
had been acquired, and with it a mass of population owning and
inhabiting lands, the titles to which in but few instances ever
had been perfected into complete grants; and the want of which
was not felt in a new country where land was a gratuitous gift to
every cultivator, and where the government was more anxious for
cultivation than the people were to give it. The transfer of the
province from France and Spain to the United States, found the
mass of the land titles in an inchoate state; and coming under a
government which made merchandise out of the soil, and among a
people who had the Anglo-Saxon avidity for landed property, some
legislation and tribunal was necessary to separate the perfect
from the imperfect titles; and to provide for the examination and
perfection of the latter. The treaty of cession protected every
thing that was "property;" and an inchoate title fell as well within
that category as a perfect one. Without the treaty stipulation the
law of nations would have operated the same protection, and to the
same degree; and that in the case of a conquered as well as of a
ceded people. The principle was acknowledged: the question was
to apply it, and to carry out the imperfect titles as the ceding
government would have done, if it had continued. This was attempted
through boards of commissioners, placed under limitations and
restrictions, which cut off masses of claims to which there was no
objection except in the confirming law; and with the obligation of
reporting to Congress for its sanction the claims which it found
entitled to confirmation:--a condition which, in the distance of the
lands and claimants from the seat of government, their ignorance of
our laws and customs, their habitude to pay for justice, and their
natural distrust of a new and alien domination, was equivalent
in its effects to the total confiscation of most of the smaller
claims, and the quarter or the half confiscation of the larger
ones in the division they were compelled to make with agents--or
in the forced sales which despair, or necessity forced upon them.
This state of things had been going on for almost thirty years in
all Louisiana--ameliorated occasionally by slight enlargements of
the powers of the boards, and afterwards of the courts to which
the business was transferred, but failing at two essential points,
_first_, of acknowledging the validity of all claims which might in
fact have been completed if the French or Spanish government had
continued under which they originated; _secondly_, in not providing
a cheap, speedy and local tribunal to decide summarily upon claims,
and definitively when their decisions were in their favor.
In this year--but after an immense number of people had been ruined,
and after the country had been afflicted for a generation with the
curse of unsettled land titles--an act was passed, founded on the
principle which the case required, and approximating to the process
which was necessary to give it effect. The act of 1832 admitted the
validity of all inchoate claims--all that might in fact have been
perfected under the previous governments; and established a local
tribunal to decide on the spot, making two classes of claims--one
coming under the principle acknowledged, the other not coming under
that principle, and destitute of merit in law or equity--but with
the ultimate reference of their decisions to Congress for its final
sanction. The principle of the act, and its mode of operation, was
contained in the first section, and in these words:
"That it shall be the duty of the recorder of land titles in
the State of Missouri, and two commissioners to be appointed by
the President of the United States, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, to examine all the unconfirmed claims
to land in that State, heretofore filed in the office of the
said recorder, according to law, founded upon any incomplete
grant, concession, warrant, or order of survey, issued by the
authority of France or Spain, prior to the tenth day of March,
one thousand eight hundred and four; and to class the same so as
to show, first, what claims, in their opinion, would, in fact,
have been confirmed, according to the laws, usages, and customs
of the Spanish government, and the practices of the Spanish
authorities under them, at New Orleans, if the government under
which said claims originated had continued in Missouri; and
secondly, what claims, in their opinion, are destitute of merit,
in law or equity, under such laws, usages, customs, and practice
of the Spanish authorities aforesaid; and shall also assign
their reasons for the opinions so to be given. And in examining
and classing such claims, the recorder and commissioners shall
take into consideration, as well the testimony heretofore taken
by the boards of commissioners and recorder of land titles upon
those claims, as such other testimony as may be admissible under
the rules heretofore existing for taking such testimony before
said boards and recorder: and all such testimony shall be taken
within twelve months after the passage of this act."
Under this act a thirty years' disturbance of land titles was
closed (nearly), in that part of Upper Louisiana, now constituting
the State of Missouri. The commissioners executed the act in
the liberal spirit of its own enactment, and Congress confirmed
all they classed as coming under the principles of the act. In
other parts of Louisiana, and in Florida, the same harassing and
ruinous process had been gone through in respect to the claims
of foreign origin--limitations, as in Missouri, upon the kind of
claims which might be confirmed, excluding minerals and saline
waters--limitations upon the quantity to be confirmed, so as
to split or grant, and divide it between the grantee and the
government--the former having to divide again with an agent or
attorney--and limitations upon the inception of the titles which
might be examined, so as to confine the origination to particular
officers, and forms. The act conformed to all previous ones, of
requiring no examination of a title which was complete under the
previous governments.
CHAPTER LXXII.
"EFFECTS OF THE VETO."
Under this caption a general register commenced in all the
newspapers opposed to the election of General Jackson (and they were
a great majority of the whole number published), immediately after
the delivery of the veto message, and were continued down to the
day of election, all tending to show the disastrous consequences
upon the business of the country, and upon his own popularity,
resulting from that act. To judge from these items it would seem
that the property of the country was nearly destroyed, and the
General's popularity entirely; and that both were to remain in
that state until the bank was rechartered. Their character was
to show the decline which had taken place in the price of labor,
produce, and property--the stoppage and suspension of buildings,
improvements, and useful enterprises--the renunciation of the
President by his old friends--the scarcity of money and the high
rate of interest--and the consequent pervading distress of the whole
community. These lugubrious memorandums of calamities produced by
the conduct of one man were duly collected from the papers in
which they were chronicled and registered in "Niles' Register," for
the information of posterity; and a few items now selected from
the general registration will show to what extent this business
of distressing the country--(taking the facts to be true), or of
alarming it (taking them to be false), was carried by the great
moneyed corporation, which, according to its own showing, had power
to destroy all local banks; and consequently to injure the whole
business of the community. The following are a few of these items--a
small number of each class, by way of showing the character of the
whole:
"On the day of the receipt of the President's bank veto in
New-York, four hundred and thirty-seven shares of United
States Bank stock were sold at a decline of four per centum
from the rates of the preceding day. We learn from Cincinnati
that, within two days after the veto reached that city,
building-bricks fell from five dollars to three dollars per
thousand. A general consternation is represented to have
pervaded the city. An intelligent friend of General Jackson,
at Cincinnati, states, as the opinion of the best informed men
there, that the veto has caused a depreciation of the real
estate of the city, of from twenty-five to thirty-three and one
third per cent."--"A thousand people assembled at Richmond,
Kentucky, to protest against the veto."--"The veto reached
a meeting of citizens, in Mason county, Kentucky, which had
assembled to hear the speeches of the opposing candidates for
the legislature, on which two of the administration candidates
immediately withdrew themselves from the contest, declaring that
they could support the administration no longer."--"Lexington,
Kentucky: July 25th. A call, signed by fifty citizens of
great respectability, formerly supporters of General Jackson,
announced their renunciation of him, and invited all others,
in the like situation with themselves, to assemble in public
meeting and declare their sentiments. A large and very
respectable meeting ensued."--"Louisville, Kentucky: July 18.
Forty citizens, ex-friends of General Jackson, called a meeting,
to express their sentiments on the veto, declaring that they
could no longer support him. In consequence, one of the largest
meetings ever held in Louisville was convened, and condemned
the veto, the anti-tariff and anti-internal improvement policy
of General Jackson, and accused him of a breach of promise, in
becoming a second time a candidate for the Presidency."--"At
Pittsburg, seventy former friends of General Jackson called a
meeting of those who had renounced him, which was numerously and
respectably attended, the veto condemned, and the bank applauded
as necessary to the prosperity of the country."--"Irish
meeting in Philadelphia. A call, signed by above two thousand
naturalized Irishmen, seceding from General Jackson, invited
their fellow-countrymen to meet and choose between the tyrant
and the bank, and gave rise to a numerous assemblage in
Independence Square, at which strong resolutions were adopted,
renouncing Jackson and his measures, opposing his re-election
and sustaining the bank."--"The New Orleans emporium mentions,
among other deleterious effects of the bank veto, at that place,
that one of the State banks had already commenced discounting
four months' paper, at eight per centum."--"Cincinnati farmers
look here! We are credibly informed that several merchants in
this city, in making contracts for their winter supplies of
pork, are offering to contract to pay two dollars fifty cents
per hundred, if Clay is elected, and one dollar fifty cents,
if Jackson is elected. Such is the effect of the veto. This is
something that people can understand."--"Baltimore. A great
many mechanics are thrown out of employment by the stoppage
of building. The prospect ahead is, that we shall have a very
distressing winter. There will be a swift reduction of prices
to the laboring classes. Many who subsisted upon labor, will
lack regular employment, and have to depend upon chance or
charity; and many will go supperless to bed who deserve to
be filled."--"Cincinnati. Facts are stubborn things. It is
a fact that, last year, before this time, $300,000 had been
advanced, by citizens of this place, to farmers for pork, and
now, not one dollar. So much for the veto."--"Brownsville,
Pennsylvania. We understand, that a large manufacturer has
discharged all his hands, and others have given notice to do
so. We understand, that not a single steamboat will be built
this season, at Wheeling, Pittsburg, or Louisville."--"Niles'
Register editorial. No King of England has dared a practical use
of the word 'veto,' for about two hundred years, or more; and it
has become obsolete in the United Kingdom of Great Britain; and
Louis Philippe would hardly retain his crown three days, were
he to veto a deliberate act of the two French Chambers, though
supported by an army of 100,000 men."
All this distress and alarm, real and factitious, was according to
the programme which prescribed it, and easily done by the bank,
and its branches in the States: its connection with money-dealers
and brokers; its power over its debtors, and its power over the
thousand local banks, which it could destroy by an exertion of its
strength, or raise up by an extension of its favor. It was a wicked
and infamous attempt, on the part of the great moneyed corporation,
to govern the election by operating on the business and the fears of
the people--destroying some and alarming others.
CHAPTER LXXIII.
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1832.
General Jackson and Mr. Van Buren were the candidates, on one side;
Mr. Clay and Mr. John Sergeant, of Pennsylvania, on the other,
and the result of no election had ever been looked to with more
solicitude. It was a question of systems and of measures, and
tried in the persons of men who stood out boldly and unequivocally
in the representation of their respective sides. Renewal of the
national bank charter, continuance of the high protective policy,
distribution of the public land money, internal improvement by the
federal government, removal of the Indians, interference between
Georgia and the Cherokees, and the whole American system were
staked on the issue, represented on one side by Mr. Clay and Mr.
Sergeant, and opposed, on the other, by General Jackson and Mr.
Van Buren. The defeat of Mr. Clay, and the consequent condemnation
of his measures, was complete and overwhelming. He received but
forty-nine votes out of a totality of two hundred and eighty-eight!
And this result is not to be attributed, as done by Mons. de
Tocqueville, to military fame. General Jackson was now a tried
statesman, and great issues were made in his person, and discussed
in every form of speech and writing, and in every forum, State,
and federal--from the halls of Congress to township meetings--and
his success was not only triumphant but progressive. His vote was
a large increase upon the preceding one of 1828, as that itself
had been upon the previous one of 1824. The result was hailed with
general satisfaction, as settling questions of national disturbance,
and leaving a clear field, as it was hoped, for future temperate
and useful legislation. The vice-presidential election, also, had a
point and a lesson in it. Besides concurring with General Jackson
in his systems of policy, Mr. Van Buren had, in his own person,
questions which concerned himself, and which went to his character
as a fair and honorable man. He had been rejected by the Senate
as minister to the court of Great Britain, under circumstances
to give _éclat_ to the rejection, being then at his post; and on
accusations of prostituting official station to party intrigue and
elevation, and humbling his country before Great Britain to obtain
as a favor what was due as a right. He had also been accused of
breaking up friendship between General Jackson and Mr. Calhoun, for
the purpose of getting a rival out of the way--contriving for that
purpose the dissolution of the cabinet, the resuscitation of the
buried question of the punishment of General Jackson in Mr. Monroe's
cabinet, and a system of intrigues to destroy Mr. Calhoun--all
brought forward imposingly in senatorial and Congress debates, in
pamphlets and periodicals, and in every variety of speech and of
newspaper publication; and all with the avowed purpose of showing
him unworthy to be elected Vice-President. Yet, he was elected--and
triumphantly--receiving the same vote with General Jackson, except
that of Pennsylvania, which went to one of her own citizens, Mr.
William Wilkins, then senator in Congress, and afterwards Minister
to Russia, and Secretary of War. Another circumstance attended
this election, of ominous character, and deriving emphasis from
the state of the times. South Carolina refused to vote in it;
that is to say, voted with neither party, and threw away her vote
upon citizens who were not candidates, and who received no vote
but her own; namely, Governor John Floyd of Virginia, and Mr.
Henry Lee of Massachusetts: a dereliction not to be accounted for
upon any intelligible or consistent reason, seeing that the rival
candidates held the opposite sides of the system of which the State
complained, and that the success of one was to be its overthrow;
of the other, to be its confirmation. This circumstance, coupled
with the nullification attitude which the State had assumed, gave
significance to this separation from the other States in the
matter of the election: a separation too marked not to be noted,
and interpreted by current events too clearly to be misunderstood.
Another circumstance attended this election, of a nature not of
itself to command commemoration, but worthy to be remembered for the
lesson it reads to all political parties founded upon one idea, and
especially when that idea has nothing political in it; it was the
anti-masonic vote of the State of Vermont, for Mr. Wirt, late United
States Attorney-General, for President; and for Mr. Amos Ellmaker of
Pennsylvania, for Vice-President. The cause of that vote was this:
some years before, a citizen of New-York, one Mr. Morgan, a member
of the Freemason fraternity, had disappeared, under circumstances
which induced the belief that he had been secretly put to death, by
order of the society, for divulging their secret. A great popular
ferment grew out of this belief, spreading into neighboring States,
with an outcry against all masons, and all secret societies, and
a demand for their suppression. Politicians embarked on this
current; turned it into the field of elections, and made it potent
in governing many. After obtaining dominion over so many local and
State elections, "anti-masonry," as the new enthusiasm was called,
aspired to higher game, undertook to govern presidential candidates,
subjecting them to interrogatories upon the point of their masonic
faith; and eventually set up candidates of their own for these two
high offices. The trial was made in the persons of Messrs. Wirt
and Ellmaker, and resulted in giving them seven votes--the vote of
Vermont alone--and, in showing the weakness of the party, and its
consequent inutility as a political machine. The rest is soon told.
Anti-masonry soon ceased to have a distinctive existence; died out,
and, in its death, left a lesson to all political parties founded in
one idea--especially when that idea has nothing political in it.
CHAPTER LXXIV.
FIRST ANNUAL MESSAGE OF PRESIDENT JACKSON AFTER HIS SECOND ELECTION.
This must have been an occasion of great and honest exultation
to General Jackson--a re-election after a four years' trial of
his administration, over an opposition so formidable, and after
having assumed responsibilities so vast, and by a majority so
triumphant--and his message directed to the same members, who, four
months before, had been denouncing his measures, and consigning
himself to popular condemnation. He doubtless enjoyed a feeling
of elation when drawing up that message, and had a right to the
enjoyment; but no symptom of that feeling appeared in the message
itself, which, abstaining from all reference to the election, wholly
confined itself to business topics, and in the subdued style of
a business paper. Of the foreign relations he was able to give
a good, and therefore, a brief account; and proceeding quickly
to our domestic affairs gave to each head of these concerns a
succinct consideration. The state of the finances, and the public
debt, claimed his first attention. The receipts from the customs
were stated at twenty-eight millions of dollars--from the lands
at two millions--the payments on account of the public debt at
eighteen millions;--and the balance remaining to be paid at seven
millions--to which the current income would be more than adequate
notwithstanding an estimated reduction of three or four millions
from the customs in consequence of reduced duties at the preceding
session. He closed this head with the following view of the success
of his administration in extinguishing a national debt, and his
congratulations to Congress on the auspicious and rare event:
"I cannot too cordially congratulate Congress and my
fellow-citizens on the near approach of that memorable and happy
event, the extinction of the public debt of this great and
free nation. Faithful to the wise and patriotic policy marked
out by the legislation of the country for this object, the
present administration has devoted to it all the means which
a flourishing commerce has supplied, and a prudent economy
preserved, for the public treasury. Within the four years for
which the people have confided the executive power to my charge,
fifty-eight millions of dollars will have been applied to the
payment of the public debt. That this has been accomplished
without stinting the expenditures for all other proper objects,
will be seen by referring to the liberal provision made, during
the same period, for the support and increase of our means of
maritime and military defence, for internal improvements of a
national character, for the removal and preservation of the
Indians and, lastly, for the gallant veterans of the Revolution."
To the gratifying fact of the extinction of the debt, General
Jackson wished to add the substantial benefit of release from the
burthens which it imposed--an object desirable in itself, and to
all the States, and particularly to those of the South, greatly
dissatisfied with the burthens of the tariff, and with the large
expenditures which took place in other quarters of the Union.
Sixteen millions of dollars, he stated to be the outlay of the
federal government for all objects exclusive of the public debt; so
that ten millions might be subject to reduction: and this to be
effected so as to retain a protecting duty in favor of the articles
essential to our defence and comfort in time of war. On this point
he said:
"Those who take an enlarged view of the condition of our
country, must be satisfied that the policy of protection must
be ultimately limited to those articles of domestic manufacture
which are indispensable to our safety in time of war. Within
this scope, on a reasonable scale, it is recommended by every
consideration of patriotism and duty, which will doubtless
always secure to it a liberal and efficient support. But beyond
this object, we have already seen the operation of the system
productive of discontent. In some sections of the republic, its
influence is deprecated as tending to concentrate wealth into a
few hands, and as creating those germs of dependence and vice
which, in other countries, have characterized the existence of
monopolies, and proved so destructive of liberty and the general
good. A large portion of the people, in one section of the
republic, declares it not only inexpedient on these grounds, but
as disturbing the equal relations of property by legislation,
and therefore unconstitutional and unjust."
On the subject of the public lands his recommendations were brief
and clear, and embraced the subject at the two great points which
distinguish the statesman's view from that of a mere politician. He
looked at them under the great aspect of settlement and cultivation,
and the release of the new States from the presence of a great
foreign landholder within their limits. The sale of the salable
parts to actual settlers at what they cost the United States, and
the cession of the unsold parts within a reasonable time to the
States in which they lie, was his wise recommendation; and thus
expressed:
"It seems to me to be our true policy that the public lands
shall cease as soon as practicable, to be a source of revenue,
and that they be sold to settlers in limited parcels, at a price
barely sufficient to reimburse to the United States the expense
of the present system, and the cost arising under our Indian
compacts. The advantages of accurate surveys and undoubted
titles, now secured to purchasers, seem to forbid the abolition
of the present system, because none can be substituted which
will more perfectly accomplish these important ends. It is
desirable, however, that, in convenient time, this machinery
be withdrawn from the States, and that the right of soil, and
the future disposition of it, be surrendered to the States,
respectively, in which it lies.
"The adventurous and hardy population of the West, besides
contributing their equal share of taxation under our impost
system, have, in this progress of our government, for the
lands they occupy, paid into the treasury a large proportion
of forty millions of dollars, and, of the revenue received
therefrom, but a small part has been expended amongst them.
When, to the disadvantage of their situation in this respect,
we add the consideration that it is their labor alone which
gives real value to the lands, and that the proceeds arising
from their sale are distributed chiefly among States which had
not originally any claim to them, and which have enjoyed the
undivided emolument arising from the sale of their own lands,
it cannot be expected that the new States will remain longer
contented with the present policy, after the payment of the
public debt. To avert the consequences which may be apprehended
from this cause, to put an end for ever to all partial and
interested legislation on the subject, and to afford to every
American citizen of enterprise, the opportunity of securing an
independent freehold, it seems to me, therefore, best to abandon
the idea of raising a future revenue out of the public lands."
These are the grounds upon which the members from the new States
should unite and stand. The Indian title has been extinguished
within their limits; the federal title should be extinguished
also. A stream of agriculturists is constantly pouring into their
bosom--many of them without the means of purchasing land--and to
all of them the whole of their means needed in its improvement and
cultivation. Donations then, or sales at barely reimbursing prices,
is the wise policy of the government; and a day should be fixed by
Congress in every State (regulated by the quantity of public land
within its limits), after which the surrender of the remainder
should take effect within the State; and the whole federal machinery
for the sale of the lands be withdrawn from it. In thus filling
the new States and Territories with independent landholders--with
men having a stake in the soil--the federal government would
itself be receiving, and that for ever, the two things of which
every government has need: namely, perennial revenue, and military
service. The cultivation of the lands would bring in well-regulated
revenue through the course of circulation, and, what Mr. Burke
calls, "the political secretions of the State." Their population
would be a perpetual army for the service of the country when
needed. It is the true and original defence of nations--the
incitement and reward for defence--a freehold, and arms to defend
it. It is a source of defence which preceded standing armies, and
should supersede them; and pre-eminently belongs to a republic,
and above all to the republic of the United States, so abounding
in the means of creating these defenders, and needing them so
much. To say nothing of nearer domains, there is the broad expanse
from the Mississippi to the Pacific ocean, all needing settlers
and defenders. Cover it with freeholders, and you have all the
defenders that are required--all that interior savages, or exterior
foreigners, could ever render necessary to appear in arms. In a mere
military point of view, and as assuring the cheap and efficient
defence of the nation, our border, and our distant public territory,
should be promptly covered with freehold settlers.
* * * * *
On the subject of the removal of the Indians, the message said:
"I am happy to inform you, that the wise and humane policy
of transferring from the eastern to the western side of the
Mississippi, the remnants of our aboriginal tribes, with their
own consent, and upon just terms, has been steadily pursued, and
is approaching, I trust, its consummation. By reference to the
report of the Secretary of War, and to the documents submitted
with it, you will see the progress which has been made since
your last session in the arrangement of the various matters
connected with our Indian relations. With one exception, every
subject involving any question of conflicting jurisdiction, or
of peculiar difficulty, has been happily disposed of, and the
conviction evidently gains ground among the Indians, that their
removal to the country assigned by the United States for their
permanent residence, furnishes the only hope of their ultimate
prosperity.
"With that portion of the Cherokees, however, living within the
State of Georgia, it has been found impracticable, as yet, to
make a satisfactory adjustment. Such was my anxiety to remove
all the grounds of complaint, and to bring to a termination the
difficulties in which they are involved, that I directed the
very liberal propositions to be made to them which accompany
the documents herewith submitted. They cannot but have seen in
these offers the evidence of the strongest disposition, on the
part of the government, to deal justly and liberally with them.
An ample indemnity was offered for their present possessions,
a liberal provision for their future support and improvement,
and full security for their private and political rights.
Whatever difference of opinion may have prevailed respecting
the just claims of these people, there will probably be none
respecting the liberality of the propositions, and very little
respecting the expediency of their immediate acceptance. They
were, however, rejected, and thus the position of these Indians
remains unchanged, as do the views communicated in my message to
the Senate, of February 22, 1831."
The President does not mention the obstacles which delayed the
humane policy of transferring the Indian tribes to the west of the
Mississippi, nor allude to the causes which prevented the remaining
Cherokees in Georgia from accepting the liberal terms offered
them, and joining the emigrated portion of their tribe on the
Arkansas; but these obstacles and causes were known to the public,
and the knowledge of them was carried into the parliamentary, the
legislative, and the judicial history of the country. These removals
were seized upon by party spirit as soon as General Jackson took
up the policy of his predecessors, and undertook to complete what
they had began. His injustice and tyranny to the Indians became a
theme of political party vituperation; and the South, and Georgia
especially, a new battle-field for political warfare. The extension
of her laws and jurisdiction over the part of her territory
still inhabited by a part of the Cherokees, was the signal for
concentrating upon that theatre the sympathies, and the interference
of politicians and of missionaries. Congress was appealed to;
and refused the intervention of its authority. The Supreme Court
was applied to to stay, by an injunction, the operation of the
laws of Georgia, on the Indian part of the State; and refused the
application, for want of jurisdiction of the question. It was
applied to to bring the case of the missionaries before itself,
and did so, reversing the judgment of the Georgia State Court, and
pronouncing one of its own; which was disregarded. It was applied
to to reverse the judgment in the case of Tassells, and the writ
of error was issued to bring up the case; and on the day appointed
Tassells was hanged. The missionaries were released as soon as they
ceased their appeals to the Supreme Court, and addressed themselves
to the Governor of Georgia, to whom belonged the pardoning power;
and the correspondence and communications which took place between
themselves and Governor Lumpkin showed that they were emissaries, as
well as missionaries, and acting a prescribed part for the "good of
the country"--as they expressed it. They came from the North, and
returned to it as soon as released. All Georgia was outraged, and
justly, at this political interference in her affairs, and this
intrusive philanthropy in behalf of Indians to whom she gave the
same protection as to her own citizens, and at these attempts, so
repeatedly made to bring her before the Supreme Court. Her governors
(Troup, Gilmer, and Lumpkin,) to whom it successively belonged to
represent the rights and dignity of the State, did so with firmness
and moderation; and, in the end, all her objects were attained,
and the interference and intrusion ceased; and the issue of the
presidential election rebuked the political and ecclesiastical
intermeddlers in her affairs.
A passage in the message startled the friends of the Bank of the
United States, and, in fact, took the public by surprise. It was
an intimation of the insolvency of the bank, and of the insecurity
of the public deposits therein; and a recommendation to have the
affairs of the institution thoroughly investigated. It was in these
terms:
"Such measures as are within the reach of the Secretary of
the Treasury have been taken to enable him to judge whether
the public deposits in that institution may be regarded as
entirely safe; but as his limited power may prove inadequate
to this object, I recommend the subject to the attention
of Congress, under the firm belief that it is worthy their
serious investigation. An inquiry into the transactions of the
institution, embracing the branches as well as the principal
bank, seems called for by the credit which is given throughout
the country to many serious charges impeaching its character,
and which, if true, may justly excite the apprehension that it
is no longer a safe depository of the money of the people."
This recommendation gave rise to proceedings in Congress, which will
be noted in their proper place. The intimation of insolvency was
received with scorn by the friends of the great corporation--with
incredulity by the masses--and with a belief that it was true
only by the few who closely observed the signs of the times, and
by those who confided in the sagacity and provident foresight of
Jackson (by no means inconsiderable either in number or judgment).
For my own part I had not suspicioned insolvency when I commenced
my opposition to the renewed charter; and was only brought to that
suspicion, and in fact, conviction, by seeing the flagrant manner in
which the institution resisted investigation, when proposed under
circumstances which rendered it obligatory to its honor; and which
could only be so resisted from a consciousness that, if searched,
something would be found worse than any thing charged. The only
circumstance mentioned by the President to countenance suspicion was
the conduct of the bank in relation to the payment of five millions
of the three per cent. stock, ordered to have been paid at the
bank in the October preceding (and where the money, according to
its returns, was in deposit); and instead of paying which the bank
secretly sent an agent to London to obtain delay from the creditors
for six, nine and twelve months; and even to purchase a part of the
stock on its account--which was done--and in clear violation of its
charter (which forbids the institution to traffic in the stocks of
the United States). This delay, with the insufficient and illegal
reason given for it (for no reason could be legal or sufficient
while admitting the money to be in her hands, and that which the
bank gave related to the cholera, and the ever-ready excuse of
accommodation to the public), could only be accounted for from an
inability to produce the funds; in other words, that while her
returns to the treasury admitted she had the money, the state of her
vaults showed that she had it not. This view was further confirmed
by her attempt to get a virtual loan to meet the payment, if delay
could not be obtained, or the stock purchased, in the application
to the London house of the Barings to draw upon it for the amount
uncovered by delay or by purchase.
But the salient passage in the message--the one which gave it a new
and broad emphasis in the public mind--was the part which related to
the attitude of South Carolina. The proceedings of that State had
now reached a point which commanded the attention of all America,
and could not be overlooked in the President's message. Organized
opposition, and forcible resistance to the laws, took their open
form; and brought up the question of the governmental enforcement of
these laws, or submission to their violation. The question made a
crisis; and the President thus brought the subject before Congress:
"It is my painful duty to state, that, in one quarter of the
United States, opposition to the revenue laws has risen to a
height which threatens to thwart their execution, if not to
endanger the integrity of the Union. Whatever obstructions
may be thrown in the way of the judicial authorities of the
general government, it is hoped they will be able, peaceably,
to overcome them by the prudence of their own officers, and
the patriotism of the people. But should this reasonable
reliance on the moderation and good sense of all portions of
our fellow-citizens be disappointed, it is believed that the
laws themselves are fully adequate to the suppression of such
attempts as may be immediately made. Should the exigency arise,
rendering the execution of the existing laws impracticable,
from any cause whatever, prompt notice of it will be given to
Congress, with the suggestion of such views and measures as may
be deemed necessary to meet it."
Nothing could be more temperate, subdued, and even conciliatory
than the tone and language of this indispensable notice. The
President could not avoid bringing the subject to the notice of
Congress; and could not have done it in a more unexceptionable
manner. His language was that of justice and mildness. The peaceful
administration of the laws were still relied upon, and if any
thing further became necessary he promised an immediate notice to
Congress. In the mean time, and in a previous part of his message,
he had shown his determination, so far as it depended on him, to
remove all just complaint of the burthens of the tariff by effecting
a reduction of many millions of the duties:--a dispensation
permitted by the extinction of the public debt within the current
year, and by the means already provided, and which would admit of an
abolition of ten to twelve millions of dollars of duties.
CHAPTER LXXV.
BANK OF THE UNITED STATES--DELAY IN PAYING THE THREE PER
CENTS--COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION.
The President in his message had made two recommendations which
concerned the bank--one that the seven millions of stock held
therein by the United States should be sold; the other that a
committee should be appointed to investigate its condition. On
the question of referring the different parts of the message to
appropriate committees. Mr. Speight, of North Carolina, moved that
this latter clause be sent to a select committee to which Mr. Wayne,
of Georgia, proposed an amendment, that the committee should have
power to bring persons before them, and to examine them on oath,
and to call upon the bank and its branches for papers. This motion
gave rise to a contest similar to that of the preceding session on
the same point, and by the same actors--and with the same result
in favor of the bank--the debate being modified by some fresh and
material incidents. Mr. Wickliffe, of Kentucky, had previously
procured a call to be made on the Secretary of the Treasury for the
report which his agent was employed in making upon the condition of
the bank; and wished the motion for the committee to be deferred
until that report came in. He said:
"He had every confidence, both from his own judgment and from
information in his possession, that when the resolution he had
offered should receive its answer, and the House should have the
report of the agent sent by the Secretary of the Treasury to
inquire into the affairs of the bank, with a view to ascertain
whether it was a safe depository for the public funds, the
answer would be favorable to the bank and to the entire security
of the revenue. Mr. W. said he had hoped that the resolution
he had offered would have superseded the necessity of another
bank discussion in that House, and of the consequences upon the
financial and commercial operations of the country, and upon
the credit of our currency. He had not understood, from a hasty
reading of the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, that
that officer had expressed any desire for the appointment of any
committee on the subject. The secretary said that he had taken
steps to obtain such information as was within his control, but
that it was possible he might need further powers hereafter.
What had already been the effect throughout the country of the
broadside discharged by the message at the bank? Its stock had,
on the reception of that message, instantly fallen down to 104
per cent. Connected with this proposition to sell the stock,
a loss had already been incurred by the government of half a
million of dollars. What further investigations did gentlemen
require? What new bill of indictment was to be presented? There
was one in the secretary's report, which was also alluded to
in the message: it was, that the bank had, by its unwaranted
action, prevented the government from redeeming the three per
cent. stock at the time it desired. But what was the actual
state of the fact? What had the bank done to prevent such
redemption? It had done nothing more nor less than what it had
been required by the government to do."
The objection to inquiry, made by Mr. Wickliffe, that it depreciated
the stock, and made a loss of the difference to its holders, was
entirely fallacious, as fluctuations in the price of stocks are
greatly under the control of those who gamble in them, and who seize
every circumstance, alternately to depress and exalt them; and the
fluctuations affect nobody but those who are buyers or sellers. Yet
this objection was gravely resorted to every time that any movement
was made which affected the bank; and arithmetical calculations
were gravely gone into to show, upon each decline of the stock, how
much money each stockholder had lost. On this occasion the loss of
the United States was set down at half a million of dollars:--which
was recovered four days afterwards upon the reading of the report
of the treasury agent, favorable to the bank, and which enabled the
dealers to put up the shares to 112 again. In the mean time nobody
lost any thing but the gamblers; and that was nothing to the public,
as the loss of one was the gain of the other: and the thing balanced
itself. Holders for investment neither lost, nor gained. For the
rest, Mr. Wayne, of Georgia, replied:
"It has been said that nothing was now before the House to
make an inquiry into the condition of the bank desirable or
necessary. He would refer to the President's message, and to
the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, both suggesting
an examination, to ascertain if the bank was, or would be in
future, a safe depository for the public funds. Mr. W. did not
say it was not, but an inquiry into the fact might be very
proper notwithstanding; and the President and Secretary, in
suggesting it, had imputed no suspicion of the insolvency of
the bank. Eventual ability to discharge all of its obligations
is not of itself enough to entitle the bank to the confidence
of the government. Its management, and the spirit in which it
is managed, in direct reference to the government, or to those
administering it, may make investigation proper. What was the
Executive's complaint against the bank? That it had interfered
with the payment of the public debt, and would postpone the
payment of five millions of it for a year after the time fixed
upon for its redemption, by becoming actually or nominally the
possessors of that amount of the three per centum stock, though
the charter prohibited it from holding such stock, and from all
advantages which might accrue from the purchase of it. True, the
bank had disavowed the ownership. But of that sum which had been
bought by Baring, Brothers, & Co., under the agreement with the
agent of the bank, at ninety-one and a half, and the cost of
which had been charged to the bank, who would derive the benefit
of the difference between the cost of it and the par value,
which the government will pay? Mr. W. knew this gain would be
effected by what may be the rate of exchange between the United
States and England, but still there would be gain, and who was
to receive it? Baring, Brothers, & Co.? No. The bank was, by
agreement, charged with the cost of it, in a separate account,
on the books of Baring, Brothers, & Co., and it had agreed to
pay interest upon the amount, until the stock was redeemed.
"The bank being prohibited to deal in such stock, it would
be well to inquire, even under the present arrangements with
Baring, Brothers, & Co., whether the charter, in this respect,
was substantially complied with. Mr. W. would not now go into
the question of the policy of the arrangement by the bank
concerning the three per cents. It may eventuate in great public
benefit, as regards the commerce of the country; but if it does,
it will be no apology for the temerity of an interference with
the fixed policy of the government, in regard to the payment of
the national debt; a policy, which those who administer the bank
knew had been fixed by all who, by law, can have any agency in
its payment. Nor can any apology be found for it in the letter
of the Secretary of the Treasury of the 19th of July last to Mr.
Biddle; for, at Philadelphia, the day before, on the 18th, he
employed an agent to go to England, and had given instructions
to make an arrangement, by which the payment of the public debt
was to be postponed until October, 1833."
Mr. Watmough, representative from the district in which the bank was
situated, disclaimed any intention to thwart any course which the
House was disposed to take; but said that the charges against the
bank had painfully affected the feelings of honorable men connected
with the corporation, and injured its character; and deprecated the
appointment of a select committee; and proposed the Committee of
Ways and Means--the same which had twice reported in favor of the
bank:--and he had no objection that this committee should be clothed
with all the powers proposed by Mr. Wayne to be conferred upon the
select committee. In this state of the question the report of the
treasury agent came in, and deserves to be remembered in contrast
with the actual condition of the bank as afterwards discovered,
and as a specimen of the imposing exhibit of its affairs which a
moneyed corporation can make when actually insolvent. The report,
founded on the statements furnished by the institution itself,
presented a superb condition--near eighty millions of assets (to be
precise, $79,593,870), to meet all demands against it, amounting
to thirty-seven millions and a quarter--leaving forty-two millions
and a quarter for the stockholders; of which thirty-five millions
would reimburse the stock, and seven and a quarter millions remain
for dividend. Mr. Polk stated that this report was a mere compendium
of the monthly bank returns, showing nothing which these returns
did not show; and especially nothing of the eight millions of
unavailable funds which had been ascertained to exist, and which
had been accumulating for eighteen years. On the point of the
non-payment of the three per cents, he said:
"The Secretary of the Treasury had given public notice that the
whole amount of the three per cents would be paid off on the
first of July. The bank was apprised of this arrangement, and
on its application the treasury department consented to suspend
the redemption of one third of this stock until the first of
October, the bank paying the interest in the mean while. But, if
the condition of the bank was so very prosperous, as has been
represented, why did it make so great a sacrifice as to pay
interest on that large amount for three months, for the sake of
deferring the payment? The Secretary of the Treasury, on the
19th July, determined that two thirds of the stock should be
paid off on the first of October; and, on the 18th of July what
did the bank do? It dispatched an agent to London, without the
knowledge of the treasury, and for what? In effect, to borrow
5,000,000 dollars, for that was the amount of the transaction.
From this fact Mr. P. inferred that the bank was unable to go
on without the public deposits. They then made a communication
to the treasury, stating that the bank would hold up such
certificates as it could control, to suit the convenience of
the government; but was it on this account that they sent their
agent to London? Did the president of the bank himself assign
this reason? No; he gave a very different account of the matter;
he said that the bank apprehended that the spread of the cholera
might produce great distress in the country, and that the
bank wished to hold itself in an attitude to meet the public
exigencies, and that with this view an agent was sent to make an
arrangement with the Barings for withholding three millions of
the stock."
The motion of Mr. Watmough to refer the inquiry to the Committee
of Ways and Means, was carried; and that committee soon reported:
_first_, on the point of postponing the payment of a part of the
three per cents, that the business being now closed by the actual
payment of that stock, it no longer presented any important or
practicable point of inquiry, and did not call for any action of
Congress upon it; and, _secondly_, on the point of the safety of
the public deposits, that there could be no doubt of the entire
soundness of the whole bank capital, after meeting all demands upon
it, either by its bill holders or the government; and that such
was the opinion of the committee, who felt great confidence in
the well-known character and intelligence of the directors, whose
testimony supported the facts on which the committee's opinion
rested. And they concluded with a resolve which they recommended to
the adoption of the House, "That the government deposits may, in the
opinion of the House, be safely continued in the Bank of the United
States." Mr. Polk, one of the committee, dissented from the report,
and argued thus against it:
"He hoped that gentlemen who believed the time of the House, at
this period of the session, to be necessarily valuable, would
not press the consideration of this resolution upon the House
at this juncture. During the small remainder of the session,
there were several measures of the highest public importance
which remained to be acted on. For one, he was extremely anxious
that the session should close by 12 o'clock to-night, in order
that a sitting upon the Sabbath might be avoided. He would not
proceed in expressing his views until he should understand from
gentlemen whether they intended to press the House to a vote
upon this resolution. [A remark was made by Mr. Ingersoll, which
was not heard distinctly by the reporter.] Mr. P. proceeded.
As it had been indicated that gentlemen intended to take a
vote upon the resolution, he would ask whether it was possible
for the members of the House to express their opinions on this
subject with an adequate knowledge of the facts. The Committee
of Ways and Means had spent nearly the whole session in the
examination of one or two points connected with this subject.
The range of investigation had been, of necessity, much less
extensive than the deep importance of the subject required;
but, before any opinion could be properly expressed, it was
important that the facts developed by the committee should be
understood. There had been no opportunity for this, and there
was no necessity for the expression of a premature opinion
unless it was considered essential to whitewash the bank. If
the friends of the bank deemed it indispensably necessary, in
order to sustain the bank, to call for an expression of opinion,
where the House had enjoyed no opportunity of examining the
testimony and proof upon which alone a correct opinion could
be formed, he should be compelled, briefly, to present one or
two facts to the House. It had been one of the objects of the
Committee of Ways and Means to ascertain the circumstances
relative to the postponement of the redemption of the three
per cent. stock by the bank. With the mass of other important
duties devolving upon the committee, as full an investigation
of the condition of the bank as was desirable could not be
expected. The committee, therefore, had been obliged to limit
their inquiries to this subject of the three per cents; the
other subjects of investigation were only incidental. Upon
this main subject of inquiry the whole committee, majority as
well as minority, were of opinion that the bank had exceeded
its legitimate authority, and had taken measures which were in
direct violation of its charter. He would read a single sentence
from the report of the majority, which conclusively established
this position. In the transactions upon this subject, the
majority of the committee expressly say, in their report, that
'the bank exceeded its legitimate authority, and that this
proceeding had no sufficient warrant in the correspondence of
the Secretary of the Treasury.' Could language be more explicit?
It was then the unanimous opinion of the committee, upon this
main topic of inquiry, that the bank had exceeded its legitimate
authority, and that its proceedings relative to the three per
cents had no sufficient warrant in the correspondence of the
Secretary of the Treasury. The Bank of the United States, it
must be remembered, had been made the place of deposit for the
public revenues, for the purpose of meeting the expenditures
of the government. With the public money in its vaults, it was
bound to pay the demands of the government. Among these demands
upon the public money in the bank, was that portion of the
public debt of which the redemption had been ordered. Had the
bank manifested a willingness to pay out the public money in
its possession for this object? On examination of the evidence
it would be found that, as early as March, 1832, the president
of the bank, without the knowledge of the government directors,
had instituted a correspondence with certain holders of the
public debt, for the purpose of procuring a postponement of its
redemption. There was, at that time, no cholera, which could be
charged with giving occasion to the correspondence. When public
notice had been given by the Secretary of the Treasury of the
redemption of the debt, the president of the bank immediately
came to Washington, and requested that the redemption might
be postponed. And what was the reason then assigned by the
president of the bank for this postponement? Why, that the
measure would enable the bank to afford the merchants great
facilities for the transaction of their business under an
extraordinary pressure upon the money market. What was the
evidence upon this point? The proof distinctly showed that there
was no extraordinary pressure. The monthly statements of the
bank established that there was, in fact, a very considerable
curtailment of the facilities given to the merchants in the
commercial cities.
"The minority of the Committee of Ways and Means had not
disputed the ability of the bank to discharge its debts in
its own convenient time; but had the bank promptly paid the
public money deposited in its vaults when called for? As early
as October, 1831, the bank had anticipated that during the
course of 1832 it would not be allowed the undisturbed and
permanent use of the public deposits. In the circular orders to
the several branches which were then issued, the necessity was
stated for collecting the means for refunding those deposits
from the loans which were then outstanding. Efforts were made by
the branches of the West to make collections for that object;
but those efforts entirely failed. The debts due upon loans made
by the Western branches had not been curtailed. It was found
impossible to curtail them. As the list of discounts had gone
down, the list of domestic bills of exchange had gone up. The
application before alluded to was made in March to Mr. Ludlow,
of New-York, who represented about 1,700,000 of the public debt
to postpone its redemption. This expedient also failed. Then
the president of the bank came to Washington for the purpose of
procuring the postponement of the period of redemption, upon
the ground that an extraordinary pressure existed, and the
public interest would be promoted by enabling the bank to use
the public money in affording facilities to the merchants of
the commercial cities. And what next? In July, the president of
the bank and the exchange committee, without the knowledge of
the head of the treasury, or of the board of directors of the
bank, instituted a secret mission to England, for the purpose
of negotiating in effect a loan of five millions of dollars,
for which the bank was to pay interest. The propriety or object
of this mission was not laid before the board of directors, and
no clue was afforded to the government. Mr. Cadwalader went to
England upon this secret mission. On the 1st of October the
bank was advised of the arrangement made by Mr. Cadwalader,
by which it was agreed, in behalf of the bank, to purchase
a part of the debt of the foreign holders, and to defer the
redemption of a part. Now, it was well known to every one who
had taken the trouble to read the charter of the bank, that it
was expressly prohibited from purchasing public stock. On the
15th October it was discovered that Cadwalader had exceeded his
instructions. This discovery by the bank took place immediately
after the circular letter of Baring, Brothers, & Co., of London,
announcing that the arrangement had been published in one of
the New-York papers. This circular gave the first information
to the government, or to any one in this country, as far as he
was advised, excepting the exchange committee of the bank, of
the object of Cadwalader's mission. In the limited time which
could now be spared for this discussion, it was impossible
to go through the particulars of this scheme. It would be
seen, on examination of the transaction, that the bank had
directly interfered with the redemption of the public debt, for
the obvious reason that it was unable to refund the public
deposits. The cholera was not the ground of the correspondence
with Ludlow. It was not the cholera which brought the president
of the bank to Washington, to request the postponement of the
redemption of the debt; nor was it the cholera which led to
the resolution of the exchange committee of the bank to send
Cadwalader to England. The true disorder was, the impossibility
in which the bank found itself to concentrate its funds and
diminish its loans. It had been stated in the report of the
majority of the committee, that the certificates of the greater
portion of the three per cents had been surrendered. It had
been said that there was now less than a million of this
debt outstanding. In point of fact, it would seem, from the
correspondence, that between one and two millions of the debts
of which the certificates had been surrendered, had been paid by
the bank becoming debtor to the foreign holder instead of the
government. The directors appear to suppose this has not been
the case, but the correspondence shows that the certificates
have been sent home under this arrangement. After this brief
explanation of the conduct of the bank in relation to the public
deposits, he would ask whether it was necessary to sustain the
credit of the bank by adopting this resolution."
The vote on the resolution was taken, and resulted in a large
majority for it--109 to 46. Those who voted in the negative were:
John Anderson of Maine; William G. Angel of New-York; William S.
Archer of Virginia; James Bates of Maine; Samuel Beardsley of
New-York; John T. Bergen of New-York; Laughlin Bethune of North
Carolina; John Blair of Tennessee; Joseph Bouck of New-York; John
C. Brodhead of New-York; John Carr of Indiana; Clement C. Clay
of Alabama; Henry W. Connor of North Carolina; Charles Dayan of
New-York; Thomas Davenport of Virginia; William Fitzgerald of
Tennessee; ---- Clayton of Georgia; Nathan Gaither of Kentucky;
William F. Gordon of Virginia; Thomas H. Hall of North Carolina;
Joseph W. Harper of New Hampshire; ---- Hawkins; Michael Hoffman
of New-York; Henry Horn of Pennsylvania; Henry Hubbard of New
Hampshire; Adam King of Pennsylvania; Joseph Lecompte of Kentucky;
Chittenden Lyon of Kentucky; Joel K. Mann of Kentucky; Samuel W.
Mardis of Alabama; John Y. Mason of Virginia; Jonathan McCarty
of Indiana; Thomas R. Mitchell of South Carolina; Job Pierson of
New-York; James K. Polk of Tennessee; Edward C. Reed of New-York;
Nathan Soule of New-York; Jesse Speight of North Carolina; Jas.
Standifer of Tennessee; Francis Thomas of Maryland; Wiley Thompson
of Georgia; Daniel Wardwell of New-York; James M. Wayne of Georgia;
John W. Weeks of New Hampshire; Campbell P. White of New-York: J.
T. H. Worthington of Maryland. And thus the bank not only escaped
without censure, but received high commendation; while its conduct
in relation to the three per cents placed it unequivocally in the
category of an unfaithful and prevaricating agent; and only left
open the inquiry whether its conduct was the result of inability
to pay the sum required, or a disposition to make something
for itself or to favor its debtors--the most innocent of these
motives being negatived by the sinister concealment of the whole
transaction from the government (after getting delay from it), its
concealment from the public, its concealment even from its own
board of directors--its entire secrecy from beginning to end--until
accidentally discovered through a London letter published in
New-York. These are the same three per cents, the redemption of
which through an enlargement of the powers of the sinking fund
commissioners I had endeavored to effect some years before, when
they could have been bought at about sixty-six cents in the dollar,
and when my attempt was defeated by the friends of the bank. They
were now paid at the rate of one hundred cents to the dollar, losing
all the time the interest on the deposits, in bank, and about four
millions for the appreciation of the stock. The attempt to get this
stock redeemed, or interest on the deposits, was one of my first
financial movements after I came into the Senate; and the ease with
which the bank defeated me, preventing both the extinction of the
debt and the payment of interest on the deposits, convinced me how
futile it was to attempt any legislation unfavorable to the bank in
a case which concerned itself.
CHAPTER LXXVI.
ABOLITION OF IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
The philanthropic Col. R. M. Johnson, of Kentucky, had labored
for years at this humane consummation; and finally saw his
labors successful. An act of Congress was passed abolishing all
imprisonment for debt, under process from the courts of the United
States: the only extent to which an act of Congress could go, by
force of its enactments; but it could go much further, and did, in
the force of example and influence; and has led to the cessation
of the practice of imprisoning the debtors, in all, or nearly all,
of the States and Territories of the Union; and without the evil
consequences which had been dreaded from the loss of this remedy
over the person. It led to a great many oppressions while it
existed, and was often relied upon in extending credit, or inducing
improvident people to incur debt, where there was no means to pay
it, or property to meet it, in the hands of the debtor himself; but
reliance wholly placed upon the sympathies of third persons, to
save a friend or relative from confinement in a prison. The dower
of wives, and the purses of fathers, brothers, sisters, friends,
were thus laid under contribution by heartless creditors; and scenes
of cruel oppression were witnessed in every State. Insolvent laws
and bankrupt laws were invented to cover the evil, and to separate
the unfortunate from the fraudulent debtor; but they were slow and
imperfect in operation, and did not reach the cases in which a
cold and cruel calculation was made upon the sympathies of friends
and relatives, or upon the chances of catching the debtor in some
strange and unbefriended place. A broader remedy was wanted, and
it was found in the total abolition of the practice, leaving in
full force all the remedies against fraudulent evasions of debt. In
one of his reports on the subject, Col. Johnson thus deduced the
history of this custom, called "barbarous," but only to be found in
civilized countries:
"In ancient Greece, the power of creditors over the persons
of their debtors was absolute; and, as in all cases where
despotic control is tolerated, their rapacity was boundless.
They compelled the insolvent debtors to cultivate their lands
like cattle, to perform the service of beasts of burden, and to
transfer to them their sons and daughters, whom they exported as
slaves to foreign countries.
"These acts of cruelty were tolerated in Athens, during her
more barbarous state, and in perfect consonance with the
character of a people who could elevate a Draco, and bow to
his mandates, registered in blood. But the wisdom of Solon
corrected the evil. Athens felt the benefit of the reform; and
the pen of the historian has recorded the name of her lawgiver
as the benefactor of man. In ancient Rome, the condition of
the unfortunate poor was still more abject. The cruelty of the
Twelve Tables against insolvent debtors should be held up as
a beacon of warning to all modern nations. After judgment was
obtained, thirty days of grace were allowed before a Roman was
delivered into the power of his creditor. After this period, he
was retained in a private prison, with twelve ounces of rice for
his daily sustenance. He might be bound with a chain of fifteen
pounds weight; and his misery was three times exposed in the
market-place, to excite the compassion of his friends. At the
expiration of sixty days, the debt was discharged by the loss of
liberty or life. The insolvent debtor was either put to death
or sold in foreign slavery beyond the Tiber. But, if several
creditors were alike obstinate and unrelenting, they might
legally dismember his body, and satiate their revenge by this
horrid partition. Though the refinements of modern criticisms
have endeavored to divest this ancient cruelty of its horrors,
the faithful Gibbon, who is not remarkable for his partiality
to the poorer class, preferring the liberal sense of antiquity,
draws this dark picture of the effect of giving the creditor
power over the person of the debtor. No sooner was the Roman
empire subverted than the delusion of Roman perfection began
to vanish, and then the absurdity and cruelty of this system
began to be exploded--a system which convulsed Greece and Rome,
and filled the world with misery, and, without one redeeming
benefit, could no longer be endured--and, to the honor of
humanity, for about one thousand years, during the middle ages,
imprisonment for debt was generally abolished. They seemed to
have understood what, in more modern times, we are less ready
to comprehend, that power, in any degree, over the person of
the debtor, is the same in principle, varying only in degree,
whether it be to imprison, to enslave, to brand, to dismember,
or to divide his body. But, as the lapse of time removed to a
greater distance the cruelties which had been suffered, the
cupidity of the affluent found means again to introduce the
system; but by such slow gradations, that the unsuspecting poor
were scarcely conscious of the change.
"The history of English jurisprudence furnishes the remarkable
fact, that, for many centuries, personal liberty could not be
violated for debt. Property alone could be taken to satisfy a
pecuniary demand. It was not until the reign of Henry III.,
in the thirteenth century, that the principle of imprisonment
for debt was recognized in the land of our ancestors, and that
was in favor of the barons alone; the nobility against their
bailiffs, who had received their rents and had appropriated them
to their own use. Here was the shadow of a pretext. The great
objection to the punishment was, that it was inflicted at the
pleasure of the baron, without a trial: an evil incident to
aristocracies, but obnoxious to republics. The courts, under
the pretext of imputed crime, or constructive violence, on the
part of the debtor, soon began to extend the principle, but
without legislative sanction. In the eleventh year of the reign
of Edward I., the immediate successor of Henry, the right of
imprisoning debtors was extended to merchants--Jewish merchants
excepted, on account of their heterodoxy in religion--and was
exercised with great severity. This extension was an act of
policy on the part of the monarch. The ascendency obtained by
the barons menaced the power of the throne; and, to counteract
their influence, the merchants, a numerous and wealthy class,
were selected by the monarch, and invested with the same
authority over their debtors.
"But England was not yet prepared for the yoke. She could endure
an hereditary nobility; she could tolerate a monarchy; but she
could not yet resign her unfortunate sons, indiscriminately,
to the prison. The barons and the merchants had gained the
power over their victims; yet more than sixty years elapsed
before Parliament dared to venture another act recognizing the
principle. During this period, imprisonment for debt had, in
some degree, lost its novelty. The incarceration of the debtor
began to make the impression that fraud, and not misfortune, had
brought on his catastrophe, and that he was, therefore, unworthy
of the protection of the law, and too degraded for the society
of the world. Parliament then ventured, in the reign of Edward
III., in the fourteenth century, to extend the principle to two
other cases--debt and detinue. This measure opened the door for
the impositions which were gradually introduced by judicial
usurpation, and have resulted in the most cruel oppression.
Parliament, for one hundred and fifty years afterwards, did not
venture to outrage the sentiments of an injured and indignant
people, by extending the power to ordinary creditors. But they
had laid the foundation, and an irresponsible judiciary reared
the superstructure. From the twenty-fourth year of the reign
of Edward III., to the nineteenth of Henry VIII., the subject
slumbered in Parliament. In the mean time, all the ingenuity
of the courts was employed, by the introduction of artificial
forms and legal fictions, to extend the power of imprisonment
for debt in cases not provided for by statute. The jurisdiction
of the court called the King's Bench, extended to all crimes or
disturbances against the peace. Under this court of criminal
jurisdiction, the debtor was arrested by what was called the
writ of Middlesex, upon a supposed trespass or outrage against
the peace and dignity of the crown. Thus, by a fictitious
construction, the person who owed his neighbor was supposed to
be, what every one knew him not to be, a violator of the peace,
and an offender against the dignity of the crown; and while
his body was held in custody for this crime, he was proceeded
against in a civil action, for which he was not liable to arrest
under statute. The jurisdiction of the court of common pleas
extended to civil actions arising between individuals upon
private transactions. To sustain its importance upon a scale
equal with that of its rival, this court also adopted its
fictions, and extended its power upon artificial construction,
quite as far beyond its statutory prerogative; and upon the
fictitious plea of trespass, constituting a legal supposition
of outrage against the peace of the kingdom, authorized the
writ of capias, and subsequent imprisonment, in cases where
a summons only was warranted by law. The court of exchequer
was designed to protect the king's revenue, and had no legal
jurisdiction, except in cases of debtors to the public. The
ingenuity of this court found means to extend its jurisdiction
to all cases of debt between individuals, upon the fictitious
plea that the plaintiff, who instituted the suit, was a debtor
to the king, and rendered the less able to discharge the debt
by the default of the defendant. Upon this artificial pretext,
that the defendant was debtor to the king's debtor, the court
of exchequer, to secure the king's revenue, usurped the power
of arraigning and imprisoning debtors of every description.
Thus, these rival courts, each ambitious to sustain its relative
importance, and extend its jurisdiction, introduced, as legal
facts, the most palpable fictions, and sustained the most absurd
solecisms as legal syllogisms.
"Where the person of the debtor was, by statute, held sacred,
the courts devised the means of construing the demand of a
debt into the supposition of a crime, for which he was subject
to arrest on mesne process; and the evidence of debt, into
the conviction of a crime against the peace of the kingdom,
for which he was deprived of his liberty at the pleasure of
the offended party. These practices of the courts obtained by
regular gradation. Each act of usurpation was a precedent for
similar outrages, until the system became general, and at length
received the sanction of Parliament. The spirit of avarice
finally gained a complete triumph over personal liberty. The
sacred claims of misfortune were disregarded, and, to the iron
grasp of poverty, were added the degradation of infamy, and the
misery of the dungeon.
"While imprisonment for debt is sanctioned, the threats of the
creditor are a source of perpetual distress to the dependent,
friendless debtor, holding his liberty by sufferance alone.
Temptations to oppression are constantly in view. The means of
injustice are always at hand; and even helpless females are not
exempted from the barbarous practice. In a land of liberty,
enjoying, in all other respects, the freest and happiest
government with which the world was ever blessed, it is matter
of astonishment that this cruel custom, so anomalous to all our
institutions, inflicting so much misery upon society, should
have been so long endured."
The act was passed soon after this masterly report was made,
followed by similar acts in most of the States; and has been
attended every where with the beneficial effect resulting from the
suppression of any false and vicious principle in legislation. It
is a false and vicious principle in the system of credit to admit a
calculation for the chance of payment, founded on the sympathy and
alarms of third parties, or on the degradation and incarceration
of the debtor himself. Such a principle is morally wrong, and
practically unjust; and there is no excuse for it in the plea of
fraud. The idea of fraud does not enter into the contract at its
original formation; and if occurring afterwards, and the debtor
undertakes to defraud his creditor, there is a code of law made for
the case; and every case should rest upon its own circumstances.
As an element of credit, imprisonment for debt is condemned by
morality, by humanity, and by the science of political economy; and
its abolition has worked well in reducing the elements of credit
to their legitimate derivation in the personal character, visible
means, and present securities of the contracting debtor. And, if
in that way, it has diminished in any degree the wide circle of
credit, that is an additional advantage gained to the good order of
society and to the solidity of the social edifice. And thus, as in
so many other instances, American legislation has ameliorated the
law derived from our English ancestors, and given an example which
British legislation may some day follow.--In addition to the honor
of seeing this humane act passed during his administration, General
Jackson had the further and higher honor of having twice recommended
it to the favorable consideration of Congress.
CHAPTER LXXVII.
SALE OF UNITED STATES STOCK IN THE NATIONAL BANK.
The President in his annual message had recommended the sale of
this stock, and all other stock held by the United States in
corporate companies, with the view to disconnecting the government
from such corporations, and from all pursuits properly belonging
to individuals. And he made the recommendation upon the political
principle which condemns the partnership of the government with a
corporation; and upon the economical principle which condemns the
national pursuit of any branch of industry and leaves the profit,
or loss of all such pursuits to individual enterprise; and upon the
belief, in this instance, that the partnership was unsafe--that
the firm would fail--and the stockholders lose their investment.
In conformity to this recommendation, a bill was brought into the
House of Representatives to sell the public stock held in the Bank
of the United States, being seven millions of dollars in amount, and
consisting of a national stock bearing five per centum interest.
The bill was met at the threshold by the parliamentary motion which
implies the unworthiness of the subject to be considered; namely,
the motion to reject the bill at the first reading. That reading is
never for consideration, but for information only; and, although
debatable, carries the implication of unfitness for debate, and of
some flagrant enormity which requires rejection, without the honor
of the usual forms of legislation. That motion was made by a friend
of the bank, and seconded by the member (Mr. Watmough) supposed to
be familiar with the wishes of the bank directory. The speakers on
each side gave vent to expressions which showed that they felt the
indignity that was offered to the bill, one side in promoting--the
other in opposing the motion. Mr. Wickliffe, the mover, said: "He
was impelled, by a sense of duty to his constituents and to his
country, to do in this case, what he had never done before--to move
the rejection of a bill at its first reading. There are cases in
which courtesy should yield to the demands of justice and public
duty; and this, in my humble opinion, is one of them. It is a bill
fraught with ruin to all private interests, except the interest
of the stockjobbers of Wall-street." Mr. Watmough expressed his
indignation and amazement at the appearance of such a bill, and even
fell upon the committee which reported it with so much personality
as drew a call to order from the Speaker of the House. "He expressed
his sincere regret at the necessity which compelled him to intrude
upon the House, and to express his opinion on the bill, and his
indignation against this persecution of a national institution.
He was at a loss to say which feeling predominated in his
bosom--amazement, at the want of financial skill in the supporters
of the bill--or detestation of the unrelenting spirit of the
administration persecution on that floor of an institution admitted
by the wisest and the best men of the times to be absolutely
essential to the existence and safety of this Union, and almost to
that of the constitution itself which formed its basis. He said, he
was amazed that such a bill, at such a crisis, could emanate from
any committee of this House; but his amazement was diminished when
he recalled to mind the source from which it came. It came from the
Committee of Ways and Means, and was under the parental care of the
gentleman from Tennessee. Need he say more?"
Now, the member thus referred to, and who, after being pointed
out as the guardian of the bill required nothing more to be said,
was Mr. Polk, afterwards President of the United States. But
parliamentary law is no respecter of persons, and would consider
the indecorum and outrage of the allusion equally reprehensible in
the case of the youngest and least considerable member; and the
language is noted here to show the indignities to which members were
subjected in the House for presuming to take any step concerning
the bank which militated against that corporation. The sale of the
government stock was no injury to the capital of the bank: it was
no extinction of seven millions of capital but a mere transfer of
that amount to private stockholders--such transfer as took place
daily among the private stockholders. The only injury could be to
the market price of the stock in the possible decline involved
in the withdrawal of a large stockholder; but that was a damage,
in the eye of the law and of morality, without injury; that is,
without injustice--the stockholder having a right to do so without
the assignment of reasons to be judged of by the corporation; and
consequently a right to sell out and withdraw when he judged his
money to be unsafe, or unprofitably placed, and susceptible of a
better investment.
Mr. Polk remarked upon the unusual but not unexpected opposition to
the bill; and said if the House was now forced to a decision, it
would be done without opportunity for deliberation. He vindicated
the bill from any necessary connection with the bank--with its
eulogy or censure. This eulogy or censure had no necessary
connection with a proposition to sell the government stock. It was
a plain business proceeding. The bill authorized the Secretary
of the Treasury to sell the stock upon such terms as he should
deem best for the government. It was an isolated proposition. It
proposed to disenthral the government from a partnership with this
incorporated company. It proposed to get rid of the interest which
the government had in this moneyed monopoly; and to do so by a sale
of the government stocks, and on terms not below the market price.
He was not disposed to depreciate the value of the article which he
wished to sell. He was willing to rest upon the right to sell. The
friends of the bank themselves raised the question of solvency, it
would seem, that they might have an opportunity, to eulogize the
institution under the forms of a defence. This was not the time for
such a discussion--for an inquiry into the conduct and condition of
the bank.
The argument and the right were with the supporters of the bill;
but they signified nothing against the firm majority, which not
only stood by the corporation in its trials, but supported it in
its wishes. The bill was immediately rejected, and by a summary
process which inflicted a new indignity. It was voted down under
the operation of the "previous question," which, cutting off all
debate, and all amendments, consigns a measure to instant and silent
decision--like the "_mort sans phrase_" (death without talk) of the
Abbé Sièyes, at the condemnation of Louis the Sixteenth. But the
vote was not very triumphant--one of the leanest majorities, in
fact, which the bank had received: one hundred and two to ninety-one.
The negative votes were:
"Messrs. Adair, Alexander, R. Allen, Anderson, Angel, Archer,
Barnwell, James Bates, Beardsley Bell, Bergen, Bethune, James
Blair, John Blair, Boon, Bouck, Bouldin, John Brodhead, John C.
Brodhead, Cambreleng, Chandler, Chinn, Claiborne, Clay, Clayton,
Coke, Connor, Davenport, Dayan, Doubleday, Draper, Felder, Ford,
Foster, Gaither, Gilmore, Gordon, Griffin, Thomas H. Hall,
William Hall, Harper, Hawkins, Hoffman, Holland, Horn, Howard,
Hubbard, Isacks, Jarvis, Jewett, Richard M. Johnson, Cave
Johnson, Kavanagh, Kennon, Adam King, John King, Lamar, Lansing,
Leavitt, Lecompte, Lewis, Lyon, Mann, Mardis, Mason, McCarty,
Wm. McCoy, McIntire, McKay, Mitchell, Newnan, Nuckolls, Patton,
Pierson, Plummer, Polk, Edward C. Reed, Roane, Soule, Speight,
Standifer, John Thompson, Verplanck, Ward, Wardwell, Wayne,
Weeks, Campbell, P. White, Worthington.--91."
Such was the result of this attempt, on the part of the government,
to exercise the most ordinary right of a stockholder to sell its
shares: opposed, insulted, defeated; and by the power of the bank in
Congress, of whose members subsequent investigations showed above
fifty to be borrowers from the institution; and many to be on the
list of its retained attorneys. But this was not the first time
the government had been so treated. The same thing had happened
once before, and about in the same way; but without the same excuse
of persecution and enmity to the corporation; for, it was before
the time of General Jackson's Presidency; to wit, in the year
1827, and under the Presidency of Mr. Quincy Adams. Mr. Philip P.
Barbour, representative from Virginia, moved an inquiry, at that
time, into the expediency of selling the United States stock in the
bank: the consideration of the resolution was delayed a week, the
time necessary for a communication with Philadelphia. At the end
of the week, the resolution was taken up, and summarily rejected.
Mr. Barbour had placed his proposition wholly upon the ground of a
public advantage in selling its stock, unconnected with any reason
disparaging to the bank, and in a way to avoid, as he believed, any
opposition. He said:
"The House were aware that the government holds, at this time,
stock of the Bank of the United States, to the amount of seven
millions of dollars, which stock was at present worth in market
about twenty-three and one half per cent. advance above its par
value. If the whole of this stock should now be sold by the
government, it would net a profit of one million and six hundred
thousand dollars above the nominal amount of the stock. Such
being the case, he thought it deserved the serious consideration
of the House, whether it would not be a prudent and proper
measure now to sell out that stock. It had been said, Mr. B.
observed, by one of the best writers on political economy, with
whom he was acquainted, that the pecuniary affairs of nations
bore a close analogy to those of private households: in both,
their prosperity mainly depended on a vigilant and effective
management of their resources. There is, said Mr. B., an amount
of between seventeen and eighteen millions of the stock of the
United States now redeemable, and an amount of nine millions
more, which will be redeemable next year. If the interest paid
by the United States on this debt is compared with the dividend
it receives on its stock in the Bank of the United States, it
will be found that a small advantage would be gained by the
sale of the latter, in this respect; since the dividends on
bank stock are received semi-annually, while the interest of
the United States' securities is paid quarterly; this, however,
he waived as a matter of comparatively small moment. It must be
obvious, he said, that the addition of one million six hundred
thousand dollars to the available funds of the United States
will produce the extinguishment of an equivalent amount of the
public debt, and consequently relieve the interest payable
thereon, by which a saving would accrue of about one hundred
thousand dollars per annum."
This was what Mr. Barbour said, at the time of offering the
resolution. When it came up for consideration, a week after, he
found his motion not only opposed, but his motives impeached, and
the most sinister designs imputed to himself--to him! a Virginian
country gentleman, honest and modest; ignorant of all indirection;
upright and open; a stranger to all guile; and with the simplicity
and integrity of a child. He deeply felt this impeachment of
motives, certainly the first time in his life that an indecent
imputation had ever fallen upon him; and he feelingly deprecated the
intensity of the outrage. He said:
"We shall have fallen on evil times, indeed, if a member of this
House might not, in the integrity of his heart, rise in his
place, and offer for consideration a measure which he believed
to be for the public weal, without having all that he said and
did imputed to some hidden motive, and referred to some secret
purpose which was never presented to the public eye."
His proposition was put to the vote, and received eight votes
besides his own. They were: Messrs. Mark Alexander, John Floyd,
John Roane, and himself, from Virginia; Thomas H. Hall, and Daniel
Turner, of North Carolina; Tomlinson Foot of Connecticut; Joseph
Lecompte, and Henry Daniel, of Kentucky. And this was the result
of that first attempt to sell the United States stock in a bank
chartered by itself and bearing its name. And now, why resuscitate
these buried recollections? I answer: for the benefit of posterity!
that they may have the benefit of our experience without the
humiliation of having undergone it, and know what kind of a master
seeks to rule over them if another national bank shall ever seek
incorporation at their hands.
CHAPTER LXXVIII.
NULLIFICATION ORDINANCE IN SOUTH CAROLINA.
It has been seen that the whole question of the American system,
and especially its prominent feature of a high protective tariff,
was put in issue in the presidential canvass of 1832; and that the
long session of Congress of that year was occupied by the friends
of this system in bringing forward to the best advantage all its
points, and staking its fate upon the issue of the election.
That issue was against the system; and the Congress elections
taking place contemporaneously with the presidential were of
the same character. The fate of the American system was sealed.
Its domination in federal legislation was to cease. This was
acknowledged on all hands; and it was naturally expected that all
the States, dissatisfied with that system, would be satisfied with
the view of its speedy and regular extinction, under the legislation
of the approaching session of Congress; and that expectation was
only disappointed in a single State--that of South Carolina. She
had held aloof from the presidential election--throwing away her
vote upon citizens who were not candidates--and doing nothing to aid
the election of General Jackson, with whose success her interests
and wishes were apparently identified. Instead of quieting her
apprehensions, and moderating her passion for violent remedies, the
success of the election seemed to inflame them; and the 24th of
November, just a fortnight after the election which decided the fate
of the tariff, she issued her ordinance of nullification against it,
taking into her own hands the sudden and violent redress which she
prescribed for herself. That ordinance makes an era in the history
of our Union, which requires to be studied in order to understand
the events of the times, and the history of subsequent events. It
was in these words:
"ORDINANCE.
"_An ordinance to nullify certain acts of the Congress of the
United States, purporting to be laws laying duties and imposts
on the importation of foreign commodities._
"Whereas the Congress of the United States, by various acts,
purporting to be acts laying duties and imposts on foreign
imports, but in reality intended for the protection of
domestic manufactures, and the giving of bounties to classes
and individuals engaged in particular employments, at the
expense and to the injury and oppression of other classes and
individuals, and by wholly exempting from taxation certain
foreign commodities, such as are not produced or manufactured
in the United States, to afford a pretext for imposing higher
and excessive duties on articles similar to those intended to be
protected, hath exceeded its just powers under the constitution,
which confers on it no authority to afford such protection, and
hath violated the true meaning and intent of the constitution,
which provides for equality in imposing the burdens of taxation
upon the several States and portions of the confederacy: And
whereas the said Congress, exceeding its just power to impose
taxes and collect revenue for the purpose of effecting and
accomplishing the specific objects and purposes which the
constitution of the United States authorizes it to effect and
accomplish, hath raised and collected unnecessary revenue for
objects unauthorized by the constitution.
"We, therefore, the people of the State of South Carolina, in
convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby
declared and ordained, that the several acts and parts of acts
of the Congress of the United States, purporting to be laws
for the imposing of duties and imposts on the importation of
foreign commodities, and now having actual operation and effect
within the United States, and, more especially, an act entitled
'An act in alteration of the several acts imposing duties on
imports,' approved on the nineteenth day of May, one thousand
eight hundred and twenty-eight, and also an act entitled 'An act
to alter and amend the several acts imposing duties on imports,'
approved on the fourteenth day of July, one thousand eight
hundred and thirty-two, are unauthorized by the constitution
of the United States, and violate the true meaning and intent
thereof, and are null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this
State, its officers or citizens; and all promises, contracts,
and obligations, made or entered into, or to be made or entered
into, with purpose to secure the duties imposed by the said
acts, and all judicial proceedings which shall be hereafter had
in affirmance thereof, are and shall be held utterly null and
void.
"And it is further ordained, that it shall not be lawful for any
of the constituted authorities, whether of this State or of the
United States, to enforce the payment of duties imposed by the
said acts within the limits of this State; but it shall be the
duty of the legislature to adopt such measures and pass such
acts as may be necessary to give full effect to this ordinance,
and to prevent the enforcement and arrest the operation of
the said acts and parts of acts of the Congress of the United
States within the limits of this State, from and after the 1st
day of February next, and the duty of all other constituted
authorities, and of all persons residing or being within the
limits of this State, and they are hereby required and enjoined
to obey and give effect to this ordinance, and such acts and
measures of the legislature as may be passed or adopted in
obedience thereto.
"And it is further ordained, that in no case of law or equity,
decided in the courts of this State, wherein shall be drawn
in question the authority of this ordinance, or the validity
of such act or acts of the legislature as may be passed for
the purpose of giving effect thereto, or the validity of the
aforesaid acts of Congress, imposing duties, shall any appeal be
taken or allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States, nor
shall any copy of the record be permitted or allowed for that
purpose; and if any such appeal shall be attempted to be taken,
the courts of this State shall proceed to execute and enforce
their judgments, according to the laws and usages of the State,
without reference to such attempted appeal, and the person or
persons attempting to take such appeal may be dealt with as for
a contempt of the court.
"And it is further ordained, that all persons now holding any
office of honor, profit, or trust, civil or military, under this
State (members of the legislature excepted), shall, within such
time, and in such manner as the legislature shall prescribe,
take an oath well and truly to obey, execute, and enforce this
ordinance, and such act or acts of the legislature as may be
passed in pursuance thereof, according to the true intent and
meaning of the same; and on the neglect or omission of any such
person or persons so to do, his or their office or offices shall
be forthwith vacated, and shall be filled up as if such person
or persons were dead or had resigned; and no person hereafter
elected to any office of honor, profit, or trust, civil or
military (members of the legislature excepted), shall, until
the legislature shall otherwise provide and direct, enter on
the execution of his office, or be in any respect competent to
discharge the duties thereof, until he shall, in like manner,
have taken a similar oath; and no juror shall be empannelled in
any of the courts of this State, in any cause in which shall be
in question this ordinance, or any act of the legislature passed
in pursuance thereof, unless he shall first, in addition to the
usual oath, have taken an oath that he will well and truly obey,
execute, and enforce this ordinance, and such act or acts of the
legislature as may be passed to carry the same into operation
and effect, according to the true intent and meaning thereof.
"And we, the people of South Carolina, to the end that it may
be fully understood by the government of the United States, and
the people of the co-States, that we are determined to maintain
this our ordinance and declaration, at every hazard, do further
declare that we will not submit to the application of force, on
the part of the federal government, to reduce this State to
obedience; but that we will consider the passage, by Congress,
of any act authorizing the employment of a military or naval
force against the State of South Carolina, her constitutional
authorities or citizens; or any act abolishing or closing the
ports of this State, or any of them, or otherwise obstructing
the free ingress and egress of vessels to and from the said
ports, or any other act on the part of the federal government,
to coerce the State, shut up her ports, destroy or harass her
commerce, or to enforce the acts hereby declared to be null and
void, otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the country,
as inconsistent with the longer continuance of South Carolina in
the Union; and that the people of this State wilt thenceforth
hold themselves absolved from all further obligation to maintain
or preserve their political connection with the people of the
other States, and will forthwith proceed to organize a separate
government, and do all other acts and things which sovereign and
independent States may of right do.
"Done in convention at Columbia, the twenty-fourth day of
November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
thirty-two, and in the fifty-seventh year of the declaration of
the independence of the United States of America."
This ordinance placed the State in the attitude of open, forcible
resistance to the laws of the United States, to take effect on the
first day of February next ensuing--a period within which it was
hardly possible for the existing Congress, even if so disposed,
to ameliorate obnoxious laws; and a period a month earlier than
the commencement of the legal existence of the new Congress, on
which all reliance was placed. And, in the mean time, if any
attempt should be made in any way to enforce the obnoxious laws
except through her own tribunals sworn against them, the fact of
such attempt was to terminate the continuance of South Carolina
in the Union--to absolve her from all connection with the federal
government--and to establish her as a separate government, not only
unconnected with the United States, but unconnected with any one
State. This ordinance, signed by more than a hundred citizens of
the greatest respectability, was officially communicated to the
President of the United States; and a case presented to him to test
his patriotism, his courage, and his fidelity to his inauguration
oath--an oath taken in the presence of God and man, of Heaven and
earth, "_to take care that the laws of the Union were faithfully
executed_." That President was Jackson; and the event soon proved,
what in fact no one doubted, that he was not false to his duty, his
country, and his oath. Without calling on Congress for extraordinary
powers, he merely adverted in his annual message to the attitude of
the State, and proceeded to meet the exigency by the exercise of the
powers he already possessed.
CHAPTER LXXIX.
PROCLAMATION AGAINST NULLIFICATION.
The ordinance of nullification reached President Jackson in
the first days of December, and on the tenth of that month the
proclamation was issued, of which the following are the essential
and leading parts:
"Whereas a convention assembled in the State of South Carolina
have passed an ordinance, by which they declare 'that the
several acts and parts of acts of the Congress of the United
States, purporting to be laws for the imposing of duties and
imposts on the importation of foreign commodities, and now
having actual operation and effect within the United States,
and more especially' two acts for the same purposes, passed
on the 29th of May, 1828, and on the 14th of July, 1832, 'are
unauthorized by the constitution of the United States, and
violate the true meaning and intent thereof, and are null and
void, and no law,' nor binding on the citizens of that State, or
its officers: and by the said ordinance, it is further declared
to be unlawful for any of the constituted authorities of the
State or of the United States to enforce the payment of the
duties imposed by the said acts within the same State, and that
it is the duty of the legislature to pass such laws as may be
necessary to give full effect to the said ordinance:
"And whereas, by the said ordinance, it is further ordained,
that in no case of law or equity decided in the courts of said
State, wherein shall be drawn in question the validity of the
said ordinance, or of the acts of the legislature that may be
passed to give it effect, or of the said laws of the United
States, no appeal shall be allowed to the Supreme Court of the
United States, nor shall any copy of the record be permitted or
allowed for that purpose, and that any person attempting to take
such appeal shall be punished as for a contempt of court:
"And, finally, the said ordinance declares that the people of
South Carolina will maintain the said ordinance at every hazard;
and that they will consider the passage of any act, by Congress,
abolishing or closing the ports of the said State, or otherwise
obstructing the free ingress or egress of vessels to and from
the said ports, or any other act of the federal government to
coerce the State, shut up her ports, destroy or harass her
commerce, or to enforce the said acts otherwise than through the
civil tribunals of the country, as inconsistent with the longer
continuance of South Carolina in the Union; and that the people
of the said State will thenceforth hold themselves absolved from
all further obligation to maintain or preserve their political
connection with the people of the other States, and will
forthwith proceed to organize a separate government, and do all
other acts and things which sovereign and independent States may
of right do:
"And whereas the said ordinance prescribes to the people of
South Carolina a course of conduct in direct violation of their
duty as citizens of the United States, contrary to the laws
of their country, subversive of its constitution, and having
for its object the destruction of the Union--that Union which,
coeval with our political existence, led our fathers, without
any other ties to unite them than those of patriotism and a
common cause, through a sanguinary struggle to a glorious
independence--that sacred Union, hitherto inviolate, which,
perfected by our happy constitution, has brought us, by
the favor of Heaven, to a state of prosperity at home, and
high consideration abroad, rarely, if ever, equalled in the
history of nations: To preserve this bond of our political
existence from destruction, to maintain inviolate this state of
national honor and prosperity, and to justify the confidence
my fellow-citizens have reposed in me, I, Andrew Jackson,
President of the United States, have thought proper to issue
this my proclamation, stating my views of the constitution
and laws applicable to the measures adopted by the convention
of South Carolina, and to the reasons they have put forth to
sustain them, declaring the course which duty will require me to
pursue, and, appealing to the understanding and patriotism of
the people, warn them of the consequences that must inevitably
result from an observance of the dictates of the convention.
"Strict duty would require of me nothing more than the exercise
of those powers with which I am now, or may hereafter be,
invested, for preserving the peace of the Union, and for
the execution of the laws. But the imposing aspect which
opposition has assumed in this case, by clothing itself with
State authority, and the deep interest which the people of the
United States must all feel in preventing a resort to stronger
measures, while there is a hope that any thing will be yielded
to reasoning and remonstrance, perhaps demanded, and will
certainly justify, a full exposition to South Carolina and the
nation of the views I entertain of this important question, as
well as a distinct enunciation of the course which my sense of
duty will require me to pursue.
"The ordinance is founded, not on the indefeasible right of
resisting acts which are plainly unconstitutional and too
oppressive to be endured, but on the strange position that any
one State may not only declare an act of Congress void, but
prohibit its execution; that they may do this consistently
with the constitution; that the true construction of that
instrument permits a State to retain its place in the Union,
and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may
choose to consider as constitutional. It is true, they add,
that to justify this abrogation of a law, it must be palpably
contrary to the constitution; but it is evident, that to give
the right of resisting laws of that description, coupled
with the uncontrolled right to decide what laws deserve that
character, is to give the power of resisting all laws. For as,
by the theory, there is no appeal, the reasons alleged by the
State, good or bad, must prevail. If it should be said that
public opinion is a sufficient check against the abuse of this
power, it may be asked why it is not deemed a sufficient guard
against the passage of an unconstitutional act by Congress.
There is, however, a restraint in this last case, which makes
the assumed power of a State more indefensible, and which
does not exist in the other. There are two appeals from an
unconstitutional act passed by Congress--one to the judiciary,
the other to the people and the States. There is no appeal from
the State decision in theory, and the practical illustration
shows that the courts are closed against an application to
review it, both judges and jurors being sworn to decide in its
favor. But reasoning on this subject is superfluous, when our
social compact, in express terms, declares that the laws of
the United States, its constitution, and treaties made under
it, are the supreme law of the land; and, for greater caution,
adds 'that the judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the
contrary notwithstanding.' And it may be asserted without fear
of refutation, that no federative government could exist without
a similar provision. Look for a moment to the consequence. If
South Carolina considers the revenue laws unconstitutional,
and has a right to prevent their execution in the port of
Charleston, there would be a clear constitutional objection to
their collection in every other port, and no revenue could be
collected any where; for all imposts must be equal. It is no
answer to repeat, that an unconstitutional law is no law, so
long as the question of its legality is to be decided by the
State itself; for every law operating injuriously upon any local
interest will be perhaps thought, and certainly represented, as
unconstitutional, and, as has been shown, there is no appeal.
"If this doctrine had been established at an earlier day, the
Union would have been dissolved in its infancy. The excise law
in Pennsylvania, the embargo and non-intercourse law in the
Eastern States, the carriage tax in Virginia, were all deemed
unconstitutional, and were more unequal in their operation than
any of the laws now complained of; but fortunately none of
those States discovered that they had the right now claimed by
South Carolina. The war, into which we were forced to support
the dignity of the nation and the rights of our citizens, might
have ended in defeat and disgrace, instead of victory and honor,
if the States who supposed it a ruinous and unconstitutional
measure, had thought they possessed the right of nullifying
the act by which it was declared, and denying supplies for
its prosecution. Hardly and unequally as those measures bore
upon several members of the Union, to the legislatures of none
did this efficient and peaceable remedy, as it is called,
suggest itself. The discovery of this important feature in our
constitution was reserved to the present day. To the statesmen
of South Carolina belongs the invention, and upon the citizens
of that State will unfortunately fall the evils of reducing it
to practice.
"If the doctrine of a State veto upon the laws of the Union
carries with it internal evidence of its impracticable
absurdity, our constitutional history will also afford abundant
proof that it would have been repudiated with indignation had it
been proposed to form a feature in our government.
"In our colonial state, although dependent on another power, we
very early considered ourselves as connected by common interest
with each other. Leagues were formed for common defence, and,
before the declaration of independence, we were known in our
aggregate character as the United Colonies of America. That
decisive and important step was taken jointly. We declared
ourselves a nation by a joint, not by several acts, and when
the terms of our confederation were reduced to form, it was in
that of a solemn league of several States, by which they agreed
that they would collectively form one nation for the purpose
of conducting some certain domestic concerns and all foreign
relations. In the instrument forming that Union is found an
article which declares that 'every State shall abide by the
determinations of Congress on all questions which, by that
confederation, should be submitted to them.'
"Under the confederation, then, no State could legally annul
a decision of the Congress, or refuse to submit to its
execution; but no provision was made to enforce these decisions.
Congress made requisitions, but they were not complied with.
The government could not operate on individuals. They had no
judiciary, no means of collecting revenue.
"But the defects of the confederation need not be detailed.
Under its operation we could scarcely be called a nation. We
had neither prosperity at home, nor consideration abroad. This
state of things could not be endured, and our present happy
constitution was formed, but formed in vain, if this fatal
doctrine prevail. It was formed for important objects that are
announced in the preamble made in the name and by the authority
of the people of the United States, whose delegates framed,
and whose conventions approved it. The most important among
these objects, that which is placed first in rank, on which all
the others rest, is 'to form a more perfect Union.' Now, is it
possible that even if there were no express provision giving
supremacy to the constitution and laws of the United States over
those of the States--can it be conceived that an instrument made
for the purpose of 'forming a more perfect Union' than that of
the confederation, could be so constructed by the assembled
wisdom of our country, as to substitute for that confederation
a form of government dependent for its existence on the local
interest, the party spirit of a State, or of a prevailing
faction in a State? Every man of plain, unsophisticated
understanding, who hears the question, will give such an answer
as will preserve the Union. Metaphysical subtlety, in pursuit of
an impracticable theory, could alone have devised one that is
calculated to destroy it.
"The constitution declares that the judicial powers of the
United States extend to cases arising under the laws of the
United States, and that such laws, the constitution and treaties
shall be paramount to the State constitutions and laws. The
judiciary act prescribes the mode by which the case may be
brought before a court of the United States: by appeal, when
a State tribunal shall decide against this provision of the
constitution. The ordinance declares there shall be no appeal;
makes the State law paramount to the constitution and laws of
the United States; forces judges and jurors to swear that they
will disregard their provisions; and even makes it penal in a
suitor to attempt relief by appeal. It further declares that it
shall not be lawful for the authorities of the United States, or
of that State, to enforce the payment of duties imposed by the
revenue laws within its limits.
"Here is a law of the United States, not even pretended to be
unconstitutional, repealed by the authority of a small majority
of the voters of a single State. Here is a provision of the
constitution which is solemnly abrogated by the same authority.
"On such expositions and reasonings, the ordinance grounds not
only an assertion of the right to annul the laws of which it
complains, but to enforce it by a threat of seceding from the
Union, if any attempt is made to execute them.
"This right to secede is deduced from the nature of the
constitution, which, they say, is a compact between sovereign
States, who have preserved their whole sovereignty, and,
therefore, are subject to no superior; that, because they made
the compact, they can break it when, in their opinion, it has
been departed from, by the other States. Fallacious as this
course of reasoning is, it enlists State pride, and finds
advocates in the honest prejudices of those who have not studied
the nature of our government sufficiently to see the radical
error on which it rests.
"The people of the United States formed the constitution, acting
through the State legislatures in making the compact, to meet
and discuss its provisions, and acting in separate conventions
when they ratified those provisions; but, the terms used in its
construction show it to be a government in which the people of
all the States collectively are represented. We are one people
in the choice of the President and Vice-President. Here the
States have no other agency than to direct the mode in which
the votes shall be given. Candidates having the majority of all
the votes are chosen. The electors of a majority of States may
have given their votes for one candidate, and yet another may be
chosen. The people, then, and not the States, are represented in
the executive branch.
"In the House of Representatives, there is this difference: that
the people of one State do not, as in the case of President
and Vice-President, all vote for the same officers. The people
of all the States do not vote for all the members, each State
electing only its own representatives. But this creates no
material distinction. When chosen, they are all representatives
of the United States, not representatives of the particular
State from which they come. They are paid by the United States,
not by the State, nor are they accountable to it for any act
done in the performance of their legislative functions; and
however they may in practice, as it is their duty to do, consult
and prefer the interests of their particular constituents, when
they come in conflict with any other partial or local interest,
yet it is their first and highest duty, as representatives of
the United States, to promote the general good.
"The constitution of the United States, then, forms a
government, not a league; and whether it be formed by compact
between the States, or in any other manner, its character
is the same. It is a government in which all the people are
represented, which operates directly on the people individually,
not upon the States--they retained all the power they did not
grant. But each State, having expressly parted with so many
powers as to constitute, jointly with the other States, a
single nation, cannot, from that period, possess any right to
secede, because such secession does not break a league, but
destroys the unity of a nation; and any injury to that unity
is not only a breach which would result from the contravention
of a compact, but it is an offence against the whole Union.
To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union,
is to say that the United States are not a nation; because it
would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might
dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or
ruin, without committing any offence. Secession, like any other
revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity
of oppression; but, to call it a constitutional right, is
confounding the meaning of terms; and can only be done through
gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a
right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur
the penalties consequent on a failure.
"Fellow-citizens of my native State, let me not only admonish
you, as the First Magistrate of our common country, not to incur
the penalty of its laws, but use the influence that a father
would over his children whom he saw rushing to certain ruin. In
that paternal language, with that paternal feeling, let me tell
you, my countrymen, that you are deluded by men who are either
deceived themselves, or wish to deceive you. Mark under what
pretences you have been led on to the brink of insurrection and
treason, on which you stand! First, a diminution of the value
of your staple commodity, lowered by over production in other
quarters, and the consequent diminution in the value of your
lands, were the sole effect of the tariff laws.
"The effect of those laws was confessedly injurious, but the
evil was greatly exaggerated by the unfounded theory you were
taught to believe, that its burdens were in proportion to your
exports, not to your consumption of imported articles. Your
pride was roused by the assertion that a submission to those
laws was a state of vassalage, and that resistance to them
was equal, in patriotic merit, to the oppositions our fathers
offered to the oppressive laws of Great Britain. You were told
this opposition might be peaceably, might be constitutionally
made; that you might enjoy all the advantages of the Union, and
bear none of its burdens. Eloquent appeals to your passions,
to your State pride, to your native courage, to your sense
of real injury, were used to prepare you for the period when
the mask, which concealed the hideous features of disunion,
should be taken off. It fell, and you were made to look with
complacency on objects which, not long since, you would have
regarded with horror. Look back to the arts which have brought
you to this state; look forward to the consequences to which
it must inevitably lead! Look back to what was first told you
as an inducement to enter into this dangerous course. The
great political truth was repeated to you, that you had the
revolutionary right of resisting all laws that were palpably
unconstitutional and intolerably oppressive; it was added
that the right to nullify a law rested on the same principle,
but that it was a peaceable remedy! This character which was
given to it, made you receive with too much confidence the
assertions that were made of the unconstitutionality of the
law, and its oppressive effects. Mark, my fellow-citizens,
that, by the admission of your leaders, the unconstitutionality
must be palpable, or it will not justify either resistance or
nullification! What is the meaning of the word palpable, in
the sense in which it is here used? That which is apparent to
every one; that which no man of ordinary intellect will fail
to perceive. Is the unconstitutionality of these laws of that
description? Let those among your leaders who once approved
and advocated the principle of protective duties, answer the
question; and let them choose whether they will be considered
as incapable, then, of perceiving that which must have been
apparent to every man of common understanding, or as imposing
upon your confidence, and endeavoring to mislead you now. In
either case they are unsafe guides in the perilous path they
urge you to tread. Ponder well on this circumstance, and you
will know how to appreciate the exaggerated language they
address to you. They are not champions of liberty emulating the
fame of our revolutionary fathers; nor are you an oppressed
people, contending, as they repeat to you, against worse than
colonial vassalage.
"You are free members of a flourishing and happy Union. There
is no settled design to oppress you. You have indeed felt the
unequal operation of laws which may have been unwisely, not
unconstitutionally passed; but that inequality must necessarily
be removed. At the very moment when you were madly urged on
to the unfortunate course you have begun, a change in public
opinion had commenced. The nearly approaching payment of the
public debt, and the consequent necessity of a diminution of
duties, had already produced a considerable reduction, and that,
too, on some articles of general consumption in your State.
The importance of this change was underrated, and you were
authoritatively told that no further alleviation of your burdens
was to be expected, at the very time when the condition of the
country imperiously demanded such a modification of the duties
as should reduce them to a just and equitable scale. But, as
if apprehensive of the effect of this change in allaying your
discontents, you were precipitated into the fearful state in
which you now find yourselves.
"I adjure you, as you honor their memory; as you love the cause
of freedom, to which they dedicated their lives; as you prize
the peace of your country, the lives of its best citizens,
and your own fair fame, to retrace your steps. Snatch from
the archives of your State the disorganizing edict of its
convention; bid its members to reassemble, and promulgate the
decided expressions of your will to remain in the path which
alone can conduct you to safety, prosperity and honor. Tell
them that, compared to disunion, all other evils are light,
because that brings with it an accumulation of all. Declare
that you will never take the field unless the star-spangled
banner of your country shall float over you; that you will not
be stigmatized when dead, and dishonored and scorned while you
live, as the authors of the first attack on the constitution of
your country. Its destroyers you cannot be. You may disturb its
peace, you may interrupt the course of its prosperity, you may
cloud its reputation for stability, but its tranquillity will
be restored, its prosperity will return, and the stain upon its
national character will be transferred, and remain an eternal
blot on the memory of those who caused the disorder.
"Fellow-citizens of the United States, the threat of unhallowed
disunion, the names of those, once respected, by whom it is
uttered the array of military force to support it, denote the
approach of a crisis in our affairs, on which the continuance of
our unexampled prosperity, our political existence, and perhaps
that of all free governments, may depend. The conjuncture
demanded a free, a full, and explicit enunciation, not only
of my intentions, but of my principles of action; and, as the
claim was asserted of a right by a State to annul the laws of
the Union, and even to secede from it at pleasure, a frank
exposition of my opinions in relation to the origin and form of
our government, and the construction I give to the instrument by
which it was created, seemed to be proper. Having the fullest
confidence in the justness of the legal and constitutional
opinion of my duties, which has been expressed, I rely, with
equal confidence, on your undivided support in my determination
to execute the laws, to preserve the Union by all constitutional
means, to arrest, if possible, by moderate, but firm measures,
the necessity of a recourse to force; and, if it be the will of
Heaven that the recurrence of its primeval curse on man for the
shedding of a brother's blood should fall upon our land, that
it be not called down by any offensive act on the part of the
United States.
"Fellow-citizens: The momentous case is before you. On your
undivided support of your government depends the decision of
the great question it involves, whether your sacred Union will
be preserved, and the blessings it secures to us as one people
shall be perpetuated. No one can doubt that the unanimity with
which that decision will be expressed, will be such as to
inspire new confidence in republican institutions, and that the
prudence, the wisdom, and the courage which it will bring to
their defence, will transmit them unimpaired and invigorated to
our children."
CHAPTER LXXX.
MESSAGE ON THE SOUTH CAROLINA PROCEEDINGS.
In his annual message to Congress at the opening of the session
1832-'33, the President had adverted to the proceedings in South
Carolina, hinting at their character as inimical to the Union,
expressing his belief that the action in reducing the duties which
the extinction of the public debt would permit and require, would
put an end to those proceedings; and if they did not, and those
proceedings continued, and the executive government should need
greater powers than it possessed to overcome them, he promised
to make a communication to Congress, showing the state of the
question,--what had been done to compose it,--and asking for the
powers which the exigency demanded. The proceedings not ceasing, and
taking daily a more aggravated form in the organization of troops,
the collection of arms and of munitions of war, and in declarations
hostile to the Union, he found himself required, early in January,
to make the promised communication; and did so in a message to both
Houses, of which the following are the essential parts which belong
to history and posterity:
"Since the date of my last annual message, I have had officially
transmitted to me by the Governor of South Carolina, which I
now communicate to Congress, a copy of the ordinance passed by
the convention which assembled at Columbia, in the State of
South Carolina, in November last, declaring certain acts of
Congress therein mentioned, within the limits of that State,
to be absolutely null and void, and making it the duty of the
legislature to pass such laws as would be necessary to carry the
same into effect from and after the 1st of February next.
"The consequences to which this extraordinary defiance of the
just authority of the government might too surely lead, were
clearly foreseen, and it was impossible for me to hesitate as to
my own duty in such an emergency.
"The ordinance had been passed, however, without any certain
knowledge of the recommendation which, from a view of the
interests of the nation at large, the Executive had determined
to submit to Congress; and a hope was indulged that, by frankly
explaining his sentiments, and the nature of those duties which
the crisis would devolve upon him, the authorities of South
Carolina might be induced to retrace their steps. In this hope,
I determined to issue my proclamation of the 10th of December
last, a copy of which I now lay before Congress.
"I regret to inform you that these reasonable expectations have
not been realized, and that the several acts of the legislature
of South Carolina, which I now lay before you, and which have,
all and each of them, finally passed, after a knowledge of the
desire of the administration to modify the laws complained of,
are too well calculated, both in their positive enactments, and
in the spirit of opposition which they obviously encourage,
wholly to obstruct the collection of the revenue within the
limits of that State.
"Up to this period, neither the recommendation of the Executive
in regard to our financial policy and impost system, nor the
disposition manifested by Congress promptly to act upon that
subject, nor the unequivocal expression of the public will, in
all parts of the Union, appears to have produced any relaxation
in the measures of opposition adopted by the State of South
Carolina; nor is there any reason to hope that the ordinance and
laws will be abandoned.
"I have no knowledge that an attempt has been made, or that it
is in contemplation, to reassemble either the convention or the
legislature; and it will be perceived that the interval before
the 1st of February is too short to admit of the preliminary
steps necessary for that purpose. It appears, moreover, that
the State authorities are actively organizing their military
resources, and providing the means, and giving the most solemn
assurances of protection and support to all who shall enlist in
opposition to the revenue laws.
"A recent proclamation of the present Governor of South Carolina
has openly defied the authority of the Executive of the Union,
and general orders from the head quarters of the State announced
his determination to accept the services of volunteers, and his
belief that, should their country need their services, they will
be found at the post of honor and duty, ready to lay down their
lives in her defence. Under these orders, the forces referred to
are directed to 'hold themselves in readiness to take the field
at a moment's warning;' and in the city of Charleston, within a
collection district and a port of entry, a rendezvous has been
opened for the purpose of enlisting men for the magazine and
municipal guard. Thus, South Carolina presents herself in the
attitude of hostile preparation, and ready even for military
violence, if need be, to enforce her laws for preventing the
collection of the duties within her limits.
"Proceedings thus announced and matured must be distinguished
from menaces of unlawful resistance by irregular bodies of
people, who, acting under temporary delusion, may be restrained
by reflection, and the influence of public opinion, from
the commission of actual outrage. In the present instance,
aggression may be regarded as committed when it is officially
authorized, and the means of enforcing it fully provided.
"Under these circumstances, there can be no doubt that it is
the determination of the authorities of South Carolina fully
to carry into effect their ordinance and laws after the 1st of
February. It therefore becomes my duty to bring the subject
to the serious consideration of Congress, in order that such
measures as they, in their wisdom, may deem fit, shall be
seasonably provided; and that it may be thereby understood that,
while the government is disposed to remove all just cause of
complaint, as far as may be practicable consistently with a
proper regard to the interests of the community at large, it is,
nevertheless, determined that the supremacy of the laws shall be
maintained.
"In making this communication, it appears to me to be proper not
only that I should lay before you the acts and proceedings of
South Carolina, but that I should also fully acquaint you with
those steps which I have already caused to be taken for the
due collection of the revenue, and with my views of the subject
generally, that the suggestions which the constitution requires
me to make, in regard to your future legislation, may be better
understood.
"This subject, having early attracted the anxious attention of
the Executive, as soon as it was probable that the authorities
of South Carolina seriously meditated resistance to the faithful
execution of the revenue laws, it was deemed advisable that
the Secretary of the Treasury should particularly instruct the
officers of the United States, in that part of the Union, as to
the nature of the duties prescribed by the existing laws.
"Instructions were accordingly issued, on the sixth of November,
to the collectors in that State, pointing out their respective
duties, and enjoining upon each a firm and vigilant, but
discreet performance of them in the emergency then apprehended.
"I herewith transmit copies of these instructions, and of the
letter addressed to the district attorney, requesting his
co-operation. These instructions were dictated in the hope that,
as the opposition to the laws, by the anomalous proceeding
of nullification, was represented to be of a pacific nature,
to be pursued, substantially, according to the forms of the
constitution, and without resorting, in any event, to force
or violence, the measures of its advocates would be taken in
conformity with that profession, and, on such supposition, the
means afforded by the existing laws would have been adequate to
meet any emergency likely to arise.
"It was, however, not possible altogether to suppress
apprehension of the excesses to which the excitement prevailing
in that quarter might lead; but it certainly was not foreseen
that the meditated obstruction to the laws would so soon openly
assume its present character.
"Subsequently to the date of those instructions, however, the
ordinance of the convention was passed, which, if complied with
by the people of that State, must effectually render inoperative
the present revenue laws within her limits.
"This solemn denunciation of the laws and authority of the
United States has been followed up by a series of acts, on
the part of the authorities of that State, which manifest a
determination to render inevitable a resort to those measures of
self-defence which the paramount duty of the federal government
requires; but, upon the adoption of which, that State will
proceed to execute the purpose it has avowed in this ordinance,
of withdrawing from the Union.
"On the 27th of November, the legislature assembled at Columbia;
and, on their meeting, the Governor laid before them the
ordinance of the convention. In his message, on that occasion,
he acquaints them that 'this ordinance has thus become a part of
the fundamental law of South Carolina;' that 'the die has been
at last cast, and South Carolina has at length appealed to her
ulterior sovereignty as a member of this confederacy, and has
planted herself on her reserved rights. The rightful exercise of
this power is not a question which we shall any longer argue.
It is sufficient that she has willed it, and that the act is
done; nor is its strict compatibility with our constitutional
obligation to all laws passed by the general government, within
the authorized grants of power, to be drawn in question, when
this interposition is exerted in a case in which the compact
has been palpably, deliberately, and dangerously violated. That
it brings up a conjuncture of deep and momentous interest,
is neither to be concealed nor denied. This crisis presents
a class of duties which is referable to yourselves. You have
been commanded by the people, in their highest sovereignty,
to take care that, within the limits of this State, their
will shall be obeyed.' 'The measure of legislation,' he says,
'which you have to employ at this crisis, is the precise amount
of such enactments as may be necessary to render it utterly
impossible to collect, within our limits, the duties imposed
by the protective tariffs thus nullified.' He proceeds: 'That
you should arm every citizen with a civil process, by which he
may claim, if he pleases, a restitution of his goods, seized
under the existing imposts, on his giving security to abide the
issue of a suit at law, and, at the same time, define what shall
constitute treason against the State, and, by a bill of pains
and penalties, compel obedience, and punish disobedience to your
own laws, are points too obvious to require any discussion. In
one word, you must survey the whole ground. You must look to and
provide for all possible contingencies. In your own limits, your
own courts of judicature must not only be supreme, but you must
look to the ultimate issue of any conflict of jurisdiction and
power between them and the courts of the United States.'
"The Governor also asks for power to grant clearances, in
violation of the laws of the Union; and, to prepare for the
alternative which must happen, unless the United States shall
passively surrender their authority, and the Executive,
disregarding his oath, refrain from executing the laws of
the Union, he recommends a thorough revision of the militia
system, and that the Governor 'be authorized to accept, for
the defence of Charleston and its dependencies, the services
of two thousand volunteers, either by companies or files;' and
that they be formed into a legionary brigade, consisting of
infantry, riflemen, cavalry, field and heavy artillery; and
that they be 'armed and equipped, from the public arsenals,
completely for the field; and that appropriations be made for
supplying all deficiencies in our munitions of war.' In addition
to these volunteer draughts, he recommends that the Governor be
authorized 'to accept the services of ten thousand volunteers
from the other divisions of the State, to be organized and
arranged in regiments and brigades;' the officers to be selected
by the commander-in-chief; and that this whole force be called
the 'State Guard.'
"If these measures cannot be defeated and overcome, by the
power conferred by the constitution on the federal government,
the constitution must be considered as incompetent to its
own defence, the supremacy of the laws is at an end, and the
rights and liberties of the citizens can no longer receive
protection from the government of the Union. They not only
abrogate the acts of Congress, commonly called the tariff
acts of 1828 and 1832, but they prostrate and sweep away, at
once, and without exception, every act, and every part of
every act, imposing any amount whatever of duty on any foreign
merchandise; and, virtually, every existing act which has ever
been passed authorizing the collection of the revenue, including
the act of 1816, and, also, the collection law of 1799, the
constitutionality of which has never been questioned. It is
not only those duties which are charged to have been imposed
for the protection of manufactures that are thereby repealed,
but all others, though laid for the purpose of revenue merely,
and upon articles in no degree suspected of being objects of
protection. The whole revenue system of the United States, in
South Carolina, is obstructed and overthrown; and the government
is absolutely prohibited from collecting any part of the public
revenue within the limits of that State. Henceforth, not only
the citizens of South Carolina and of the United States, but
the subjects of foreign states, may import any description
or quantity of merchandise into the ports of South Carolina,
without the payment of any duty whatsoever. That State is thus
relieved from the payment of any part of the public burdens, and
duties and imposts are not only rendered not uniform throughout
the United States, but a direct and ruinous preference is given
to the ports of that State over those of all the other States of
the Union, in manifest violation of the positive provisions of
the constitution.
"In point of duration, also, those aggressions upon the
authority of Congress, which, by the ordinance, are made part of
the fundamental law of South Carolina, are absolute, indefinite,
and without limitation. They neither prescribe the period when
they shall cease, nor indicate any conditions upon which those
who have thus undertaken to arrest the operation of the laws
are to retrace their steps, and rescind their measures. They
offer to the United States no alternative but unconditional
submission. If the scope of the ordinance is to be received as
the scale of concession, their demands can be satisfied only by
a repeal of the whole system of revenue laws, and by abstaining
from the collection of any duties or imposts whatsoever.
"By these various proceedings, therefore, the State of South
Carolina has forced the general government, unavoidably, to
decide the new and dangerous alternative of permitting a State
to obstruct the execution of the laws within its limits, or
seeing it attempt to execute a threat of withdrawing from
the Union. That portion of the people at present exercising
the authority of the State, solemnly assert their right to do
either, and as solemnly announce their determination to do one
or the other.
"In my opinion, both purposes are to be regarded as
revolutionary in their character and tendency, and subversive
of the supremacy of the laws and of the integrity of the Union.
The result of each is the same; since a State in which, by a
usurpation of power, the constitutional authority of the federal
government is openly defied and set aside, wants only the form
to be independent of the Union.
"The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves
at will, and without the consent of the other States, from their
most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness
of the millions composing this Union, cannot be acknowledged.
Such authority is believed to be utterly repugnant both to the
principles upon which the general government is constituted, and
to the objects which it is expressly formed to attain.
"Against all acts which may be alleged to transcend the
constitutional power of the government, or which may be
inconvenient or oppressive in their operation, the constitution
itself has prescribed the modes of redress. It is the
acknowledged attribute of free institutions, that, under them,
the empire of reason and law is substituted for the power of the
sword. To no other source can appeals for supposed wrongs be
made, consistently with the obligations of South Carolina; to no
other can such appeals be made with safety at any time; and to
their decisions, when constitutionally pronounced, it becomes
the duty, no less of the public authorities than of the people,
in every case to yield a patriotic submission.
"In deciding upon the course which a high sense of duty to all
the people of the United States imposes upon the authorities of
the Union, in this emergency, it cannot be overlooked that there
is no sufficient cause for the acts of South Carolina, or for
her thus placing in jeopardy the happiness of so many millions
of people. Misrule and oppression, to warrant the disruption of
the free institutions of the Union of these States, should be
great and lasting, defying all other remedy. For causes of minor
character, the government could not submit to such a catastrophe
without a violation of its most sacred obligations to the other
States of the Union who have submitted their destiny to its
hands.
"There is, in the present instance, no such cause, either in
the degree of misrule or oppression complained of, or in the
hopelessness of redress by constitutional means. The long
sanction they have received from the proper authorities, and
from the people, not less than the unexampled growth and
increasing prosperity of so many millions of freemen, attest
that no such oppression as would justify or even palliate such
a resort, can be justly imputed either to the present policy
or past measures of the federal government. The same mode of
collecting duties, and for the same general objects, which
began with the foundation of the government, and which has
conducted the country, through its subsequent steps, to its
present enviable condition of happiness and renown, has not been
changed. Taxation and representation, the great principle of the
American Revolution, have continually gone hand in hand; and
at all times, and in every instance, no tax, of any kind, has
been imposed without their participation; and in some instances,
which have been complained of, with the express assent of a part
of the representatives of South Carolina in the councils of the
government. Up to the present period, no revenue has been raised
beyond the necessary wants of the country, and the authorized
expenditures of the government. And as soon as the burden of the
public debt is removed, those charged with the administration
have promptly recommended a corresponding reduction of revenue.
"That this system, thus pursued, has resulted in no such
oppression upon South Carolina, needs no other proof than the
solemn and official declaration of the late Chief Magistrate
of that State, in his address to the legislature. In that he
says, that 'the occurrences of the past year, in connection with
our domestic concerns, are to be reviewed with a sentiment of
fervent gratitude to the Great Disposer of human events; that
tributes of grateful acknowledgment are due for the various
and multiplied blessings he has been pleased to bestow on our
people; that abundant harvests, in every quarter of the State,
have crowned the exertions of agricultural labor; that health,
almost beyond former precedent, has blessed our homes; and that
there is not less reason for thankfulness in surveying our
social condition.' It would, indeed, be difficult to imagine
oppression where, in the social condition of a people, there
was equal cause of thankfulness as for abundant harvests, and
varied and multiplied blessings with which a kind Providence had
favored them.
"Independently of these considerations, it will not escape
observation that South Carolina still claims to be a component
part of the Union, to participate in the national councils,
and to share in the public benefits, without contributing to
the public burdens; thus asserting the dangerous anomaly of
continuing in an association without acknowledging any other
obligation to its laws than what depends upon her own will.
"In this posture of affairs, the duty of the government seems
to be plain. It inculcates a recognition of that State as a
member of the Union, and subject to its authority; a vindication
of the just power of the constitution; the preservation of the
integrity of the Union; and the execution of the laws by all
constitutional means.
"The constitution, which his oath of office obliges him to
support, declares that the Executive 'shall take care that the
laws be faithfully executed;' and, in providing that he shall,
from time to time, give to Congress information of the state of
the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as
he shall judge necessary and expedient, imposes the additional
obligation of recommending to Congress such more efficient
provision for executing the laws as may, from time to time, be
found requisite.
"It being thus shown to be the duty of the Executive to execute
the laws by all constitutional means, it remains to consider
the extent of those already at his disposal, and what it may be
proper further to provide.
"In the instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury to the
collectors in South Carolina, the provisions and regulations
made by the act of 1799, and also the fines, penalties, and
forfeitures, for their enforcement, are particularly detailed
and explained. It may be well apprehended, however, that these
provisions may prove inadequate to meet such an open, powerful,
organized opposition as is to be commenced after the first day
of February next.
"Under these circumstances, and the provisions of the acts
of South Carolina, the execution of the laws is rendered
impracticable even through the ordinary judicial tribunals of
the United States. There would certainly be fewer difficulties,
and less opportunity of actual collision between the officers of
the United States and of the State, and the collection of the
revenue would be more effectually secured--if indeed it can be
done in any other way--by placing the custom-house beyond the
immediate power of the county.
"For this purpose, it might be proper to provide that whenever,
by any unlawful combination or obstruction in any State, or
in any port, it should become impracticable faithfully to
collect the duties, the President of the United States should
be authorized to alter and abolish such of the districts and
ports of entry as should be necessary, and to establish the
custom-house at some secure place within some port or harbor of
such State; and, in such cases, it should be the duty of the
collector to reside at such place, and to detain all vessels
and cargoes until the duties imposed by law should be properly
secured or paid in cash, deducting interest; that, in such cases
it should be unlawful to take the vessel and cargo from the
custody of the proper officer of the customs, unless by process
from the ordinary judicial tribunals of the United States; and
that, in case of an attempt otherwise to take the property by a
force too great to be overcome by the officers of the customs,
it should be lawful to protect the possession of the officers by
the employment of the land and naval forces, and militia, under
provisions similar to those authorized by the 11th section of
the act of the ninth of January, 1809.
"It may, therefore, be desirable to revive, with some
modifications better adapted to the occasion, the 6th section
of the act of the 3d of March, 1815, which expired on the 4th
of March, 1817, by the limitation of that of the 27th of April,
1816; and to provide that, in any case where suit shall be
brought against any individual in the courts of the State, for
any act done under the laws of the United States, he should
be authorized to remove the said cause, by petition, into the
Circuit Court of the United States, without any copy of the
record, and that the courts should proceed to hear and determine
the same as if it had been originally instituted therein. And
that in all cases of injuries to the persons or property of
individuals for disobedience to the ordinance, and laws of
South Carolina in pursuance thereof, redress may be sought in
the courts of the United States. It may be expedient, also, by
modifying the resolution of the 3d of March, 1791, to authorize
the marshals to make the necessary provision for the safe
keeping of prisoners committed under the authority of the United
States.
"Provisions less than these, consisting, as they do, for the
most part, rather of a revival of the policy of former acts
called for by the existing emergency, than of the introduction
of any unusual or rigorous enactments, would not cause the
laws of the Union to be properly respected or enforced. It
is believed these would prove adequate, unless the military
forces of the State of South Carolina, authorized by the late
act of the legislature, should be actually embodied and called
out in aid of their proceedings, and of the provisions of the
ordinance generally. Even in that case, however, it is believed
that no more will be necessary than a few modifications of its
terms, to adapt the act of 1795 to the present emergency, as,
by the act, the provisions of the law of 1792 were accommodated
to the crisis then existing; and by conferring authority upon
the President to give it operation during the session of
Congress, and without the ceremony of a proclamation, whenever
it shall be officially made known to him by the authority of
any State, or by the courts of the United States, that, within
the limits of such State, the laws of the United States will
be openly opposed, and their execution obstructed, by the
actual employment of military force, or by any unlawful means
whatsoever, too great to be otherwise overcome.
"In closing this communication, I should do injustice to my
own feelings not to express my confident reliance upon the
disposition of each department of the government to perform its
duty, and to co-operate in all measures necessary in the present
emergency.
"The crisis undoubtedly invokes the fidelity of the patriot and
the sagacity of the statesman, not more in removing such portion
of the public burden as may be necessary, than in preserving the
good order of society, and in the maintenance of well-regulated
liberty.
"While a forbearing spirit may, and I trust will be exercised
towards the errors of our brethren in a particular quarter,
duty to the rest of the Union demands that open and organized
resistance to the laws should not be executed with impunity."
Such was the message which President Jackson sent to the two
Houses, in relation to the South Carolina proceedings, and his own
to counteract them; and it was worthy to follow the proclamation,
and conceived in the same spirit of justice and patriotism, and,
therefore, wise and moderate. He knew that there was a deep feeling
of discontent in the South, founded in a conviction that the federal
government was working disadvantageously to that part of the Union
in the vital points of the levy, and the expenditure of the federal
revenue; and that it was upon this feeling that politicians operated
to produce disaffection to the Union. That feeling of the masses
he knew to be just and reasonable, and removable by the action of
Congress in removing its cause; and when removed the politicians
who stirred up discontent for "_personal and ambitious objects_,"
would become harmless for want of followers, or manageable by the
ordinary process of law. His proclamation, his message, and all his
proceedings therefore bore a two-fold aspect--one of relief and
justice in reducing the revenue to the wants of the government in
the economical administration of its affairs; the other of firm and
mild authority in enforcing the laws against offenders. He drew no
line between the honest discontented masses, wanting only relief and
justice, and the ambitious politicians inflaming this discontent for
ulterior and personal objects. He merely affirmed the existence of
these two classes of discontent, leaving to every one to classify
himself by his conduct; and, certain that the honest discontents
were the mass, and only wanted relief from a real grievance, he
therefore pursued the measures necessary to extend that relief while
preparing to execute the laws upon those who should violate them.
Bills for the reduction of the tariff--one commenced in the Finance
Committee of the Senate, and one reported from the Committee of
Ways and Means of the House of Representatives--and both moved in
the first days of the session, and by committees politically and
personally favorable to the President, went hand in hand with the
exhortations in the proclamation and the steady preparations for
enforcing the laws, if the extension of justice and the appeals of
reason and patriotism should prove insufficient. Many thought that
he ought to relax in his civil measures for allaying discontent
while South Carolina held the military attitude of armed defiance to
the United States--and among them Mr. Quincy Adams. But he adhered
steadily to his purpose of going on with what justice required for
the relief of the South, and promoted, by all the means in his
power, the success of the bills to reduce the revenue, especially
the bill in the House; and which, being framed upon that of 1816
(which had the support of Mr. Calhoun), and which was (now that
the public debt was paid), sufficient both for revenue and the
incidental protection which manufactures required, and for the
relief of the South, must have the effect of satisfying every honest
discontent, and of exposing and estopping that which was not.
CHAPTER LXXXI.
REDUCTION OF DUTIES.--MR. VERPLANK'S BILL.
Reduction of duties to the estimated amount of three or four
millions of dollars, had been provided for in the bill of the
preceding session, passed in July, 1832, to take effect on the 4th
of March, ensuing. The amount of reduction was not such as the state
of the finances admitted, or the voice of the country demanded, but
was a step in the right direction, and a good one, considering that
the protective policy was still dominant in Congress, and on trial,
as it were, for its life, before the people, as one of the issues
of the presidential election. That election was over; the issue had
been tried; had been found against the "American system," and with
this finding, a further and larger reduction of duties was expected.
The President had recommended it, in his annual message; and the
recommendation, being referred to the Committee of Ways and Means,
quickly produced a bill, known as Mr. Verplank's, because reported
by the member of that name. It was taken up promptly by the House,
and received a very perspicuous explanation from the reporter, who
gave a brief view of the financial history of the country, since the
late war and stated that--"During the last six years, an annual
average income of 27,000,000 of dollars had been received; the far
greater part from the customs. That this sum had been appropriated,
the one half towards the necessary expenses of the government, and
the other half in the payment of the public debt. In reviewing
the regular calls upon the treasury, during the last seven years,
for the civil, naval, and military departments of the government,
including all ordinary contingencies, about 13,000,000 of dollars a
year had been expended. The amount of 13,000,000 of dollars would
seem, even now, sufficient to cover the standing necessary expenses
of government. A long delayed debt of public justice, for he would
not call it bounty, to the soldiers of the Revolution, had added,
for the present, since it could be but for a few years only, an
additional annual million. Fourteen millions of dollars then covered
the necessary expenditures of our government. But, however rigid and
economical we ought to be in actual expenditures, in providing the
sources of the revenue, which might be called upon for unforeseen
contingencies, it was wise to arrange it on a liberal scale. This
would be done by allowing an additional million, which would cover,
not only extra expenses in time of peace, but meet those of Indian
warfare, if such should arise, as well as those of increased naval
expenditure, from temporary collisions with foreign powers, short
of permanent warfare. We are not, therefore, justifiable in raising
more than 15,000,000 dollars as a permanent revenue. In other words,
at least 13,000,000 dollars of the revenue that would have been
collected, under the tariff system of 1828, may now be dispensed
with; and, in years of great importation, a much larger sum. The act
of last summer removed a large portion of this excess; yet, taking
the importation of the last year as a standard, the revenues derived
from that source, if calculated according to the act of 1832, would
produce 19,500,000, and, with the other sources of revenue, an
income of 22,000,000 dollars. This is, at least, seven millions
above the wants of the treasury."
This was a very satisfactory statement. The public debt paid
off; thirteen millions (the one half) of our revenue rendered
unnecessary; its reduction provided for in the bill; and the
tariff of duties by that reduction brought down to the standard
substantially of 1816. It was carrying back the protective
system to the year of its commencement, a little increased in
some particulars, as in the article of iron, but more than
compensated for, in this increase, in the total abolition of the
_minimums_, or arbitrary valuations--first introduced into that
act, and afterwards greatly extended--by which goods costing below
a certain sum were to be assumed to have cost that sum, and
rated for duty accordingly. Such a bill, in the judgment of the
practical and experienced legislator (General Smith, of Maryland,
himself a friend to the manufacturing interest), was entirely
sufficient for the manufacturer--the man engaged in the business,
and understanding it--though not sufficient for the capitalists
who turned their money into that channel, under the stimulus of
legislative protection, and lacked skill and care to conduct their
enterprise with the economy which gives legitimate profit, and
to such real manufacturers, it was bound to be satisfactory. To
the great opponents of the tariff (the South Carolina school), it
was also bound to be satisfactory, as it carried back the whole
system of duties to the standard at which that school had fixed
them, with the great amelioration of the total abolition of the
arbitrary and injurious minimums. The bill, then, seemed bound to
conciliate every fair interest: the government, because it gave
all the revenue it needed; the real manufacturers, because it gave
them an adequate incidental protection; the South, because it gave
them their own bill, and that ameliorated. A prompt passage of the
bill might have been expected; on the contrary, it lingered in the
House, under interminable debates on systems and theories, in which
ominous signs of conjunction were seen between the two extremes
which had been lately pitted against each other, for and against
the protective system. The immediate friends of the administration
seemed to be the only ones hearty in the support of the bill; but
they were no match, in numbers, for those who acted in concert
against it--spinning out the time in sterile and vagrant debate.
The 25th of February had arrived, and found the bill still afloat
upon the wordy sea of stormy debate, when, all of a sudden, it was
arrested, knocked over, run under, and merged and lost in a new one
which expunged the old one and took its place. It was late in the
afternoon of that day (Monday, the 25th of February), and within a
week of the end of the Congress, when Mr. Letcher, of Kentucky, the
fast friend of Mr. Clay, rose in his place, and moved to strike out
the whole Verplank bill--every word, except the enacting clause--and
insert, in lieu of it, a bill offered in the Senate by Mr. Clay,
since called the "compromise," and which lingered at the door of the
Senate, upon a question of leave for its admittance, and opposition
to its entrance there, on account of its revenue character. This
was offered in the House, without notice, without signal, without
premonitory symptom, and just as the members were preparing to
adjourn. Some were taken by surprise, and looked about in amazement;
but the majority showed consciousness, and, what was more, readiness
for action. The Northern members, from the great manufacturing
States, were astounded, and asked for delay, which, not being
granted, Mr. John Davis, of Massachusetts, one of their number, thus
gave vent to his amazed feelings:
"He was greatly surprised at the sudden movement made in this
House. One short hour ago, said he, we were collecting our
papers, and putting on our outside garments to go home, when
the gentleman from Kentucky rose, and proposed to send this
bill to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union,
with instructions to strike it all out, and insert, by way of
amendment, an entire new bill formed upon entirely different
principles; yes, to insert, I believe, the bill which the Senate
now have under consideration. This motion was carried; the
business has passed through the hands of the committee, is now
in the House, and there is a cry of question, question, around
me, upon the engrossment of the bill. Who that was not a party
to this arrangement, could one hour ago have credited this? We
have, I believe, been laboriously engaged for eight weeks upon
this topic, discussing and amending the bill which has been
before the House. Such obstacles and difficulties have been met
at every move, that, I believe, very little hope has of late
been entertained of the passage of any bill. But a gleam of
light has suddenly burst upon us; those that groped in the dark
seemed suddenly to see their course; those that halted, doubted,
hesitated, are in a moment made firm; and even some of those
that have made an immediate abandonment of the protective system
a _sine qua non_ of their approbation of any legislation, seem
almost to favor this measure. I am obliged to acknowledge that
gentlemen have sprung the proposition upon us at a moment when I
did not expect it. And as the measure is one of great interest
to the people of the United States, I must, even at this late
hour, when I know the House is both hungry and impatient, and
when I perceive distinctly it is their pleasure to vote rather
than debate, beg their indulgence for a few minutes while
I state some of the reasons which impose on me the duty of
opposing the passage of this act. [Cries from different parts of
the House, 'go on, go on, we will hear.']
"Mr. Speaker, I do not approve of hasty legislation under
any circumstances, but it is especially to be deprecated in
matters of great importance. That this is a measure of great
importance, affecting, more or less, the entire population of
the United States, will not be denied, and ought, therefore, to
be matured with care, and well understood by every gentleman who
votes upon it. And yet, sir, a copy has, for the first time,
been laid upon our tables, since I rose to address you; and this
is the first opportunity we have had even to read it. I hope
others feel well prepared to act in this precipitate matter; but
I am obliged to acknowledge I do not; for I hold even the best
of intentions will not, in legislation, excuse the errors of
haste.
"I am aware that this measure assumes an imposing attitude.
It is called a bill of compromise; a measure of harmony, of
conciliation; a measure to heal disaffection, and to save the
Union. Sir, I am aware of the imposing effect of these bland
titles; men love to be thought generous, noble, magnanimous;
but they ought to be equally anxious to acquire the reputation
of being just. While they are anxious to compose difficulties
in one direction, I entreat them not to oppress and wrong
the people in another. In their efforts to save the Union, I
hope their zeal will not go so far as to create stronger and
better-founded discontents than those they compose. Peacemakers,
mediators, men who allay excitements, and tranquillize public
feeling, should, above all considerations, study to do it by
means not offensive to the contending parties, by means which
will not inflict a deeper wound than the one which is healed.
Sir, what is demanded by those that threaten the integrity of
the Union? An abandonment of the American system; a formal
renunciation of the right to protect American industry. This
is the language of the nullification convention; they declare
they regard the abandonment of the principle as vastly more
important than any other matter; they look to that, and not to
an abatement of duties without it; and the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Davis], with his usual frankness, told us this
morning it was not a question of dollars and cents; the money
they regarded not, but they required a change of policy.
"This is a bill to tranquillize feeling, to harmonize jarring
opinions; it is oil poured into inflamed wounds; it is to
definitively settle the matters of complaint. What assurance
have we of that? Have those who threatened the Union accepted
it? Has any one here risen in his place, and announced his
satisfaction and his determination to abide by it? Not a word
has been uttered, nor any sign or assurance of satisfaction
given. Suppose they should vote for the bill, what then? They
voted for the bill of July last, and that was a bill passed
expressly to save the Union; but did they not flout at it? Did
they not spurn it with contempt? And did not South Carolina,
in derision of that compromise, nullify the law? This is a
practical illustration of the exercise of a philanthropic
spirit of condescension to save the Union. Your folly and your
imbecility was treated as a jest. It has already been said that
this law will be no more binding than any other, and may be
altered and modified at pleasure by any subsequent legislature.
In what sense then is it a compromise? Does not a compromise
imply an adjustment on terms of agreement? Suppose, then, that
South Carolina should abide by the compromise while she supposes
it beneficial to the tariff States, and injurious to her; and
when that period shall close, the friends of protection shall
then propose to re-establish the system. What honorable man, who
votes for this bill, could sustain such a measure? Would not
South Carolina say, you have no right to change this law, it was
founded on compromise; you have had the benefit of your side of
the bargains, and now I demand mine? Who could answer such a
declaration? If, under such circumstances, you were to proceed
to abolish the law, would not South Carolina have much more just
cause of complaint and disaffection than she now has?
"It has been said, we ought to legislate now, because the next
Congress will be hostile to the tariff. I am aware that such
a sentiment has been industriously circulated, and we have
been exhorted to escape from the hands of that body as from a
lion. But, sir, who knows the sentiments of that body on this
question? Do you, or does any one, possess any information which
justifies him in asserting that it is more unfriendly than this
House? There is, in my opinion, little known about this matter.
But suppose the members shall prove as ferocious towards the
tariff as those who profess to know their opinions represent,
will the passage of this bill stop their action? Can you tie
their hands? Give what pledges you please, make what bargains
you may, and that body will act its pleasure without respecting
them. If you fall short of their wishes in warring upon the
tariff, they will not stay their hand; but all attempts to limit
their power by abiding compromises, will be considered by them
as a stimulus to act upon the subject, that they may manifest
their disapprobation. It seems to me, therefore, that if the
next Congress is to be feared, we are pursuing the right course
to rouse their jealousy, and excite them to action.
"Mr. Speaker, I rose to express my views on this very important
question, I regret to say, without the slightest preparation,
as it is drawn before us at a very unexpected moment. But, as
some things in this bill are at variance with the principles of
public policy which I have uniformly maintained, I could not
suffer it to pass into a law without stating such objections as
have hastily occurred to me.
"Let me, however, before sitting down, be understood on one
point. I do not object to a reasonable adjustment of the
controversies which exist. I have said repeatedly on this floor,
that I would go for a gradual reduction on protected articles;
but it must be very gradual, so that no violence shall be done
to business; for all reduction is necessarily full of hazard. My
objections to this bill are not so much against the first seven
years, for I would take the consequences of that experiment,
if the provisions beyond that were not of that fatal character
which will at once stop all enterprise. But I do object to a
compromise which destines the East for the altar. No victim,
in my judgement, is required, none is necessary; and yet you
propose to bind us, hand and foot, to pour out our blood upon
the altar, and sacrifice us as a burnt offering, to appease the
unnatural and unfounded discontent of the South; _a discontent,
I fear, having deeper root than the tariff, and will continue
when that is forgotten_. I am far from meaning to use the
language of menace, when I say such a compromise cannot endure,
nor can any adjustment endure, which disregards the interests,
and sports with the rights of a large portion of the people of
the United States. It has been said that we shall never reach
the lowest point of reduction, before the country will become
satisfied of the folly of the experiment, and will restore the
protective policy; and it seems to me a large number in this
body act under the influence of that opinion. But I cannot vote
down my principles, on the ground that some one may come after
me who will vote them up."
This is one of the most sensible speeches ever delivered in
Congress; and, for the side on which it was delivered, perfect;
containing also much that was valuable to the other side. The
dangers of hasty legislation are well adverted to. The seductive and
treacherous nature of compromise legislation, and the probable fate
of the act of legislation then so called, so pointedly foretold,
was only writing history a few years in advance. The folly of
attempting to bind future Congresses by extending ordinary laws
years ahead, with a prohibition to touch them, was also a judicious
reflection; soon to become history; while the fear expressed that
South Carolina would not be satisfied with the overthrow of the
protective policy--"_that the root of her discontent lay deeper
than the tariff, and would continue when that was forgotten_"--was
an apprehension felt in common with many others, and to which
subsequent events gave a sad realization. But all in vain. The bill
which made its first appearance in the House late in the evening,
when members were gathering up their overcoats for a walk home to
their dinners, was passed before those coats had got on the back;
and the dinner which was waiting had but little time to cool before
the astonished members, their work done, were at the table to eat
it. A bill without precedent in the annals of our legislation, and
pretending to the sanctity of a compromise, and to settle great
questions for ever, went through to its consummation in the fragment
of an evening session, without the compliance with any form which
experience and parliamentary law have devised for the safety of
legislation. This evasion of all salutary forms was effected under
the idea of an amendment to a bill, though the substitute introduced
was an entire bill in itself, no way amending the other, or even
connecting with it, but rubbing it all out from the enacting clause,
and substituting a new bill entirely foreign, inconsistent, and
incongruous to it. The proceeding was a gross perversion of the
idea of an amendment, which always implies an improvement and not a
destruction of the bill to be amended. But there was a majority in
waiting, ready to consummate what had been agreed upon, and the vote
was immediately taken, and the substitute passed--105 to 71:--the
mass of the manufacturing interest voting against it. And this was
called a "compromise," a species of arrangement heretofore always
considered as founded in the mutual consent of adversaries--an
agreement by which contending parties voluntarily settle disputes
or questions. But here one of the parties dissented, or rather was
never asked for assent, nor had any knowledge of the compromise
by which they were to be bound, until it was revealed to their
vision, and executed upon their consciences, in the style of a
surprise from a vigilant foe upon a sleeping adversary. To call
this a "compromise" was to make sport of language--to burlesque
misfortune--to turn force into stipulation--and to confound fraud
and violence with concession and contract. It was like calling
the rape of the Romans upon the Sabine women, a marriage. The
suddenness of the movement, and the want of all time for reflection
or concert--even one night for private communion--led to the most
incongruous association of voters--to such a mixture of persons and
parties as had never been seen confounded together before, or since:
and the reading of which must be a puzzle to any man acquainted with
the political actors of that day, the unravelling of which would
set at defiance both his knowledge and his ingenuity. The following
is the list--the voters with Mr. Clay, headed by Mr. Mark Alexander
of Virginia, one of his stiffest opponents: the voters against
him, headed by Mr. John Quincy Adams, for eight years past his
indissoluble colleague in every system of policy, in every measure
of public concern, and in every enterprise of political victory or
defeat. Here is the list!
YEAS.--Messrs. Mark Alexander, Chilton Allan, Robert Allen,
John Anderson, William G. Angel, William S. Archer, John S.
Barbour, Daniel L. Barringer, James Bates, John Bell, John T.
Bergen, Laughlin Bethune, James Blair, John Blair, Ratliff
Boon, Joseph Bouck, Thomas T. Bouldin, John Branch, Henry A.
Bullard, Churchill C. Cambreleng, John Carr, Joseph W. Chinn,
Nathaniel H. Claiborne, Clement C. Clay, Augustin S. Clayton,
Richard Coke, jr., Henry W. Connor, Thomas Corwin, Richard
Coulter, Robert Craig, William Creighton, jr., Henry Daniel,
Thomas Davenport, Warren R. Davis, Ulysses F. Doubleday, Joseph
Draper, John M. Felder, James Findlay, William Fitzgerald,
Nathan Gaither, John Gilmore, William F. Gordon, Thomas H.
Hall, William Hall, Joseph M. Harper, Albert G. Hawes, Micajah
T. Hawkins, Michael Hoffman, Cornelius Holland, Henry Horn,
Benjamin C. Howard, Henry Hubbard, William W. Irvin, Jacob C.
Isaacs, Leonard Jarvis, Daniel Jenifer, Richard M. Johnson,
Cave Johnson, Joseph Johnson, Edward Kavanagh, John Leeds Kerr,
Henry G. Lamar, Garret Y. Lansing, Joseph Lecompte, Robert P.
Letcher, Dixon H. Lewis, Chittenden Lyon, Samuel W. Mardis, John
Y. Mason, Thomas A. Marshall, Lewis Maxwell, Rufus McIntire,
James McKay, Thomas Newton, William T. Nuckolls, John M. Patton,
Franklin E. Plummer, James K. Polk, Abraham Rencher, John J.
Roane, Erastus Root, Charles S. Sewall, William B. Shepard,
Augustine H. Shepperd, Samuel A. Smith, Isaac Southard, Jesse
Speight, John S. Spence, William Stanberry, James Standefer,
Francis Thomas, Wiley Thompson, John Thomson, Christopher
Tompkins, Phineas L. Tracy, Joseph Vance, Gulian C. Verplanck,
Aaron Ward, George C. Washington, James M. Wayne, John W. Weeks,
Elisha Whittlesey, Campbell P. White, Charles A. Wickliffe, John
T. H. Worthington.
NAYS.--Messrs. John Q. Adams, Heman Allen, Robert Allison,
Nathan Appleton, Thomas D. Arnold, William Babcock, John Banks,
Noyes Barber, Gamaliel H. Barstow, Thomas Chandler, Bates
Cooke, Richard M. Cooper, Joseph H. Crane, Thomas H. Crawford,
John Davis, Charles Dayan, Henry A. S. Dearborn, Harmar Denny,
Lewis Dewart, John Dickson, William W. Ellsworth, George Evans,
Joshua Evans, Edward Everett, Horace Everett, George Grennell,
jr., Hiland Hall, William Heister, Michael Hoffman, Thomas
H. Hughes, Jabez W. Huntington, Peter Ihrie, jr., Ralph I.
Ingersoll, Joseph G. Kendall, Henry King, Humphrey H. Leavitt,
Robert McCoy, Thomas M. T. McKennan, John J. Milligan, Henry
A. Muhlenberg, Jeremiah Nelson, Dutee J. Pearce, Edmund H.
Pendleton, Job Pierson, David Potts, jr., James F. Randolph,
John Reed, Edward C. Reed, William Slade, Nathan Soule, William
L. Storrs, Joel B. Sutherland, John W. Taylor, Samuel F. Vinton,
Daniel Wardwell, John G. Watmough, Grattan H. Wheeler, Frederick
Whittlesey, Ebenezer Young.
CHAPTER LXXXII.
REDUCTION OF DUTIES.--MR. CLAY'S BILL.
On the 12th of February Mr. Clay asked leave to introduce a bill
for the reduction of duties, styled by him a "compromise" measure;
and prefaced the question with a speech, of which the following are
parts:
"In presenting the modification of the tariff laws which I
am now about to submit, I have two great objects in view. My
first object looks to the tariff. I am compelled to express the
opinion, formed after the most deliberate reflection, and on a
full survey of the whole country, that, whether rightfully or
wrongfully, the tariff stands in imminent danger. If it should
even be preserved during this session, it must fall at the
next session. By what circumstances, and through what causes,
has arisen the necessity for this change in the policy of our
country, I will not pretend now to elucidate. Others there are
who may differ from the impressions which my mind has received
upon this point. Owing, however, to a variety of concurrent
causes, the tariff, as it now exists, is in imminent danger; and
if the system can be preserved beyond the next session, it must
be by some means not now within the reach of human sagacity. The
fall of that policy, sir, would be productive of consequences
calamitous indeed. When I look to the variety of interests which
are involved, to the number of individuals interested, the
amount of capital invested, the value of the buildings erected,
and the whole arrangement of the business for the prosecution
of the various branches of the manufacturing art which have
sprung up under the fostering care of this government, I cannot
contemplate any evil equal to the sudden overthrow of all those
interests. History can produce no parallel to the extent of the
mischief which would be produced by such a disaster. The repeal
of the Edict of Nantes itself was nothing in comparison with
it. That condemned to exile and brought to ruin a great number
of persons. The most respectable portion of the population of
France were condemned to exile and ruin by that measure. But in
my opinion, sir, the sudden repeal of the tariff policy would
bring ruin and destruction on the whole people of this country.
There is no evil, in my opinion, equal to the consequences which
would result from such a catastrophe.
"I believe the American system to be in the greatest danger;
and I believe it can be placed on a better and safer foundation
at this session than at the next. I heard, with surprise,
my friend from Massachusetts say that nothing had occurred
within the last six months to increase its hazard. I entreat
him to review that opinion. Is it correct? Is the issue of
numerous elections, including that of the highest officer of
the government, nothing? Is the explicit recommendation of that
officer, in his message at the opening of the session sustained,
as he is, by a recent triumphant election, nothing? Is his
declaration in his proclamation, that the burdens of the South
ought to be relieved, nothing? Is the introduction of the bill
in the House of Representatives during this session, sanctioned
by the head of the treasury and the administration, prostrating
the greater part of the manufactures of the country, nothing?
Are the increasing discontents, nothing? Is the tendency of
recent events to unite the whole South, nothing? What have we
not witnessed in this chamber? Friends of the administration
bursting all the ties which seemed indissolubly to unite them
to its chief, and, with few exceptions south of the Potomac,
opposing, and vehemently opposing, a favorite measure of that
administration, which three short months ago they contributed
to establish? Let us not deceive ourselves. Now is the time to
adjust the question in a manner satisfactory to both parties.
Put it off until the next session, and the alternative may, and
probably then would be, a speedy and ruinous reduction of the
tariff, or a civil war with the entire South.
"It is well known that the majority of the dominant party is
adverse to the tariff. There are many honorable exceptions, the
senator from New Jersey [Mr. Dickerson] among them. But for the
exertions of the other party, the tariff would have been long
since sacrificed. Now let us look at the composition of the two
branches of Congress at the next session. In this body we lose
three friends of the protective policy, without being sure of
gaining one. Here, judging from the present appearances, we
shall, at the next session, be in the minority. In the House
it is notorious that there is a considerable accession to the
number of the dominant party. How, then, I ask, is the system
to be sustained against numbers, against the whole weight of
the administration, against the united South, and against the
increased impending danger of civil war?
"I have been represented as the father of the system, and I am
charged with an unnatural abandonment of my own offspring. I
have never arrogated to myself any such intimate relation to
it. I have, indeed, cherished it with parental fondness, and my
affection is undiminished. But in what condition do I find this
child? It is in the hands of the Philistines, who would strangle
it. I fly to its rescue, to snatch it from their custody, and
to place it on a bed of security and repose for nine years,
where it may grow and strengthen, and become acceptable to the
whole people. I behold a torch about being applied to a favorite
edifice, and I would save it, if possible, before it was wrapt
in flames, or at least preserve the precious furniture which it
contains."
Mr. Clay further advanced another reason for his bill, and which
was a wish to separate the tariff from politics and elections--a
wish which admitted their connection--and which, being afterwards
interpreted by events, was supposed to be the basis of the coalition
with Mr. Calhoun; both of them having tried the virtue of the
tariff question in elections, and found it unavailing either to
friends or foes. Mr. Clay, its champion, could not become President
upon its support. Mr. Calhoun, its antagonist, could not become
President upon its opposition. To both it was equally desirable, as
an unavailable element in elections, and as a stumbling-block to
both in future, that it should be withdrawn for some years from the
political arena; and Mr. Clay thus expressed himself in relation to
that withdrawal:
"_I wish to see the tariff separated from the politics of the
country, that business men may go to work in security, with some
prospect of stability in our laws, and without every thing being
staked on the issue of elections, as it were on the hazards of
the die._"
Mr. Clay then explained the principle of his bill, which was a
series of annual reductions of one tenth per cent. on the value
of all duties above twenty per cent. for eight successive years;
and after that, the reduction of all the remainder above twenty
per centum to that rate by two annual reductions of the excess:
so as to complete the reduction to twenty per centum on the value
of all imported goods on the 30th day of September, 1842; with
a total abolition of duties on about one hundred articles after
that time; and with a proviso in favor of the right of Congress,
in the event of war with any foreign power to impose such duties
as might be necessary to prosecute the war. And this was called
a "_compromise_," although there was no stipulation for the
permanency of the reduced, and of the abolished duties; and no such
stipulation could be made to bind future Congresses; and the only
equivalent which the South received from the party of protection,
was the stipulated surrender of their principle in the clause which
provided that after the said 30th of September, 1842, "_duties
should only be laid for raising such revenue as might be necessary
for an economical administration of the government_;" an attempt
to bind future Congresses, the value of which was seen before the
time was out. Mr. Clay proceeded to touch the tender parts of his
plan--the number of years the protective policy had to run, and
the guaranties for its abandonment at the end of the stipulated
protection. On these points he said:
"Viewing it in this light, it appeared that there were eight
years and a half, and nine years and a half, taking the
ultimate time, which would be an efficient protection; the
remaining duties would be withdrawn by a biennial reduction.
The protective principle must be said to be, in some measure,
relinquished at the end of eight years and a half. This period
could not appear unreasonable, and he thought that no member
of the Senate, or any portion of the country, ought to make
the slightest objection. It now remained for him to consider
the other objection--the want of a guaranty to there being an
ulterior continuance of the duties imposed by the bill, on the
expiration of the term which it prescribes. The best guaranties
would be found in the circumstances under which the measure
would be passed. If it were passed by common consent; if it were
passed with the assent of a portion, a considerable portion, of
those who had hitherto directly supported this system, and by a
considerable portion of those who opposed it; if they declared
their satisfaction with the measure, he had no doubt the rate of
duties guarantied would be continued after the expiration of the
term, if the country continued at peace."
Here was a stipulation to continue the protective principle for
nine years and a half, and the bill contained no stipulation to
abandon it at that time, and consequently no guaranty that it would
be abandoned; and certainly the guaranty would have been void if
stipulated, as it is not in the power of one Congress to abridge by
law the constitutional power of its successors. Mr. Clay, therefore,
had recourse to moral guaranties; and found them good, and best
in the circumstances in which the bill would be passed, and the
common consent with which it was expected to be done--a calculation
which found its value, as to the "common consent," before the bill
was passed, as to its binding force before the time fixed for its
efficacy to begin.
Mr. Forsyth, of Georgia, replied to Mr. Clay, and said:
"The avowed object of the bill would meet with universal
approbation. It was a project to harmonize the people, and it
could have come from no better source than from the gentleman
from Kentucky: for to no one were we more indebted than to him
for the discord and discontent which agitate us. But a few
months ago it was in the power of the gentleman, and those with
whom he acted, to settle this question at once and for ever.
The opportunity was not seized, but he hoped it was not passed.
In the project now offered, he could not see the elements of
success. The time was not auspicious. But fourteen days remained
to the session; and we had better wait the action of the House
on the bill before them, than by taking up this new measure
here, produce a cessation of their action. Was there not danger
that the fourteen days would be exhausted in useless debate?
Why, twenty men, with a sufficiency of breath (for words they
would not want), could annihilate the bill, though a majority
in both Houses were in favor of it. He objected, too, that the
bill was a violation of the constitution, because the Senate
had no power to raise revenue. Two years ago, the same senator
made a proposition, which was rejected on this very ground.
The offer, however, would not be useless; it would be attended
with all the advantages which could follow its discussion here.
We shall see it, and take it into consideration as the offer
of the manufacturers. The other party, as we are called, will
view it as a scheme of diplomacy; not as their _ultimatum_,
but as their first offer. But the bargain was all on one side.
After they are defeated, and can no longer sustain a conflict,
they come to make the best bargain they can. The senator from
Kentucky says, the tariff is in danger; aye, sir, it is at its
last gasp. It has received the immedicable wound; no hellebore
can cure it. He considered the confession of the gentleman to
be of immense importance. Yes, sir, the whole feeling of the
country is opposed to the high protective system. The wily
serpent that crept into our Eden has been touched by the spear
of Ithuriel. The senator is anxious to prevent the ruin which a
sudden abolition of the system will produce. No one desires to
inflict ruin upon the manufacturers; but suppose the Southern
people, having the power to control the subject, should totally
and suddenly abolish the system; what right would those have
to complain who had combined to oppress the South? What has
the tariff led us to already? From one end of the country
to the other, it has produced evils which are worse than a
thousand tariffs. The necessity of appealing now to fraternal
feeling shows that that feeling is not sleeping, but nearly
extinguished. He opposed the introduction of the bill as a
revenue measure, and upon it demanded the yeas and nays: which
were ordered."
The practical, clear-headed, straightforward Gen. Smith, of
Maryland, put his finger at once upon the fallacy and insecurity
of the whole scheme, and used a word, the point and application of
which was more visible afterwards than at the time it was uttered.
He said:
"That the bill was no cure at all for the evils complained
of by the South. They wished to try the constitutionality
of protecting duties. In this bill there was nothing but
protection, from beginning to end. We had been told that if the
bill passed with common consent, the system established by it
would not be touched. But he had once been _cheated_ in that
way, and would not be _cheated_ again. In 1816 it was said the
manufacturers would be satisfied with the protection afforded by
the bill of that year; but in a few years after they came and
insisted for more, and got more. After the first four years, an
attempt would be made to repeal all the balance of this bill. He
would go no further than four years in prospective reduction.
The reduction was on some articles too great."
He spoke history, except in the time. The manufacturers retained
the benefits of the bill to the end of the protection which it
gave them, and then re-established the protective system in more
amplitude than ever.
"Mr. Calhoun rose and said, he would make but one or two
observations. Entirely approving of the object for which
this bill was introduced, he should give his vote in favor
of the motion for leave to introduce it. He who loved the
Union must desire to see this agitating question brought to a
termination. Until it should be terminated, we could not expect
the restoration of peace or harmony, or a sound condition of
things, throughout the country. He believed that to the unhappy
divisions which had kept the Northern and Southern States apart
from each other, the present entirely degraded condition of the
country (for entirely degraded he believed it to be) was solely
attributable. The general principles of this bill received his
approbation. He believed that if the present difficulties were
to be adjusted, they must be adjusted on the principles embraced
in the bill, of fixing ad valorem duties, except in the few
cases in the bill to which specific duties were assigned. He
said that it had been his fate to occupy a position as hostile
as any one could, in reference to the protecting policy; but,
if it depended on his will, he would not give his vote for
the prostration of the manufacturing interest. A very large
capital had been invested in manufactures, which had been of
great service to the country; and he would never give his vote
to suddenly withdraw all those duties by which that capital was
sustained in the channel into which it had been directed. But
he would only vote for the ad valorem system of duties, which
he deemed the most beneficial and the most equitable. At this
time, he did not rise to go into a consideration of any of the
details of this bill, as such a course would be premature, and
contrary to the practice of the Senate. There were some of the
provisions which had his entire approbation, and there were some
to which he objected. But he looked upon these minor points of
difference as points in the settlement of which no difficulty
would occur, when gentlemen meet together in that spirit of
mutual compromise which, he doubted not, would be brought into
their deliberations, without at all yielding the constitutional
question as to the right of protection."
This union of Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Clay in the belief of the harmony
and brotherly affection which this bill would produce, professing
as it did, and bearing on its face the termination of the American
system, afforded a strong instance of the fallibility of political
opinions. It was only six months before that the dissolution of the
Union would be the effect, in the opinion of one of them, of the
continuance of the American system--and of its abandonment in the
opinion of the other. Now, both agreed that the bill which professed
to destroy it would restore peace and harmony to a distracted
country. How far Mr. Clay then saw the preservation, and not the
destruction, of the American system in the compromise he was making,
may be judged by what he said two weeks later, when he declared that
he looked forward to a re-action which would restore the protective
system at the end of the time.
The first news of Mr. Clay's bill was heard with dismay by the
manufacturers. Niles' Register, the most authentic organ and devoted
advocate of that class, heralded it thus: "_Mr. Clay's new tariff
project will be received like a crash of thunder in the winter
season, and some will hardly trust the evidence of their senses on
a first examination of it--so radical and sudden is the change of
policy proposed because of a combination of circumstances which, in
the judgment of Mr. Clay, has rendered such a change necessary. It
may be that our favorite systems are all to be destroyed. If so
the majority determine--so be it._" The manufacturers flocked in
crowds to Washington City--leaving home to stop the bill--arriving
at Washington to promote it. Those practical men soon saw that they
had gained a reprieve of nine years and a half in the benefits of
protection, with a certainty of the re-establishment of the system
at the end of that time, from the revulsion which would be made in
the revenue--in the abrupt plunge at the end of that time in the
scale of duties from a high rate to an ad valorem of twenty per
centum; and that leaving one hundred articles free. This nine years
and a half reprieve, with the certain chance for the revulsion,
they found to be a good escape from the possible passage of Mr.
Verplank's bill, or its equivalent, at that session; and its
certain passage, if it failed then, at the ensuing session of the
new Congress. They found the protective system dead without this
reprieve, and now received as a deliverance what had been viewed as
a sentence of execution; and having helped the bill through, they
went home rejoicing, and more devoted to Mr. Clay than ever.
Mr. Webster had not been consulted, in the formation of this bill,
and was strongly opposed to it, as well as naturally dissatisfied
at the neglect with which he had been treated. As the ablest
champion of the tariff, and the representative of the chief seat of
manufactures, he would naturally have been consulted, and made a
party, and a leading one, in any scheme of tariff adjustment; on the
contrary, the whole concoction of the bill between Mr. Clay and Mr.
Calhoun had been entirely concealed from him. Symptoms of discontent
appeared, at times, in their speeches; and, on the night of the 23d,
some sharp words passed--composed the next day by their friends: but
it was a strange idea of a "compromise," from which the main party
was to be excluded in its formation, and bound in its conclusion.
And Mr. Webster took an immediate opportunity to show that he had
not been consulted, and would not be bound by the arrangement that
had been made. He said:
"It is impossible that this proposition of the honorable member
from Kentucky should not excite in the country a very strong
sensation; and, in the relation in which I stand to the subject,
I am anxious at an early moment, to say, that, as far as I
understand the bill, from the gentleman's statement of it, there
are principles in it to which I do not at present see how I can
ever concur. If I understand the plan, the result of it will
be a well-understood surrender of the power of discrimination,
or a stipulation not to use that power, in the laying duties
on imports, after the eight or nine years have expired. This
appears to me to be matter of great moment. I hesitate to be a
party to any such stipulation. The honorable member admits, that
though there will be no positive surrender of the power, there
will be a stipulation not to exercise it; a treaty of peace and
amity, as he says, which no American statesman can, hereafter,
stand up to violate. For one, sir, I am not ready to enter into
the treaty. I propose, so far as depends on me, to leave all our
successors in Congress as free to act as we are ourselves.
"The honorable member from Kentucky says the tariff is in
imminent danger; that, if not destroyed this session, it cannot
hope to survive the next. This may be so, sir. This may be so.
But, if it be so, it is because the American people will not
sanction the tariff; and, if they will not, why, then, sir, it
cannot be sustained at all. I am not quite so despairing as the
honorable member seems to be. I know nothing which has happened,
within the last six or eight months, changing so materially the
prospects of the tariff. I do not despair of the success of an
appeal to the American people, to take a just care of their own
interest, and not to sacrifice those vast interests which have
grown up under the laws of Congress."
There was a significant intimation in these few remarks, that Mr.
Webster had not been consulted in the preparation of this bill.
He shows that he had no knowledge of it, except from Mr. Clay's
statement of its contents, on the floor, for it had not then been
read; and the statement made by Mr. Clay was his only means of
understanding it. This is the only public intimation which he gave
of that exclusion of himself from all knowledge of what Mr. Clay and
Mr. Calhoun were doing; but, on the Sunday after the sharp words
between him and Mr. Clay, the fact was fully communicated to me, by
a mutual friend, and as an injurious exclusion which Mr. Webster
naturally and sensibly felt. On the next day, he delivered his
opinions of the bill, in an unusually formal manner--in a set of
resolutions, instead of a speech--thus:
"_Resolved_, That the annual revenues of the country ought not
to be allowed to exceed a just estimate of the wants of the
government; and that, as soon as it shall be ascertained, with
reasonable certainty, that the rates of duties on imports, as
established by the act of July, 1832, will yield an excess over
those wants, provision ought to be made for their reduction;
and that, in making this reduction, just regard should be had
to the various interests and opinions of different parts of the
country, so as most effectually to preserve the integrity and
harmony of the Union, and to provide for the common defence, and
promote the general welfare of the whole.
"But, whereas it is certain that the diminution of the rates of
duties on some articles would increase, instead of reducing, the
aggregate amount of revenue on such articles; and whereas, in
regard to such articles as it has been the policy of the country
to protect, a slight reduction on one might produce essential
injury, and even distress, to large classes of the community,
while another might bear a larger reduction without any such
consequences; and whereas, also, there are many articles, the
duties on which might be reduced, or altogether abolished,
without producing any other effect than the reduction of
revenue: Therefore,
"_Resolved_, That, in reducing the rates of duties imposed
on imports, by the act of the 14th of July aforesaid, it is
not wise or judicious to proceed by way of an equal reduction
per centum on all articles; but that, as well the amount as
the time of reduction ought to be fixed, in respect to the
several articles, distinctly, having due regard, in each case,
to the questions whether the proposed reduction will affect
revenue alone, or how far it will operate injuriously on those
domestic manufactures hitherto protected; especially such as
are essential in time of war, and such, also, as have been
established on the faith of existing laws; and, above all, how
far such proposed reduction will affect the rates of wages and
the earnings of American manual labor.
"_Resolved_, That it is unwise and injudicious, in regulating
imposts, to adopt a plan, hitherto equally unknown in the
history of this government, and in the practice of all
enlightened nations, which shall, either immediately or
prospectively, reject all discrimination on articles to be
taxed, whether they be articles of necessity or of luxury, of
general consumption or of limited consumption; and whether they
be or be not such as are manufactured and produced at home, and
which shall confine all duties to one equal rate per centum on
all articles.
"_Resolved_, That, since the people of the United States have
deprived the State governments of all power of fostering
manufactures, however indispensable in peace or in war, or
however important to national independence, by commercial
regulations, or by laying duties on imports, and have
transferred the whole authority to make such regulations, and to
lay such duties, to the Congress of the United States, Congress
cannot surrender or abandon such power, compatibly with its
constitutional duty; and, therefore,
"_Resolved_, That no law ought to be passed on the subject
of imposts, containing any stipulation, express or implied,
or giving any pledge or assurance, direct or indirect, which
shall tend to restrain Congress from the full exercise, at all
times hereafter, of all its constitutional powers, in giving
reasonable protection to American industry, countervailing the
policy of foreign nations, and maintaining the substantial
independence of the United States."
These resolutions brought the sentiments of Mr. Webster, on the
tariff and federal revenue, very nearly to the standard recommended
by General Jackson, in his annual message; which was a limitation
of the revenue to the wants of the government, with incidental
protection to essential articles; and this approximation of
policy, with that which had already taken place on the doctrine
of nullification and its measures, and his present support of the
"Force Bill," may have occasioned the exclusion of Mr. Webster from
all knowledge of this "compromise." Certain it is, that, with these
sentiments on the subject of the tariff and the revenue, and with
the decision of the people, in their late elections against the
American system, that Mr. Webster and his friends would have acted
with the friends of General Jackson and the democratic party, in the
ensuing Congress, in reducing the duties in a way to be satisfactory
to every reasonable interest; and, above all, to be stable; and to
free the country from the agitation of the tariff question, the
manufacturers from uncertainty, and the revenue from fluctuations
which alternately gave overflowing and empty treasuries. It was
a consummation devoutly to be wished; and frustrated by the
intervention of the delusive "compromise," concocted out of doors,
and in conclave by two senators; and to be carried through Congress
by their joint adherents, and by the fears of some and the interests
of others.
Mr. Wright, of New-York, saw objections to the bill, which would be
insurmountable in other circumstances. He proceeded to state these
objections, and the reason which would outweigh them in his mind:
"He thought the reduction too slow for the first eight years,
and vastly too rapid afterwards. Again, he objected to the
inequality of the rule of reduction which had been adopted.
It will be seen, at once, that on articles paying one hundred
per cent. duty, the reduction is dangerously rapid. There was
uniformity in the rule adopted by the bill, as regards its
operation on existing laws. The first object of the bill was to
effect a compromise between the conflicting views of the friends
and the opponents of protection. It purports to extend relief to
Southern interest; and yet it enhances the duty on one of the
most material articles of Southern consumption--negro cloths.
Again, while it increases this duty, it imposes no corresponding
duty on the raw material from which the fabric is made.
"Another objection arose from his mature conviction that the
principle of home valuation was absurd, impracticable, and
of very unequal operation. The reduction on some articles of
prime necessity--iron, for example--was so great and so rapid,
that he was perfectly satisfied that it would stop all further
production before the expiration of eight years. The principle
of discrimination was one of the points introduced into the
discussion; and, as to this, he would say that the bill did
not recognize, after a limited period, the power of Congress
to afford protection by discriminating duties. It provides
protection for a certain length of time, but does not ultimately
recognize the principle of protection. The bill proposes
ultimately to reduce all articles which pay duty to the same
rate of duty. This principle of revenue was entirely unknown to
our laws, and, in his opinion, was an unwarrantable innovation.
Gentlemen advocating the principle and policy of free trade
admit the power of Congress to lay and collect such duties as
are necessary for the purpose of revenue; and to that extent
they will incidentally afford protection to manufactures. He
would, upon all occasions, contend that no more money should
be raised from duties on imports than the government needs;
and this principle he wished now to state in plain terms. He
adverted to the proceedings of the Free Trade Convention to
show that, by a large majority, (120 to 7,) they recognized
the constitutional power of Congress to afford incidental
protection to domestic manufactures. They expressly agreed that
the principle of discrimination was in consonance with the
constitution.
"Still another objection he had to the bill. It proposed on
its face, and, as he thought, directly, to restrict the action
of our successors. We had no power, he contended, to bind our
successors. We might legislate prospectively, and a future
Congress could stop the course of this prospective legislation.
He had, however, no alternative but to vote for the bill, with
all its defects, because it contained some provisions which the
state of the country rendered indispensably necessary."
He then stated the reason which would induce him to vote for the
bill notwithstanding these objections. It was found in the attitude
of South Carolina, and in the extreme desire which he had to remove
all cause of discontent in that State, and to enable her to return
to the state of feeling which belonged to an affectionate member of
the Union. For that reason he would do what was satisfactory to her,
though not agreeable to himself.
While the bill was still depending before the Senate, the bill
itself for which the leave was being asked, made its appearance at
the door of the chamber, with a right to enter it, in the shape of
an act passed by the House, and sent to the Senate for concurrence.
This was a new feature in the game, and occasioned the Senate bill
to be immediately dropped, and the House bill put in its place; and
which, being quickly put to the vote, was passed, 29 to 16.
"YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Black, Calhoun, Chambers, Clay,
Clayton, Ewing, Foot, Forsyth, Frelinghuysen, Grundy, Hill,
Holmes, Johnston, King, Mangum, Miller, Moore, Maudain,
Poindexter, Rives, Robinson, Sprague, Tomlinson, Tyler,
Waggaman, White, Wright.
"NAYS.--Messrs. Benton, Buckner, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley,
Hendricks, Knight, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee,
Smith, Tipton, Webster, Wilkins."
And the bill was then called a "compromise," which the
dictionaries define to be an "agreement without the intervention
of arbitrators;" and so called, it was immediately proclaimed to
be sacred and inviolable, as founded on mutual consent, although
the only share which the manufacturing States (Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont) had in
making this "compromise," was to see it sprung upon them without
notice, executed upon them as a surprise, and forced upon them
by anti-tariff votes, against the strenuous resistance of their
senators and representatives in both Houses of Congress.
An incident which attended the discussion of this bill shows
the manner in which great measures--especially a bill of many
particulars, like the tariff, which affords an opportunity of
gratifying small interests--may be worked through a legislative
body, even the Senate of the United States, by other reasons than
those derived from its merits. The case was this: There were a
few small manufactories in Connecticut and some other New England
States, of a coarse cloth called, not Kendall green, but Kendall
cotton--quite antithetically, as the article was made wholly
of wool--of which much was also imported. As it was an article
exclusively for the laboring population, the tariff of the preceding
session made it virtually free, imposing only a duty of five per
centum on the value of the cloth and the same on the wool of which
it was made. Now this article was put up in this "compromise" bill
which was to reduce duties, to fifty per centum, aggravated by an
arbitrary minimum valuation, and by the legerdemain of retaining
the five per centum duty on the foreign wool which they used, and
which was equivalent to making it free, and reduced to that low rate
to harmonize the duty on the raw material and the cloth. General
Smith, of Maryland, moved to strike out this duty, so flagrantly in
contrast to the professed objects of the bill, and in fraud of the
wool duty; and that motion brought out the reason why it was put
there--which was, that it was necessary to secure the passage of
the bill. Mr. Foot, of Connecticut, said: "_This was an important
feature of the bill, in which his constituents had a great interest.
Gentlemen from the South had agreed to it; and they were competent
to guard their own interest._" Mr. Clay said: "_The provision
proposed to be stricken out was an essential part of the compromise,
which, if struck out, would destroy the whole._" Mr. Bell of New
Hampshire, said: "_The passage of the bill depended upon it. If
struck out, he should feel himself compelled to vote against the
bill._" So it was admitted by those who knew what they said, that
this item had been put into the bill while in a state of concoction
out of doors, and as a _douceur_ to conciliate the votes which were
to pass it. Thereupon Mr. Benton stood up, and
"Animadverted on the reason which was alleged for this
extraordinary augmentation of duties in a bill which was to
reduce duties. The reason was candidly expressed on this floor.
There were a few small manufactories of these woollens in
Connecticut; and unless these manufactories be protected by an
increase of duties, certain members avow their determination
to vote against the whole bill! This is the secret--no! not
a secret, for it is proclaimed. It was a secret, but is not
now. Two or three little factories in Connecticut must be
protected; and that by imposing an annual tax upon the wearers
of these coarse woollens of four or five times the value of
the fee-simple estate of the factories. Better far, as a point
of economy and justice, to purchase them and burn them. The
whole American system is to be given up in the year 1842;
and why impose an annual tax of near five hundred thousand
dollars, upon the laboring community, to prolong, for a few
years, a few small branches of that system, when the whole bill
has the axe to the root, and nods to its fall? But, said Mr.
B., these manufactories of coarse woollens, to be protected
by this bill, are not even American; they are rather Asiatic
establishments in America; for they get their wool from Asia,
and not from America. The importation of this wool is one
million two hundred and fifty thousand pounds weight; it comes
chiefly from Smyrna, and costs less than eight cents a pound.
It was made free of duty at the last session of Congress, as
an equivalent to these very manufactories for the reduction of
the duty on coarse woollens to five per cent. The two measures
went together, and were, each, a consideration for the other.
Before that time, and by the act of 1828, this coarse wool was
heavily dutied for the benefit of the home wool growers. It was
subjected to a double duty, one of four cents on the pound,
and the other of fifty per cent. on the value. As a measure of
compromise, this double duty was abolished at the last session.
The wool for these factories was admitted duty free, and, as
an equivalent to the community, the woollens made out of the
corresponding kind of wool were admitted at a nominal duty. It
was a bargain, entered into in open Congress, and sealed with
all the forms of law. Now, in six months after the bargain was
made, it is to be broken. The manufacturers are to have the
duty on woollens run up to fifty per cent. for protection, and
are still to receive the foreign wool free of duty. In plain
English, they are to retain the pay which was given them for
reducing the duties on these coarse woollens, and they are to
have the duties restored.
"He said it was contrary to the whole tenor and policy of the
bill, and presented the strange contradiction of multiplying
duties tenfold, upon an article of prime necessity, used
exclusively by the laboring part of the community, while
reducing duties or abolishing them _in toto_, upon every article
used by the rich and luxurious. Silks were to be free; cambrics
and fine linens were to be free; muslins, and casimeres, and
broad cloths were to be reduced; but the coarse woollens, worn
by the laborers of every color and every occupation, of every
sex and of every age, bond or free--these coarse woollens,
necessary to shelter the exposed laborer from cold and damp, are
to be put up tenfold in point of tax, and the cost of procuring
them doubled to the wearer.
"The American value, and not the foreign cost, will be the basis
of computation for the twenty per cent. The difference, when all
is fair, is about thirty-five per cent. in the value; so that an
importation of coarse woollens, costing one million in Europe,
and now to pay five per cent. on that cost, will be valued, if
all is fair, at one million three hundred and fifty thousand
dollars; and the twenty per cent. will be calculated on that
sum, and will give two hundred and seventy thousand dollars,
instead of two hundred thousand dollars, for the quantum of the
tax. It will be near sixfold, instead of four-fold, and that if
all is fair; but if there are gross errors or gross frauds in
the valuation, as every human being knows there must be, the
real tax may be far above sixfold. On this very floor, and in
this very debate, we hear it computed, by way of recommending
this bill to the manufacturers, that the twenty per cent. on
the statute book will exceed thirty in the custom-house.
"Mr. B. took a view of the circumstances which had attended the
duties on these coarse woollens since he had been in Congress.
Every act had discriminated in favor of these goods, because
they were used by the poor and the laborer. The act of 1824
fixed the duties upon them at a rate one third less than on
other woollens; the act of 1828 fixed it at upwards of one half
less; the act of 1832 fixed it nine tenths less. All these
discriminations in favor of coarse woollens were made upon the
avowed principle of favoring the laborers, bond and free,--the
slave which works the field for his master, the mariner, the
miner, the steamboat hand, the worker in stone and wood, and
every out-door occupation. It was intended by the framers of
all these acts, and especially by the supporters of the act of
1832, that this class of our population, so meritorious from
their daily labor, so much overlooked in the operations of the
government, because of their little weight in the political
scale, should at least receive one boon from Congress--they
should receive their working clothes free of tax. This was the
intention of successive Congresses; it was the performance of
this Congress in its act of the last session; and now, in six
short months since this boon was granted, before the act had
gone into effect, the very week before the act was to go into
effect, the boon so lately granted, is to be snatched away, and
the day laborer taxed higher than ever; taxed fifty per cent.
upon his working clothes! while gentlemen and ladies are to have
silks and cambrics, and fine linen, free of any tax at all!
"In allusion to the alleged competency of the South to guard its
own interest, as averred by Mr. Foot, Mr. Benton said that was a
species of ability not confined to the South, but existent also
in the North--whether indigenous or exotic he could not say--but
certainly existent there, at least in some of the small States;
and active when duties were to be raised on Kendal cotton cloth,
and the wool of which it was made to remain free."
The motion of General Smith was rejected, of course, and by the same
vote which passed the bill, no one of those giving way an inch of
ground in the House who had promised out of doors to stand by the
bill. Another incident to which the discussion of this bill gave
rise, and the memory of which is necessary to the understanding
of the times, was the character of "_protection_" which Mr. Clay
openly claimed for it; and the peremptory manner in which he and his
friends vindicated that claim in open Senate, and to the face of
Mr. Calhoun. The circumstances were these: Mr. Forsyth objected to
the leave asked by Mr. Clay to introduce his bill, because it was
a revenue bill, the origination of which under the constitution
exclusively belonged to the House of Representatives, the immediate
representative of the people. And this gave rise to an episodical
debate, in which Mr. Clay said: "_The main object of the bill is not
revenue, but protection._"--In answer to several senators who said
the bill was an abandonment of the protective principle, Mr. Clay
said: "_The language of the bill authorized no such construction,
and that no one would be justified in inferring that there was to be
an abandonment of the system of protection._"--And Mr. Clayton, of
Delaware, a supporter of the bill, said: "_The government cannot be
kept together if the principle of protection were to be discarded in
our policy; and declared that he would pause before he surrendered
that principle, even to save the Union._"--Mr. Webster said: "_The
bill is brought forward by the distinguished senator from Kentucky,
who professes to have renounced none of his former opinions as to
the constitutionality and expediency of protection._"--And Mr. Clay
said further: "_The bill assumes, as a basis, adequate protection
for nine years, and less (protection) beyond that term. The friends
of protection say to their opponents, we are willing to take a
lease of nine years, with the long chapter of accidents beyond that
period, including the chance of war, the restoration of concord,
and along with it a conviction common to all, of the utility of
protection; and in consideration of it, if, in 1842 none of these
contingencies shall have been realized, we are willing to submit,
as long as Congress may think proper, with a maximum of twenty per
centum_," &c.--"_He avowed his object in framing the bill was to
secure that protection to manufactures which every one foresaw must
otherwise soon be swept away._" So that the bill was declared _to
be one of protection_ (_and upon sufficient data_), upon a lease of
nine years and a half, with many chances for converting the lease
into a fee simple at the end of its run; which, in fact, was done;
but with such excess of protection as to produce a revulsion, and
another tariff catastrophe in 1846. The continuance of protection
was claimed in argument by Mr. Clay and his friends throughout the
discussion, but here it was made a point on which the fate of the
bill depended, and on which enough of its friends to defeat it
declared they would not support it except as a protective measure.
Mr. Calhoun in other parts of the debate had declared the bill to
be an abandonment of protection; but at this critical point, when
such a denial from him would have been the instant death warrant of
the bill, he said nothing. His desire for its passage must have been
overpowering when he could hear such declarations without repeating
his denial.
On the main point, that of the constitutionality of originating the
bill in the Senate, Mr. Webster spoke the law of Parliament when he
said:
"It was purely a question of privilege, and the decision of
it belonged alone to the other House. The Senate, by the
constitution, could not originate bills for raising revenue. It
was of no consequence whether the rate of duty were increased
or decreased; if it was a money bill it belonged to the House
to originate it. In the House there was a Committee of Ways
and Means organized expressly for such objects. There was no
such committee in the Senate. The constitutional provision was
taken from the practice of the British Parliament, whose usages
were well known to the framers of the constitution, with the
modification that the Senate might alter and amend money bills,
which was denied by the House of Commons to the Lords. This
subject belongs exclusively to the House of Representatives. The
attempt to evade the question, by contending that the present
bill was intended for protection and not for revenue, afforded
no relief, for it was protection by means of revenue. It was
not the less a money bill from its object being protection.
After 1842 this bill would raise the revenue, or it would not
be raised by existing laws. He was altogether opposed to the
provisions of this bill; but this objection was one which
belonged to the House of Representatives."
Another incident which illustrates the vice and tyranny of this
outside concoction of measures between chiefs, to be supported
in the House by their adherents as they fix it, occurred in the
progress of this bill. Mr. Benton, perceiving that there was no
corresponding reduction of drawback provided for on the exportation
of the manufactured article made out of an imported material on
which duty was to be reduced, and supposing it to have been an
oversight in the framing of the bill, moved an amendment to that
effect; and meeting resistance, stood up, and said:
"His motion did not extend to the general system of drawbacks,
but only to those special cases in which the exporter was
authorized to draw from the treasury the amount of money which
he had paid into it on the importation of the materials which
he had manufactured. The amount of drawback to be allowed in
every case had been adjusted to the amount of duty paid, and as
all these duties were to be periodically reduced by the bill,
it would follow, as a regular consequence, that the drawback
should undergo equal reductions at the same time. Mr. B. would
illustrate his motion by stating a single case--the case of
refined sugar. The drawback payable on this sugar was five
cents a pound. These five cents rested upon a duty of three
cents, now payable on the importation of foreign brown sugar.
It was ascertained that it required nearly two pounds of brown
sugar to make a pound of refined sugar, and five cents was
held to be the amount of duty paid on the quantity of brown
sugar which made the pound of refined sugar. It was simply a
reimbursement of what he had paid. By this bill the duty of
foreign brown sugar will be reduced immediately to two and a
half cents a pound, and afterwards will be periodically reduced
until the year 1842, when it will be but six-tenths of a cent,
very little more than one-sixth of the duty when five cents
the pound were allowed for a drawback. Now, if the drawback is
not reduced in proportion to the reduction of the duty on the
raw sugar, two very injurious consequences will result to the
public: first, that a large sum of money will be annually taken
out of the treasury in gratuitous bounties to sugar refiners;
and next, that the consumers of refined sugar will have to pay
more for American refined sugar than foreigners will; for the
refiners getting a bounty of five cents a pound on all that is
exported, will export all, unless the American consumer will
pay the bounty also. Mr. B. could not undertake to say how much
money would be drawn from the treasury, as a mere bounty, if
this amendment did not prevail. It must, however, be great. The
drawback was now frequently a hundred thousand dollars a year,
and great frauds were committed to obtain it. Frauds to the
amount of forty thousand dollars a year had been detected, and
this while the inducement was small and inconsiderable; but, as
fast as that inducement swells from year to year, the temptation
to commit frauds must increase; and the amount drawn by fraud,
added to that drawn by the letter of the law, must be enormous.
Mr. B. did not think it necessary to illustrate his motion by
further examples, but said there were other cases which would be
as strong as that of refined sugar; and justice to the public
required all to be checked at once, by adopting the amendment he
had offered."
This amendment was lost, although its necessity was self-evident,
and supported by Mr. Calhoun's vote; but Mr. Clay was inexorable,
and would allow of no amendment which was not offered by friends
of the bill: a qualification which usually attends all this class
of outside legislation. In the end, I saw the amendment adopted,
as it regarded refined sugars, after it began to take hundreds of
thousands per annum from the treasury, and was hastening on to
millions per annum. The vote on its rejection in the compromise
bill, was:
"YEAS.--Messrs. Benton, Buckner, Calhoun, Dallas, Dickerson,
Dudley, Forsyth, Johnson, Kane, King, Rives, Robinson, Seymour,
Tomlinson, Webster, White, Wilkins, Wright--18.
"NAYS.--Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Black, Clay, Clayton, Ewing, Foot,
Grundy, Hendricks, Holmes, Knight, Mangum, Miller, Moore,
Naudain, Poindexter, Prentiss, Robbins, Silsbee, Smith, Sprague,
Tipton, Troup, Tyler.--24."
But the protective feature of the bill, which sat hardest upon
the Southern members, and, at one time, seemed to put an end to
the "compromise," was a proposition, by Mr. Clay, to substitute
home valuations for foreign on imported goods; and on which home
valuation, the duty was to be computed. This was no part of the
bill concocted by Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun; and, when offered,
evidently took the latter gentleman by surprise, who pronounced it
unconstitutional, unequal, and unjust; averred the objections to the
proposition to be insurmountable; and declared that, if adopted,
would compel him to vote against the whole bill. On the other hand,
Mr. Clayton and others, declared the adoption of the amendment to
be indispensable; and boldly made known their determination to
sacrifice the bill, if it was not adopted. A brief and sharp debate
took place, in the course of which Mr. Calhoun declared his opinions
to remain unaltered, and Mr. Clayton moved to lay the bill upon the
table. Its fate seemed, at that time, to be sealed; and certainly
would have been, if the vote on its passage had then been taken; but
an adjournment was moved, and carried; and, on the next day, and
after further debate, and the question on Mr. Clay's proposition
about to be taken, Mr. Calhoun declared that it had become necessary
for him to determine whether he would vote for or against it; said
he would vote for it, otherwise the bill would be lost. He then
called upon the reporters in the gallery to notice well what he
said, as he intended his declaration to be part of the proceedings:
and that he voted upon the conditions: first, that no valuation
should be adopted, which would make the duties unequal in different
parts; and secondly, that the duties themselves should not become
an element in the valuation. The practical sense of General Smith
immediately exposed the futility of these conditions, which were
looked upon, on all sides, as a mere salvo for an inevitable vote,
extorted from him by the exigencies of his position; and several
senators reminded him that his intentions and motives could have no
effect upon the law, which would be executed according to its own
words. The following is the debate on this point, very curious in
itself, even in the outside view it gives of the manner of affecting
great national legislation; and much more so in the inside view of
the manner of passing this particular measure, so lauded in its day;
and to understand which, the outside view must first be seen. It
appears thus, in the prepared debates:
"Mr. Clay now rose to propose the amendment, of which he had
previously given notice. The object was, that, after the period
prescribed by the bill, all duties should thereafter be assessed
on a valuation made at the port in which the goods are first
imported, and under 'such regulations as may be prescribed by
law.' Mr. C. said it would be seen, by this amendment, that, in
place of having a foreign valuation, it was intended to have
a home one. It was believed by the friends of the protective
system, that such a regulation was necessary. It was believed
by many of the friends of the system, that, after the period
of nine and a half years, the most of our manufactures will be
sufficiently grown to be able to support themselves under a duty
of twenty per cent., if properly laid; but that, under a system
of foreign valuation, such would not be the case. They say that
it would be more detrimental to their interests than the lowest
scale of duties that could be imposed; and you propose to fix a
standard of duties. They are willing to take you at your word,
provided you regulate this in a way to do them justice.
"Mr. Smith opposed the amendment, on the ground that it would
be an increase of duties; that it had been tried before; that
it would be impracticable, unequal, unjust, and productive of
confusion, inasmuch as imported goods were constantly varying
in value, and were well known to be, at all times, cheaper in
New-York than in the commercial cities south of it. This would
have the effect of drawing all the trade of the United States to
New-York.
"Mr. Clay said he did not think it expedient, in deciding this
question, to go forward five or six years, and make that an
obstacle to the passage of a great national measure, which
is not to go into operation until after that period. The
honorable senator from Maryland said that the measure would be
impracticable. Well, sir, if so, it will not be adopted. We
do not adopt it now, said Mr. C.; we only adopt the principle,
leaving it to future legislation to adjust the details. Besides,
it would be the restoration of an ancient principle, known since
the foundation of the government. It was but at the last session
that the discriminating duty on goods coming from this side,
and beyond the Cape of Good Hope, ten per cent. on one, and
twenty per cent. on the other, was repealed. On what principle
was it, said he, that this discrimination ever prevailed? On
the principle of the home value. Were it not for the fraudulent
invoices which every gentleman in this country was familiar
with, he would not urge the amendment; but it was to detect and
prevent these frauds that he looked upon the insertion of the
clause as essentially necessary.
"Mr. Smith replied that he had not said that the measure
was impracticable. He only intended to say that it would be
inconvenient and unjust. Neither did he say that it would be
adopted by a future Congress; but he said, if the principle
was adopted now, it would be an entering wedge that might lead
to the adoption of the measure. We all recollect, said Mr.
S., that appropriations were made for surveys for internal
improvements; and that these operated as entering wedges, and
led to appropriations for roads and canals. The adoption of the
principle contended for, by the senator from Kentucky, would
not, in his (Mr. S.'s) opinion, prevent frauds in the invoices.
That very principle was the foundation of all the frauds on the
revenue of France and Spain, where the duties were assessed
according to the value of the goods in the ports where entered.
He again said that the effect of the amendment would be to draw
the principal commerce of the country to the great city of
New-York, where goods were cheaper.
"Mr. Forsyth understood, from what had fallen from the senator
from Kentucky, that this was a vital question, and on it
depended the success of this measure of conciliation and
compromise, which was said to settle the distracted condition of
the country. In one respect, it was said to be a vital question;
and the next was, it was useful; and a strange contradiction
followed: that the fate of this measure, to unite the jarrings
of brother with brother, depended on the adoption of a principle
which might or might not be adopted. He considered the amendment
wrong in principle, because it would be both unequal and unjust
in its operation, and because it would raise the revenue: as the
duties would be assessed, not only on the value of the goods
at the place whence imported, but on their value at the place
of importation. He would, however, vote for the bill, even if
the amendment were incorporated in it, provided he had the
assurances, from the proper quarter, that it would effect the
conciliation and compromise it was intended for.
"Mr. Clay had brought forward this measure, with the hope that,
in the course of its discussion, it would ultimately assume
such a shape as to reconcile all parties to its adoption, and
tend to end the agitation of this unsettled question. If there
be any member of this Congress (Mr. C. said), who says that he
will take this bill now for as much as it is worth, and that he
will, at the next Congress, again open the question, for the
purpose of getting a better bill, of bringing down the tariff to
a lower standard, without considering it as a final measure of
compromise and conciliation, calculated also to give stability
to a man of business, the bill, in his eyes, would lose all its
value, and he should be constrained to vote against it.
"It was for the sake of conciliation, of nine years of peace,
to give tranquility to a disturbed and agitated country, that
he had, even at this late period of the session, introduced
this measure, which, his respect for the other branch of the
legislature, now sitting in that building, and who had a
measure, looking to the same end, before them, had prevented
him from bringing forward at an earlier period. But, when he
had seen the session wearing away, without the prospect of any
action in that other body, he felt himself compelled to come
forward, though contrary to his wishes, and the advice of some
of his best friends, with whom he had acted in the most perilous
times.
"Mr. Calhoun said, he regretted, exceedingly, that the senator
from Kentucky had felt it his duty to move the amendment.
According to his present impressions, the objections to it
were insurmountable; and, unless these were removed, he should
be compelled to vote against the whole bill, should the
amendment be adopted. The measure proposed was, in his opinion,
unconstitutional. The constitution expressly provided that no
preference should be given, by any regulation of commerce, to
the ports of one State over those of another; and this would
be the effect of adopting the amendment. Thus, great injustice
and inequality must necessarily result from it; for the price
of goods being cheaper in the Northern than in the Southern
cities, a home valuation would give to the former a preference
in the payment of duties. Again, the price of goods being higher
at New Orleans and Charleston than at New-York, the freight
and insurance also being higher, together with the increased
expenses of a sickly climate, would give such advantages in the
amount of duties to the Northern city, as to draw to it much of
the trade of the Southern ones. In his view of the subject, this
was not all. He was not merchant enough to say what would be
the extent of duties under this system of home valuation; but,
as he understood it, they must, of consequence, be progressive.
For instance, an article is brought into New-York, value there
100 dollars. Twenty per cent. on that would raise the value
of the article to one hundred and twenty dollars, on which
value a duty of twenty per cent. would be assessed at the next
importation, and so on. It would, therefore, be impossible to
say to what extent the duties would run up. He regretted the
more that the senator from Kentucky had felt it his duty to
offer this amendment, as he was willing to leave the matter to
the decision of a future Congress, though he did not see how
they could get over the insuperable constitutional objections he
had glanced at. Mr. C. appealed to the senator from Kentucky,
whether, with these views, he would press his amendment, when he
had eight or nine years in advance before it could take effect.
He understood the argument of the senator from Kentucky to be an
admission that the amendment was not now absolutely necessary.
With respect to the apprehension of frauds on the revenue, Mr.
C. said that every future Congress would have the strongest
disposition to guard against them. The very reduction of duties,
he said, would have that effect; it would strike at the root of
the evil. Mr. C. said he agreed with the senator from Kentucky,
that this bill will be the final effort at conciliation and
compromise; and he, for one, was not disposed, if it passed, to
violate it by future legislation.
"Mr. Clayton said that he could not vote for this bill without
this amendment, nor would he admit any idea of an abandonment
of the protective system; while he was willing to pass this
measure, as one of concession from the stronger to the weaker
party, he never could agree that twenty per cent. was adequate
protection to our domestic manufactures. He had been anxious to
do something to relieve South Carolina from her present perilous
position; though he had never been driven by the taunts of
Southern gentlemen to do that, which he now did, for the sake
of conciliation. I vote for this bill, said Mr. C., only on the
ground that it may save South Carolina from herself.
"Here Mr. C. yielded the floor to Mr. Calhoun, who said he hoped
the gentleman would not touch that question. He entreated him
to believe that South Carolina had no fears for herself. The
noble and disinterested attitude she had assumed was intended
for the whole nation, while it was also calculated to relieve
herself, as well as them, from oppressive legislation. It was
not for them to consider the condition of South Carolina only,
in passing on a measure of this importance.
"Mr. Clayton resumed. Sir, said he, I must be permitted to
explain, in my own way, the reasons which will govern me
in the vote I am about to give. As I said before, I never
have permitted the fears of losing the protective system, as
expressed by the senator from Georgia, when he taunted us with
the majority that they would have in the next Congress, when
they would get a better bill, to influence my opinion upon this
occasion. That we have been driven by our fears into this act of
concession, I will not admit. Sir, I tell gentlemen that they
may never get such another offer as the present; for, though
they may think otherwise, I do not believe that the people of
this country will ever be brought to consent to the abandonment
of the protective system.
"Does any man believe that fifty per cent. is an adequate
protection on woollens? No, sir; the protection is brought
down to twenty per cent.; and when gentlemen come to me and
say that this is a compromise, I answer, with my friend from
Maine, that I will not vote for it, unless you will give me
the fair twenty per cent.; and this cannot be done without
adopting the principle of a home valuation. I do not vote for
this bill because I think it better than the tariff of 1832, nor
because I fear nullification or secession; but from a motive of
concession, yielding my own opinions. But if Southern gentlemen
will not accept this measure in the spirit for which it was
tendered, I have no reason to vote for it. I voted, said Mr.
C., against the bill of '32, for the very reason that Southern
gentlemen declared that it was no concession; and I may vote
against this for the same reasons. I thought it bad policy to
pass the bill of '32. I thought it a bad bargain, and I think so
now. I have no fear of nullification or secession; I am not to
be intimidated by threats of Southern gentlemen, that they will
get a better bill at the next session. "Rebellion made young
Harry Percy's spurs grow cold." I will vote for this measure as
one of conciliation and compromise; but if the clause of the
senator from Kentucky is not inserted, I shall be compelled to
vote against it. The protective system never can be abandoned;
and I, for one, will not now, or at any time, admit the idea.
"Mr. Dallas was opposed to the proposition from the committee,
and agreed with Mr. Calhoun. He would state briefly his
objection to the proposition of the committee. Although he
was from a State strongly disposed to maintain the protective
policy, he labored under an impression, that if any thing could
be done to conciliate the Southern States, it was his duty to go
for a measure for that purpose; but he should not go beyond it.
He could do nothing in this way, as representing his particular
district of the country, but only for the general good. He
could not agree to incorporate in the bill any principle which
he thought erroneous or improper. He would sanction nothing in
the bill as an abandonment of the principle of protection. Mr.
D. then made a few remarks on home and foreign valuation, to
show the ground of his objections to the amendment of Mr. Clay,
though it did not prevent his strong desire to compromise and
conciliation.
"Mr. Clay thought it was premature to agitate now the details
of a legislation which might take place nine years hence. The
senator from South Carolina had objected to the amendment on
constitutional grounds. He thought he could satisfy him, and
every senator, that there was no objection from the constitution.
"He asked if it was probable that a valuation in Liverpool
could escape a constitutional objection, if a home valuation
were unconstitutional? There was a distinction in the foreign
value, and in the thing valued. An invoice might be made of
articles at one price in one port of England, and in another
port at another price. The price, too, must vary with the time.
But all this could not affect the rule. There was a distinction
which gentlemen did not observe, between the value and the
rule of valuation; one of these might vary, while the other
continued always the same. The rule was uniform with regard to
direct taxation; yet the value of houses and lands of the same
quality are very different in different places. One mode of home
valuation was, to give the government, or its officers, the
right to make the valuation after the one which the importer had
given. It would prevent fraud, and the rule would not violate
the constitution. It was an error that it was unconstitutional;
the constitution said nothing about it. It was absurd that
all values must be established in foreign countries; no other
country on earth should assume the right of judging. Objections
had been made to leaving the business of valuation in the hands
of a few executive officers; but the objections were at least
equally great to leaving it in the hands of foreigners. He
thought there was nothing in the constitutional objection, and
hoped the measure would not be embarrassed by such objections.
"Mr. Calhoun said that he listened with great care to the
remarks of the gentleman from Kentucky, and other gentlemen, who
had advocated the same side, in hopes of having his objection
to the mode of valuation proposed in the amendment removed; but
he must say, that the difficulties he first expressed still
remained. Passing over what seemed to him to be a constitutional
objection, he would direct his observation to what appeared
to him to be its unequal operation. If by the home valuation
be meant the foreign price, with the addition of freight,
insurance, and other expenses at the port of destination, it is
manifest that as these are unequal between the several ports
in the Union--for instance, between the ports New-York and New
Orleans--the duty must also be unequal in the same degree, if
laid on value thus estimated. But if, by the home valuation be
meant the prices current at the place of importation, then,
in addition to the inequality already stated, there would
have to be added the additional inequality resulting from the
different rates of profits, and other circumstances, which must
necessarily render prices very unequal in the several ports of
this widely-extended country. There would, in the same view,
be another and a stronger objection, which he alluded to in
his former remarks, which remained unanswered--that the duties
themselves constitute part of the elements of the current prices
of the imported articles; and that, to impose a duty on a
valuation ascertained by the current prices, would be to impose,
in reality, a duty upon a duty, and must necessarily produce
that increased progression in duties, which he had already
attempted to illustrate.
"He knew it had been stated, in reply, that a system which
would produce such absurd results could not be contemplated;
that Congress, under the power of regulating, reserved in
the amendment, would adopt some mode that would obviate
these objections; and, if none such could be devised, that
the provisions of the amendment would be simply useless. His
difficulty was not removed by the answer to the objection. He
was at a loss to understand what mode could be devised free
from objection; and, as he wished to be candid and explicit,
he felt the difficulty, as an honest man, to assent to a
general measure, which, in all the modifications under which
he had viewed it, was objectionable. He again repeated, that
he regretted the amendment had been offered, as he felt a
solicitude that the present controversy should be honorably and
fairly terminated. It was not his wish that there should be a
feeling of victory on either side. But, in thus expressing his
solicitude for an adjustment, he was not governed by motives
derived from the attitude which South Carolina occupied, and
which the senator from Delaware stated to influence him. He
wished that senator, as well as all others, to understand that
that gallant and patriotic State was far from considering her
situation as one requiring sympathy, and was equally far from
desiring that any adjustment of this question should take place
with the view of relieving her, or with any other motive than
a regard to the general interests of the country. So far from
requiring commiseration, she regarded her position with very
opposite light, as one of high responsibility, and exposing her
to no inconsiderable danger; but a position voluntarily and
firmly assumed, with a full view of consequences, and which she
was determined to maintain till the oppression under which she
and the other Southern States were suffering was removed.
"In wishing, then, to see a termination to the present state of
things, he turned not his eyes to South Carolina, but to the
general interests of the country. He did not believe it was
possible to maintain our institutions and our liberty, under
the continuance of the controversy which had for so long a time
distracted us, and brought into conflict the two great sections
of the country. He was in the last stage of madness who did not
see, if not terminated, that this admirable system of ours,
reared by the wisdom and virtue of our ancestors--virtue, he
feared, which had fled forever--would fall under its shocks. It
was to arrest this catastrophe, if possible, by restoring peace
and harmony to the Union, that governed him in desiring to see
an adjustment of the question.
"Mr. Clayton said, this point had been discussed in the
committee; and it was because this amendment was not adopted
that he had withheld his assent from the bill. They had now
but seven business days of this session remaining; and it
would require the greatest unanimity, both in that body and
in the other House, to pass any bill on this subject. Were
gentlemen coming from the opposite extremes of the Union, and
representing opposite interests, to agree to combine together,
there would hardly be time to pass this bill into a law; yet if
he saw that it could be done, he would gladly go on with the
consideration of the bill, and with the determination to do all
that could be done. The honorable member from South Carolina had
found insuperable obstacles where he (Mr. C.) had found none. On
their part, if they agreed to this bill, it would only be for
the sake of conciliation; if South Carolina would not accept the
measure in that light, then their motive for arrangement was
at an end. He (Mr. C.) apprehended, however, that good might
result from bringing the proposition forward at that time. It
would be placed before the view of the people, who would have
time to reflect and make up their minds upon it against the
meeting of the next Congress. He did not hold any man as pledged
by their action at this time. If the arrangement was found to
be a proper one, the next Congress might adopt it. But, for
the reasons he had already stated, he had little hope that any
bill would be passed at this session; and, to go on debating
it, day after day, would only have the effect of defeating the
many private bills and other business which were waiting the
action of Congress. He would therefore propose to lay the bill
for the present on the table; if it were found, at a future
period, before the expiration of the session, that there was
a prospect of overcoming the difficulties which now presented
themselves, and of acting upon it, the bill might be again taken
up. If no other gentleman wished to make any observations on the
amendment, he would move to lay the bill on the table.
"Mr. Bibb requested the senator from Delaware to withdraw
his motion, whilst he (Mr. B.) offered an amendment to the
amendment, having for its object to get rid of that interminable
series of duties of which gentlemen had spoken.
"Mr. Clayton withdrew his motion.
"Mr. Bibb proceeded to say, that his design was to obviate the
objection of the great increase that would arise from a system
of home valuation. He hoped that something satisfactory would
be done this session yet. He should vote for every respectable
proposition calculated to settle the difficulty. He hoped there
would be corresponding concessions on both sides; he wished much
for the harmony of the country. It was well known that he (Mr.
B.) was opposed to any tariff system other than one for revenue,
and such incidental protection as that might afford. His hope
was to strike out a middle course; otherwise, he would concur in
the motion that had been made by the senator from Delaware [Mr.
Clayton]. Mr. B. then submitted his amendment, to insert the
words 'before payment of,' &c.
"Mr. Clay was opposed to the amendment, and he hoped his worthy
colleague would withdraw it. If one amendment were offered and
debated, another, and another would follow; and thus, the
remaining time would be wasted. To fix any precise system would
be extremely difficult at present. He only wished the principle
to be adopted.
"Mr. Bibb acceded to the wish of the senator from Kentucky, and
withdrew his amendment accordingly.
"Mr. Tyler was opposed to the principle of this home valuation.
The duties would be taken into consideration in making the
valuations; and thus, after going down hill for nine and a half
years, we would as suddenly rise up again to prohibition. He
complained that there were not merchants enough on this floor
from the South; and, in this respect, the Northern States had
the advantage. But satisfy me, said Mr. T., that the views of
the senator from South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun] are not correct,
and I shall vote for the proposition.
"Mr. Moore said he would move an amendment which he hoped would
meet the views of the gentlemen on the other side; it was to
this effect:
"_Provided_, That no valuation be adopted that will operate
unequally in different ports of the United States.
"Mr. Calhoun also wished that the amendment would prevail,
though he felt it would be ineffectual to counteract the
inequality of the system. But he would raise no cavilling
objections; he wished to act in perfect good faith; and he only
wished to see what could be done.
"Mr. Moore said he had but two motives in offering the amendment
to the amendment of the senator. The first was, to get rid of
the constitutional objections to the amendment of the senator
from Kentucky; and the second was, to do justice to those he
had the honor to represent. The honorable gentleman said that
Mobile and New Orleans would not pay higher duties, because the
goods imported there would be of more value; and this was the
very reason, Mr. M. contended, why the duties would be higher.
Did not every one see that if the same article was valued in
New-York at one hundred dollars, and in Mobile at one hundred
and thirty-five dollars, the duty of twenty per cent. would be
higher at the latter place? He had nothing but the spirit of
compromise in view, and hoped gentlemen would meet him in the
same spirit. He would now propose, with the permission of the
senator from Maine, to vary his motion, and offer a substitute
in exact conformity with the language of the constitution.
This proposition being admitted by general consent, Mr. Moore
modified his amendment accordingly. (It was an affirmation of
the constitution, that all duties should be uniform, &c).
"Mr. Forsyth supported the amendment of the senator from
Alabama, and hoped it would meet the approbation of the Senate.
It would get rid of all difficulty about words. No one, he
presumed, wished to violate the constitution; and if the
measure of the senator from Kentucky was consistent with the
constitution, it would prevail; if not, it would not be adopted.
"Mr. Holmes moved an adjournment.
"Mr. Moore asked for the yeas and nays on the motion to adjourn,
and they were accordingly ordered, when the question was taken
and decided in the affirmative--Yeas 22, nays 19, as follows:
"YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Clayton, Dallas, Dickerson, Ewing,
Foot, Frelinghuysen, Holmes, Johnston, Kane, Knight, Naudain,
Prentiss, Robbins, Robinson, Silsbee, Smith, Tipton, Tomlinson,
Waggaman, Webster, Wilkins.--22.
"NAYS.--Messrs. Bibb, Black, Buckner, Calhoun, Clay, Dudley,
Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, King, Miller, Moore, Poindexter,
Sprague, Rives, Troup, Tyler, White, Wright.--19.
"The Senate then, at half-past four o'clock, adjourned.
"_Friday, February 22._
"Mr. Smith (of Md.) said, the motion to amend by the word
'uniform' was unnecessary. That was provided for by the
constitution. 'All duties must be uniform.' An addition to
the cost of goods of forty, fifty, or sixty per cent. would
be uniform, but would not prevent fraud, nor the certainty of
great inequality in the valuation in the several ports. The
value of goods at New Orleans particularly, and at almost every
other port, will be higher than at New-York. I have not said
that such mode was unconstitutional, nor have I said that it
was impracticable; few things are so. But I have said, and do
now say, that the mode is open to fraud, and more so than the
present. At present the merchant enters his goods, and swears
to the truth of his invoice. One package in every five or ten
is sent to the public warehouse, and there carefully examined
by two appraisers on oath. If they find fraud, or suspect
fraud, then all the goods belonging to such merchants are sent
to the appraisers; and if frauds be discovered, the goods are
forfeited. No American merchant has ever been convicted of such
fraud. Foreigners have even been severely punished by loss of
their property. The laws are good and sufficiently safe as
they now stand on our statutes. I wish no stronger; we know
the one, we are ignorant how the other will work. Such a mode
of valuation is unknown to any nation except Spain, where the
valuation is arbitrary; and the goods are valued agreeably to
the amount of the bribe given. This is perfectly understood and
practised. It is in the nature of such mode of valuation to
be arbitrary. No rule can be established that will make such
mode uniform throughout the Union, and some of the small ports
will value low to bring business to their towns. A scene of
connivance and injustice will take place that no law can prevent.
"The merchant will be put to great inconvenience by the mode
proposed. All his goods must be sent to the public warehouses,
and there opened piece by piece; by which process they will
sustain essential injury. The goods will be detained from the
owners for a week or a month, or still more, unless you have one
or two hundred appraisers in New-York, and proportionately in
other ports; thus increasing patronage; and with such a host,
can we expect either uniformity or equality in the valuation?
All will not be honest, and the Spanish mode will be adopted.
One set of appraisers, who value low, will have a priority. In
fact, if this mode should ever be adopted, it will cause great
discontent, and must soon be changed. As all understand the
cause to be to flatter the manufacturers with a plan which they
think will be beneficial to them, but which, we all know, can
never be realized, it is deception on its face, as is almost the
whole of the bill now under our consideration.
"Remember, Mr. President, that the senators from Kentucky and
South Carolina [Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun], have declared this
bill (if it should become a law), to be permanent, and that no
honorable man who shall vote for it can ever attempt a change;
yet, sir, the pressure against it will be such at the next
session that Congress will be compelled to revise it; and as the
storm may then have passed over Congress, a new Congress, with
better feelings, will be able to act with more deliberation, and
may pass a law that will be generally approved. Nearly all agree
that this bill is a bad bill. A similar opinion prevailed on the
passage of the tariff of 1828, and yet it passed, and caused
all our present danger and difficulties. All admit that the act
of 1828, as it stands on our statutes, is constitutional. But
the senator [Mr. Calhoun] has said that it is unconstitutional,
because of the motive under which it passed; and he said that
that motive was protection to the manufacturers. How, sir, I
ask, are we to know the motives of men? I thought then, and
think now, that the approaching election for President tended
greatly to the enactments of the acts of 1824 and 1828; many
of my friends thought so at the time. I have somewhere read
of the minister of a king or emperor in Asia, who was anxious
to be considered a man of truth, and always boasted of his
veracity. He hypocritically prayed to God that he might always
speak the truth. A genii appeared and told him that his prayer
had been heard, touched him with his spear, and said, hereafter
you will speak truth on all occasions. The next day he waited
on his majesty and said, Sire, I intended to have assassinated
you yesterday, but was prevented by the nod of the officer
behind you, who is to kill you to-morrow. The result I will not
mention. Now, Mr. President, if the same genii was to touch with
his spear each of the senators who voted for the act of 1828,
and an interrogator was appointed, he would ask, what induced
you to give that vote? Why sir, I acted on sound principles. I
believe it is the duty of every good government to promote the
manufactures of the nation; all historians eulogize the kings
who have done so, and censure those kings who have neglected
them. I refer you to the history of Alfred. It is known that
the staple of England was wool, which was sent to Flanders
to be exchanged for cloths. The civil wars, by the invasions
of that nation, kept them long dependent on the Flemings for
the cloths they wore. At length a good king governed; and he
invited Flemish manufacturers to England, and gave them great
privileges. They taught the youth of England, the manufacture
succeeded, and now England supplies all the world with woollen
cloth. The interrogator asked another the same question. His
answer might have been, that he thought the passing of the law
would secure the votes of the manufacturers in favor of his
friend who wanted to be the President. Another answer might
have been, a large duty was imposed on an article which my
constituents raised; and I voted for it, although I disliked
all the residue of the bill. Sir, the motives, no doubt, were
different that induced the voting for that bill, and were, as we
all know, not confined to the protective system. Many voted on
political grounds, as many will on this bill, and as they did on
the enforcing bill. We cannot declare a bill unconstitutional,
because of the motives that may govern the voters. It is idle
to assign such a cause for the part that is now acting in South
Carolina. I know, Mr. President, that no argument will have any
effect on the passage of this bill. The high contracting parties
have agreed. But I owed it to myself to make these remarks.
"Mr. Webster said, that he held the home valuation to be, to
any extent, impracticable; and that it was unprecedented, and
unknown in any legislation. Both the home and foreign valuation
ought to be excluded as far as possible, and specific duties
should be resorted to. This keeping out of view specific duties,
and turning us back to the principle of a valuation was, in
his view, the great vice of this bill. In England five out of
six, or nine out of ten articles, pay specific duties, and the
valuation is on the remnant. Among the articles which pay _ad
valorem_ duties in England are silk goods, which are imported
either from India, whence they are brought to one port only;
or from Europe, in which case there is a specific and an _ad
valorem_ duty; and the officer has the option to take either
the one or the other. He suggested that the Senate, before they
adopted the _ad valorem_ principle, should look to the effects
on the importation of the country.
"He took a view of the iron trade, to show that evil would
result to that branch from a substitution of the _ad valorem_
for the specific system of duties. He admitted himself to
be unable to comprehend the elements of a home valuation,
and mentioned cases where it would be impossible to find an
accurate standard of valuation of this character. The plan was
impracticable and illusory.
"Mr. Clayton said, I would go for this bill only for the sake
of concession. The senator from South Carolina can tell whether
it is likely to be received as such, and to attain the object
proposed; if not, I have a plain course to pursue; I am opposed
to the bill. Unless I can obtain for the manufacturers the
assurance that the principle of the bill will not be disturbed,
and that it will be received in the light of a concession, I
shall oppose it.
"Mr. Benton objected to the home valuation, as tending to a
violation of the constitution of the United States, and cited
the following clause: 'Congress shall have power to lay and
collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; but all duties,
imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United
States.' All uniformity of duties and imposts, he contended,
would be destroyed by this amendment. No human judgment could
fix the value of the same goods at the same rate, in all the
various ports of the United States. If the same individual
valued the goods in every port, and every cargo in every
port, he would commit innumerable errors and mistakes in the
valuation; and, according to the diversity of these errors and
mistakes, would be the diversity in the amount of duties and
imposts laid and collected in the different ports.
"Mr. B. objected to the home valuation, because it would be
injurious and almost fatal to the southern ports. He confined
his remarks to New Orleans. The standard of valuation would
be fifteen or twenty per cent. higher in New Orleans than in
New-York, and other northern ports. All importers will go to
the northeastern cities, to evade high duties at New Orleans;
and that great emporium of the West will be doomed to sink
into a mere exporting city, while all the money which it pays
for exports must be carried off and expended elsewhere for
imports. Without an import trade, no city can flourish, or even
furnish a good market for exports. It will be drained of its
effective cash, and deprived of its legitimate gains, and must
languish far in the rear of what it would be, if enriched with
the profits of an import trade. As an exporter, it will buy;
as an importer, it will sell. All buying, and no selling, must
impoverish cities as well as individuals. New Orleans is now
a great exporting city; she exports more domestic productions
than any city in the Union; her imports have been increasing,
for some years; and, with fair play, would soon become next to
New-York, and furnish the whole valley of the Mississippi with
its immense supplies of foreign goods; but, under the influence
of a home valuation, it must lose a greater part of the import
trade which it now possesses. In that loss, its wealth must
decline; its capacity to purchase produce for exportation must
decline; and as the western produce must go there, at all
events, every western farmer will suffer a decline in the value
of his own productions, in proportion to the decline of the
ability of New Orleans to purchase it. It was as a western
citizen that he pleaded the cause of New Orleans, and objected
to this measure of home valuation, which was to have the most
baneful effect upon her prosperity.
"Mr. B. further objected to the home valuation, on account of
the great additional expense it would create; the amount of
patronage it would confer; the rivalry it would beget between
importing cities; and the injury it would occasion to merchants,
from the detention and handling of their goods; and concluded
with saying, that the home valuation was the most obnoxious
feature ever introduced into the tariff acts; that it was
itself equivalent to a separate tariff of ten per cent.; that
it had always been resisted, and successfully resisted, by the
anti-tariff interest, in the highest and most palmy days of the
American system, and ought not now to be introduced when that
system is admitted to be nodding to its fall; when its death
is actually fixed to the 30th day of June, 1842, and when the
restoration of harmonious feelings is proclaimed to be the whole
object of this bill.
"Mr. B. said this was a strange principle to bring into a
bill to reduce duties. It was an increase, in a new form--an
indefinable form--and would be tax upon tax, as the whole
cost of getting the goods ready for a market valuation here,
would have to be included: original cost, freight, insurance,
commissions, duties here. It was new protection, in a new
form, and in an extraordinary form, and such as never could be
carried before. It had often been attempted, as as a part of the
American system, but never received countenance before.
"Mr. Calhoun rose and said:
"As the question is now about to be put on the amendment offered
by the senator from Kentucky, it became necessary for him to
determine whether he should vote for or against it. He must
be permitted again to express his regret that the senator had
thought proper to move it. His objection still remained strong
against it; but, as it seemed to be admitted, on all hands, that
the fate of the bill depended on the fate of the amendment,
feeling, as he did, a solicitude to see the question terminated,
he had made up his mind, not, however, without much hesitation,
not to interpose his vote against the adoption of the amendment;
but, in voting for it, he wished to be distinctly understood,
he did it upon two conditions: first, that no valuation would
be adopted that should come in conflict with the provision
in the constitution which declares that duties, excises, and
imposts shall be uniform; and, in the next place, that none
would be adopted which would make the duties themselves a part
of the element of a home valuation. He felt himself justified
in concluding that none such would be adopted; as it had been
declared by the supporters of the amendment, that no such
regulation was contemplated; and, in fact, he could not imagine
that any such could be contemplated, whatever interpretation
might be attempted hereafter to be given to the expression
of the home market. The first could scarcely be contemplated,
as it would be in violation of the constitution itself; nor
the latter, as it would, by necessary consequence, restore the
very duties, which it was the object of this bill to reduce,
and would involve the glaring absurdity of imposing duties on
duties, taxes on taxes. He wished the reporters for the public
press to notice particularly what he said, as he intended his
declaration to be part of the proceedings.
"Believing, then, for the reasons which he had stated, that it
was not contemplated that any regulation of the home valuation
should come in conflict with the provisions of the constitution
which he had cited, nor involve the absurdity of laying taxes
upon taxes, he had made up his mind to vote in favor of the
amendment.
"Mr. Smith said, any declaration of the views and motives,
under which any individual senator might now vote, could have
no influence, in 1842; they would be forgotten long before that
time had arrived. The law must rest upon the interpretation of
its words alone.
"Mr. Calhoun said he could not help that; he should endeavor to
do his duty.
"Mr. Clayton said there was certainly no ambiguity whatever
in the phraseology of the amendment. In advocating it, he had
desired to deceive no man; he sincerely hoped no one would
suffer himself to be deceived by it.
"Mr. Wilkins said, if it had been his intention to have voted
against the amendment, he should have remained silent; but,
after the explicit declaration of the honorable gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun] of the reason of his vote, and
believing, himself, that the amendment would have a different
construction from that given it by the gentleman, he [Mr. W.]
would as expressly state, that he would vote on the question,
with the impression that it would not hereafter be expounded by
the declaration of any senator on this floor, but by the plain
meaning of the words in the text.
"The amendment of Mr. Clay, fixing the principle of home
valuation as a part of the bill, was then adopted, by the
following vote:
"YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Black, Bibb, Calhoun, Chambers, Clay,
Clayton, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Hill, Holmes, Johnson,
King, Knight, Miller, Moore, Naudain, Poindexter, Prentiss,
Rives, Robbins, Sprague, Tomlinson, Tyler, Wilkins.--26.
"NAYS.--Messrs. Benton, Buckner, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley,
Forsyth, Grundy, Kane, Robinson, Seymour, Silsbee, Smith,
Waggaman, Webster, White, Wright.--16."
And thus a new principle of protection, never before engrafted
on the American system, and to get at which the constitution had
to be violated in the article of the uniformity of duties, was
established! and established by the aid of those who declared all
protection to be unconstitutional, and just cause for the secession
of a State from the Union! and were then acting on that assumption.
CHAPTER LXXXIII.
REVENUE COLLECTION, OR FORCE BILL.
The President in his message on the South Carolina proceedings had
recommended to Congress the revival of some acts, heretofore in
force, to enable him to execute the laws in that State; and the
Senate's committee on the Judiciary had reported a bill accordingly
early in the session. It was immediately assailed by several
members as violent and unconstitutional, tending to civil war, and
denounced as "the bloody bill"--"the force bill," &c. Mr. Wilkins
of Pennsylvania, the reporter of the bill, vindicated it from this
injurious character, showed that it was made out of previous laws,
and contained nothing novel but the harmless contingent authority to
remove the office of the customs from one building to another in the
case of need. He said:
"The Judiciary Committee, in framing it, had been particularly
anxious not to introduce any novel principle--any which could
not be found on the statute book. The only novel one which
the bill presented was one of a very simple nature. It was
that which authorized the President, under the particular
circumstances which were specified in the bill, to remove the
custom-house. This was the only novel principle, and care was
taken that in providing for such removal no authority was given
to use force.
"The committee were apprehensive that some collision might take
place after the 1st of February, either between the conflicting
parties of the citizens of South Carolina, or between the
officers of the federal government and the citizens. And to
remove, as far as possible, all chance of such collision,
provision was made that the collector might, at the moment of
imminent danger, remove the custom-house to a place of security;
or, to use a plain phrase, put it out of harm's way. He admitted
the importance of this bill; but he viewed its importance as
arising not out of the provisions of the bill itself, but out of
the state of affairs in South Carolina, to which the bill had
reference. In this view, it was of paramount importance.
"It had become necessary to legislate on this subject; whether
it was necessary to pass the bill or not, he would not say;
but legislation, in reference to South Carolina, previous to
the 1st of February, had become necessary. Something must be
done; and it behooves the government to adopt every measure of
precaution, to prevent those awful consequences which all must
foresee as necessarily resulting from the position which South
Carolina has thought proper to assume.
"Here nullification is declaimed, on one hand, unless we abolish
our revenue system. We consenting to do this, they remain quiet.
But if we go a hair's breadth towards enforcing that system,
they present secession. We have secession on one hand, and
nullification on the other. The senator from South Carolina
admitted the other day that no such thing as constitutional
secession could exist. Then civil war, disunion, and anarchy
must accompany secession. No one denies the right of revolution.
That is a natural, indefeasible, inherent right--a right which
we have exercised and held out, by our example, to the civilized
world. Who denies it? Then we have revolution by force, not
constitutional secession. That violence must come by secession
is certain. Another law passed by the legislature of South
Carolina, is entitled a bill to provide for the safety of the
people of South Carolina. It advises them to put on their armor.
It puts them in military array; and for what purpose but for
the use of force? The provisions of these laws are infinitely
worse than those of the feudal system, so far as they apply to
the citizens of Carolina. But with its operations on their own
citizens he had nothing to do. Resistance was just as inevitable
as the arrival of the day on the calendar. In addition to these
documents, what did rumor say--rumor, which often falsifies,
but sometimes utters truth. If we judge by newspaper and other
reports, more men were now ready to take up arms in Carolina,
than there were during the revolutionary struggle. The whole
State was at this moment in arms, and its citizens are ready
to be embattled the moment any attempt was made to enforce the
revenue laws. The city of Charleston wore the appearance of a
military depot."
The Bill was opposed with a vehemence rarely witnessed, and every
effort made to render it odious to the people, and even to extend
the odium to the President, and to all persons instrumental in
bringing it forward, or urging it through. Mr. Tyler of Virginia,
was one of its warmest opposers, and in the course of an elaborate
speech, said:
"In the course of the examination I have made into this subject,
I have been led to analyze certain doctrines which have gone out
to the world over the signature of the President. I know that my
language may be seized on by those who are disposed to carp at
my course and to misrepresent me. Since I have held a place on
this floor, I have not courted the smiles of the Executive; but
whenever he had done any act in violation of the constitutional
rights of the citizen, or trenching on the rights of the Senate,
I have been found in opposition to him. When he appointed corps
of editors to office, I thought it was my duty to oppose his
course. When he appointed a minister to a foreign court without
the sanction of the law, I also went against him, because, on
my conscience, I believed that the act was wrong. Such was my
course, acting, as I did, under a sense of the duty I owed to
my constituents; and I will now say, I care not how loudly the
trumpet may be sounded, nor how low the priests may bend their
knees before the object of their idolatry, I will be at the side
of the President, crying in his ear, 'Remember, Philip, thou art
mortal!'
"I object to the first section, because it confers on the
President the power of closing old ports of entry and
establishing new ones. It has been rightly said by the gentleman
from Kentucky [Mr. Bibb] that this was a prominent cause which
led to the Revolution. The Boston port bill, which removed the
custom-house from Boston to Salem, first roused the people to
resistance. To guard against this very abuse, the constitution
had confided to Congress the power to regulate commerce; the
establishment of ports of entry formed a material part of this
power, and one which required legislative enactment. Now I
deny that Congress can deputize its legislative powers. If it
may one, it may all; and thus, a majority here can, at their
pleasure, change the very character of the government. The
President might come to be invested with authority to make all
laws which his discretion might dictate. It is vain to tell me
(said Mr. T.) that I imagine a case which will never exist. I
tell you, sir, that power is cumulative, and that patronage
begets power. The reasoning is unanswerable. If you can part
with your power in one instance, you may in another and another.
You may confer upon the President the right to declare war; and
this very provision may fairly be considered as investing him
with authority to make war at his mere will and pleasure on
cities, towns, and villages. The prosperity of a city depends
on the position of its custom-house and port of entry. Take the
case of Norfolk, Richmond, and Fredericksburg, in my own State;
who doubts but that to remove the custom-house from Norfolk to
Old Point Comfort, of Richmond to the mouth of Chickahominy,
or of Fredericksburg to Tappahannock or Urbanna, would utterly
annihilate those towns? I have no tongue to express my sense
of the probable injustice of the measure. Sir, it involves the
innocent with the guilty. Take the case of Charleston; what if
ninety-nine merchants were ready and willing to comply with your
revenue laws, and that but one man could be found to resist
them; would you run the hazard of destroying the ninety-nine
in order to punish one? Trade is a delicate subject to touch;
once divert it out of its regular channels, and nothing is
more difficult than to restore it. This measure may involve the
actual property of every man, woman, and child in that city;
and this, too, when you have a redundancy of millions in your
treasury, and when no interest can sustain injury by awaiting
the actual occurrence of a case of resistance to your laws,
before you would have an opportunity to legislate.
"He is further empowered to employ the land and naval forces,
to put down all 'aiders and abettors.' How far will this
authority extend? Suppose the legislature of South Carolina
should happen to be in session: I will not blink the question,
suppose the legislature to be in session at the time of any
disturbance, passing laws in furtherance of the ordinance which
has been adopted by the convention of that State; might they
not be considered by the President as aiders and abettors? The
President might not, perhaps, march at the head of his troops,
with a flourish of drums and trumpets, and with bayonets fixed,
into the state-house yard, at Columbia; but, if he did so, he
would find a precedent for it in English history.
"There was no ambiguity about this measure. The prophecy had
already gone forth; the President has said that the laws will
be obstructed. The President had not only foretold the coming
difficulties, but he has also assembled an army. The city of
Charleston, if report spoke true, was now a beleagured city; the
cannon of Fort Pinckney are pointing at it; and although they
are now quietly sleeping, they are ready to open their thunders
whenever the voice of authority shall give the command. And
shall these terrors be let loose because some one man may refuse
to pay some small modicum of revenue, which Congress, the day
after it came into the treasury, might vote in satisfaction of
some unfounded claim? Shall we set so small a value upon the
lives of the people? Let us at least wait to see the course of
measures. We can never be too tardy in commencing the work of
blood.
"If the majority shall pass this bill, they must do it on their
own responsibility; I will have no part in it. When gentlemen
recount the blessings of union; when they dwell upon the past,
and sketch out, in bright perspective, the future, they awaken
in my breast all the pride of an American; my pulse beats
responsive to theirs, and I regard union, next to freedom, as
the greatest of blessings. Yes, sir, 'the federal Union must
be preserved.' But how? Will you seek to preserve it by force?
Will you appease the angry spirit of discord by an oblation
of blood? Suppose that the proud and haughty spirit of South
Carolina shall not bend to your high edicts in token of fealty;
that you make war upon her, hang her Governor, her legislators,
and judges, as traitors, and reduce her to the condition of a
conquered province--have you preserved the Union? This Union
consists of twenty-four States; would you have preserved
the Union by striking out one of the States--one of the old
thirteen? Gentlemen had boasted of the flag of our country,
with its thirteen stars. When the light of one of these stars
shall have been extinguished, will the flag wave over us, under
which our fathers fought? If we are to go on striking out star
after star, what will finally remain but a central and a burning
sun, blighting and destroying every germ of liberty? The flag
which I wish to wave over me, is that which floated in triumph
at Saratoga and Yorktown. It bore upon it thirteen States, of
which South Carolina was one. Sir, there is a great difference
between preserving Union and preserving government; the Union
may be annihilated, yet government preserved; but, under such a
government, no man ought to desire to live."
Mr. Webster, one of the committee which reported the bill, justly
rebuked all this vituperation, and justified the bill, both for the
equity of its provisions, and the necessity for enacting them. He
said:
"The President, charged by the constitution with the duty
of executing the laws, has sent us a message, alleging that
powerful combinations are forming to resist their execution;
that the existing laws are not sufficient to meet the crisis;
and recommending sundry enactments as necessary for the
occasion. The message being referred to the Judiciary Committee,
that committee has reported a bill in compliance with the
President's recommendation. It has not gone beyond the message.
Every thing in the bill, every single provision, which is now
complained of, is in the message. Yet the whole war is raised
against the bill, and against the committee, as if the committee
had originated the whole matter. Gentlemen get up and address
us, as if they were arguing against some measure of a factious
opposition. They look the same way, sir, and speak with the same
vehemence, as they used to do when they raised their patriotic
voices against what they called a 'coalition.'
"Now, sir, let it be known, once for all, that this is an
administration measure; that it is the President's own measure;
and I pray gentlemen to have the goodness, if they call it hard
names, and talk loudly against its friends, not to overlook its
source. Let them attack it, if they choose to attack it, in its
origin.
"Let it be known, also, that a majority of the committee
reporting the bill are friends and supporters of the
administration; and that it is maintained in this house by those
who are among his steadfast friends, of long standing.
"It is, sir, as I have already said, the President's own
measure. Let those who oppose it, oppose it as such. Let them
fairly acknowledge its origin, and meet it accordingly.
"The honorable member from Kentucky, who spoke first against the
bill, said he found in it another Jersey prison-ship; let him
state, then, that the President has sent a message to Congress,
recommending a renewal of the sufferings and horrors of the
Jersey prison-ship. He says, too, that the bill snuffs of the
alien and sedition law. But the bill is fragrant of no flower
except the same which perfumes the message. Let him, then, say,
if he thinks so, that General Jackson advises a revival of the
principles of the alien and sedition laws.
"The honorable member from Virginia [Mr. Tyler], finds out a
resemblance between this bill and the Boston port bill. Sir, if
one of these be imitated from the other, the imitation is the
President's. The bill makes the President, he says, sole judge
of the constitution. Does he mean to say that the President has
recommended a measure which is to make him sole judge of the
constitution? The bill, he declares, sacrifices every thing to
arbitrary power--he will lend no aid to its passage--he would
rather 'be a dog, and bay the moon, than such a Roman.' He did
not say 'the old Roman.' Yet the gentleman well knows, that
if any thing is sacrificed to arbitrary power, the sacrifice
has been demanded by the 'old Roman,' as he and others have
called him; by the President whom he has supported, so often
and so ably, for the chief magistracy of the country. He says,
too, that one of the sections is an English Botany Bay law,
except that it is much worse. This section, sir, whatever it
may be, is just what the President's message recommended.
Similar observations are applicable to the remarks of both the
honorable gentlemen from North Carolina. It is not necessary to
particularize those remarks. They were in the same strain.
"Therefore, sir, let it be understood, let it be known, that the
war which these gentlemen choose to wage, is waged against the
measures of the administration, against the President of their
own choice. The controversy has arisen between him and them,
and, in its progress, they will probably come to a distinct
understanding.
"Mr. President, I am not to be understood as admitting that
these charges against the bill are just, or that they would
be just if made against the message. On the contrary, I think
them wholly unjust. No one of them, in my opinion, can be made
good. I think the bill, or some similar measure, had become
indispensable, and that the President could not do otherwise
than to recommend it to the consideration of Congress. He
was not at liberty to look on and be silent, while dangers
threatened the Union, which existing laws were not competent, in
his judgment, to avert.
"Mr. President, I take this occasion to say, that I support
this measure, as an independent member of the Senate, in the
discharge of the dictates of my own conscience. I am no man's
leader; and, on the other hand, I follow no lead, but that
of public duty, and the star of the constitution. I believe
the country is in considerable danger; I believe an unlawful
combination threatens the integrity of the Union. I believe the
crisis calls for a mild, temperate, forbearing, but inflexibly
firm execution of the laws. And, under this conviction, I give
a hearty support to the administration, in all measures which I
deem to be fair, just, and necessary. And in supporting these
measures, I mean to take my fair share of responsibility, to
support them frankly and fairly, without reflections on the
past, and without mixing other topics in their discussion.
"Mr. President, I think I understand the sentiment of the
country on this subject. I think public opinion sets with an
irresistible force in favor of the Union, in favor of the
measures recommended by the President, and against the new
doctrines which threaten the dissolution of the Union. I
think the people of the United States demand of us, who are
intrusted with the government, to maintain that government;
to be just, and fear not; to make all and suitable provisions
for the execution of the laws, and to sustain the Union and
the constitution against whatsoever may endanger them. For
one, I obey this public voice; I comply with this demand of
the people. I support the administration in measures which I
believe to be necessary; and, while pursuing this course, I
look unhesitatingly, and with the utmost confidence, for the
approbation of the country."
The support which Mr. Webster gave to all the President's measures
in relation to South Carolina, and his exposure of the doctrine of
nullification, being the first to detect and denounce that heresy,
made him extremely obnoxious to Mr. Calhoun, and his friends; and
must have been the main cause of his exclusion from the confidence
of Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun in the concoction of their bill, called
a compromise. His motives as well as his actions were attacked,
and he was accused of subserviency to the President for the sake
of future favor. At the same time all the support which he gave
to these measures was the regular result of the principles which
he laid down in his first speeches against nullification in the
debate with Mr. Hayne, and he could not have done less without being
derelict to his own principles then avowed. It was a proud era in
his life, supporting with transcendent ability the cause of the
constitution and of the country, in the person of a chief magistrate
to whom he was politically opposed bursting the bonds of party at
the call of duty, and displaying a patriotism worthy of admiration
and imitation. General Jackson felt the debt of gratitude and
admiration which he owed him; the country, without distinction of
party, felt the same; and the universality of the feeling was one of
the grateful instances of popular applause and justice when great
talents are seen exerting themselves for the good of the country. He
was the colossal figure on the political stage during that eventful
time; and his labors, splendid in their day, survive for the benefit
of distant posterity.
CHAPTER LXXXIV.
MR. CALHOUN'S NULLIFICATION RESOLUTIONS.
Simultaneously with the commencement of the discussions on the
South Carolina proceedings, was the introduction in the Senate of a
set of resolutions by Mr. Calhoun, entitled by him, "_Resolutions
on the powers of the government_;" but all involving the doctrine
of nullification; and the debate upon them deriving its point and
character from the discussion of that doctrine. The following were
the resolutions:
"_Resolved_, That the people of the several States composing
these United States are united as parties to a constitutional
compact, to which the people of each State acceded as a separate
sovereign community, each binding itself by its own particular
ratification; and that the Union, of which the said compact is
the bond, is a union between the States ratifying the same.
"_Resolved_, That the people of the several States, thus united
by the constitutional compact, in forming that instrument,
and in creating a general government to carry into effect
the objects for which they were formed, delegated to that
government, for that purpose, certain definite powers, to be
exercised jointly, reserving at the same time, each State to
itself, the residuary mass of powers, to be exercised by its own
separate government; and that whenever the general government
assumes the exercise of powers not delegated by the compact,
its acts are unauthorized, and are of no effect; and that the
same government is not made the final judge of the powers
delegated to it, since that would make its discretion, and not
the constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in
all other cases of compact among sovereign parties, without any
common judge, each has an equal right to judge for itself, as
well as of the infraction as of the mode and measure of redress.
"_Resolved_, That the assertions that the people of these United
States, taken collectively as individualss, are now, or ever
have been, united on the principle of the social compact, and
as such are now formed into one nation or people, or that they
have ever been so united in any one stage of their political
existence; that the people of the several States composing the
Union have not, as members thereof, retained their sovereignty;
that the allegiance of their citizens has been transferred to
the general government; that they have parted with the right of
punishing treason through their respective State governments;
and that they have not the right of judging in the last resort
as to the extent of the powers reserved, and, of consequence,
of those delegated; are not only without foundation in truth,
but are contrary to the most certain and plain historical facts,
and the dearest deductions of reason; and that all exercise
of power on the part of the general government, or any of its
departments, claiming authority from so erroneous assumptions,
must of necessity be unconstitutional, must tend directly and
inevitably to subvert the sovereignty of the States, to destroy
the federal character of the Union, and to rear on its ruins
a consolidated government, without constitutional check or
limitation, and which must necessarily terminate in the loss of
liberty itself."
To which Mr. Grundy offered a counter set, as follows:
"1. _Resolved_, That by the constitution of the United States,
certain powers are delegated to the general government, and
those not delegated, or prohibited to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people.
"2. _Resolved_, That one of the powers expressly granted by the
constitution to the general government, and prohibited to the
States, is that of laying duties on imports.
"3. _Resolved_, That the power to lay imposts is by the
constitution wholly transferred from the State authorities to
the general government, without any reservation of power or
right on the part of the State.
"4. _Resolved_, That the tariff laws of 1828 and 1832 are
exercises of the constitutional power possessed by the Congress
of the United States, whatever various opinions may exist as to
their policy and justice.
"5. _Resolved_, That an attempt on the part of a State to annul
an act of Congress passed upon any subject exclusively confided
by the constitution to Congress, is an encroachment on the
rights of the general government.
"6. _Resolved_, That attempts to obstruct or prevent the
execution of the several acts of Congress imposing duties on
imports, whether by ordinances of conventions or legislative
enactments, are not warranted by the constitution and are
dangerous to the political institutions of the country."
It was in the discussion of these resolutions, and the kindred
subjects of the "force bill" and the "revenue collection bill,"
that Mr. Calhoun first publicly revealed the source from which
he obtained the seminal idea of nullification as a remedy in a
government. The Virginia resolutions of '98-'99, were the assumed
source of the power itself as applicable to our federal and State
governments; but the essential idea of nullification as a peaceful
and lawful mode of arresting a measure of the general government
by the action of one of the States, was derived from the _veto_
power of the tribunes of the people in the Roman government. I had
often heard him talk of that tribunitian power, and celebrate it
as the perfection of good government--as being for the benefit of
the weaker part, and operating negatively to prevent oppression,
and not positively to do injustice--but I never saw him carry that
idea into a public speech but once, and that was on the discussion
of his resolutions of this session; for though actually delivered
while the "force bill" was before the Senate, yet all his doctrinal
argument on that bill was the amplification of his nullification
resolutions. On that occasion he traced the Roman tribunitian power,
and considered it a cure for all the disorders to which the Roman
state had been subject, and the cause to which all her subsequent
greatness was to be attributed. This remarkable speech was delivered
February 15th, 1833, and after depicting a government of the
majority--a majority unchecked by a right in the minority of staying
their measures--to be unmitigated despotism, he then proceeded to
argue in favor of the excellence of the _veto_ and the _secession_
power; and thus delivered himself:
"He might appeal to history for the truth of these remarks, of
which the Roman furnished the most familiar and striking. It was
a well-known fact, that, from the expulsion of the Tarquins,
to the time of the establishment of the tribunitian power,
the government fell into a state of the greatest disorder and
distraction, and, he might add, corruption. How did this happen?
The explanation will throw important light on the subject under
consideration. The community was divided into two parts, the
patricians and the plebeians, with the powers of the state
principally in the hands of the former, without adequate check
to protect the rights of the latter. The result was as might be
expected. The patricians converted the powers of the government
into the means of making money, to enrich themselves and their
dependants. They, in a word, had their American system, growing
out of the peculiar character of the government and condition
of the country. This requires explanation. At that period,
according to the laws of nations, when one nation conquered
another, the lands of the vanquished belonged to the victors;
and, according to the Roman law the lands thus acquired were
divided into parts, one allotted to the poorer class of the
people, and the other assigned to the use of the treasury, of
which the patricians had the distribution and administration.
The patricians abused their power, by withholding from the
people that which ought to have been allotted to them, and by
converting to their own use that which ought to have gone to
the treasury. In a word, they took to themselves the entire
spoils of victory, and they had thus the most powerful motive
to keep the state perpetually involved in war, to the utter
impoverishment and oppression of the people. After resisting
the abuse of power, by all peaceable means, and the oppression
becoming intolerable, the people at last withdrew from the city;
they, in a word, seceded; and, to induce them to reunite, the
patricians conceded to the plebeians, as the means of protecting
their separate interests, the very power which he contended is
necessary to protect the rights of the States, but which is now
represented as necessarily leading to disunion. They granted
to the people the right of choosing three tribunes from among
themselves, whose persons should be sacred, and who should
have the right of interposing their veto, not only against the
passage of laws, but even against their execution; a power
which those who take a shallow insight into human nature would
pronounce inconsistent with the strength and unity of the state,
if not utterly impracticable. Yet, so far from that being the
effect, from that day the genius of Rome became ascendant, and
victory followed her steps till she had established an almost
universal dominion.
"How can a result so contrary to all anticipation be explained?
The explanation appeared to him to be simple. No measure or
movement could be adopted without the concurring consent of both
the patricians and plebeians, and each thus became dependent
on the other, and, of consequence, the desire and objects of
neither could be effected without the concurrence of the other.
To obtain this concurrence, each was compelled to consult the
good will of the other, and to elevate to office not simply
those who might have the confidence of the order to which he
belonged, but also that of the other. The result was, that
men possessing those qualities which would naturally command
confidence, moderation, wisdom, justice, and patriotism, were
elevated to office; and these, by the weight of their authority
and the prudence of their counsel, together with that spirit of
unanimity necessarily resulting from the concurring assent of
the two orders, furnishes the real explanation of the power of
the Roman state, and of that extraordinary wisdom, moderation,
and firmness, which in so remarkable a degree characterized
her public men. He might illustrate the truth of the position
which he had laid down, by a reference to the history of all
free states, ancient and modern, distinguished for their power
and patriotism; and conclusively show not only that there was
not one which had not some contrivance, under some form, by
which the concurring assent of the different portions of the
community was made necessary in the action of government, but
also that the virtue, patriotism, and strength of the state were
in direct proportion to the strength of the means of securing
such assent. In estimating the operation of this principle in
our system, which depends, as he had stated, on the right of
interposition on the part of the State, we must not omit to
take into consideration the amending power, by which new powers
may be granted, or any derangement of the system be corrected,
by the concurring assent of three-fourths of the States; and
thus, in the same degree, strengthening the power of repairing
any derangement occasioned by the executive action of a State.
In fact, the power of interposition, fairly understood, may be
considered in the light of an appeal against the usurpations
of the general government, the joint agent of all the States,
to the States themselves, to be decided, under the amending
power, affirmatively, in favor of the government, by the voice
of three-fourths of the States, as the highest power known under
the system.
"Mr. C. said that he knew the difficulty, in our country,
of establishing the truth of the principle for which he
contended, though resting upon the clearest reason, and tested
by the universal experience of free nations. He knew that the
governments of the several States would be cited as an argument
against the conclusion to which he had arrived, and which, for
the most part, were constructed on the principle of the absolute
majority; but, in his opinion, a satisfactory answer could be
given; that the objects of expenditure which fell within the
sphere of a State government were few and inconsiderable; so
that, be their action ever so irregular, it could occasion
but little derangement. If, instead of being members of this
great confederacy, they formed distinct communities, and
were compelled to raise armies, and incur other expenses
necessary for their defence, the laws which he had laid down as
necessarily controlling the action of a State, where the will
of an absolute and unchecked majority prevailed, would speedily
disclose themselves in faction, anarchy, and corruption.
Even as the case is, the operation of the causes to which he
had referred were perceptible in some of the larger and more
populous members of the Union, whose governments had a powerful
central action, and which already showed a strong tendency
to that moneyed action which is the invariable forerunner of
corruption and convulsions.
"But to return to the general government; we have now sufficient
experience to ascertain that the tendency to conflict in this
action is between Southern and other sections. The latter,
having a decided majority, must habitually be possessed of
the powers of the government, both in this and in the other
House; and, being governed by that instinctive love of power
so natural to the human breast, they must become the advocates
of the power of government, and in the same degree opposed
to the limitations; while the other and weaker section is as
necessarily thrown on the side of the limitations. In one
word, the one section is the natural guardian of the delegated
powers, and the other of the reserved; and the struggle on the
side of the former will be to enlarge the powers, while that
on the opposite side will be to restrain them within their
constitutional limits. The contest will, in fact, be a contest
between power and liberty, and such he considered the present;
a contest in which the weaker section, with its peculiar labor,
productions, and situation, has at stake all that can be dear
to freemen. Should they be able to maintain in their full vigor
their reserved rights, liberty and prosperity will be their
portion; but if they yield, and permit the stronger interest to
consolidate within itself all the powers of the government, then
will its fate be more wretched than that of the aborigines whom
they have expelled, or of their slaves. In this great struggle
between the delegated and reserved powers, so far from repining
that his lot and that of those whom he represented is cast on
the side of the latter, he rejoiced that such is the fact;
for though we participate in but few of the advantages of the
government, we are compensated, and more than compensated, in
not being so much exposed to its corruption. Nor did he repine
that the duty, so difficult to be discharged, as the defence
of the reserved powers against, apparently, such fearful odds,
had been assigned to them. To discharge successfully this high
duty requires the highest qualities, moral and intellectual;
and, should you perform it with a zeal and ability in proportion
to its magnitude, instead of being mere planters, our section
will become distinguished for its patriots and statesmen. But,
on the other hand, if we prove unworthy of this high destiny,
if we yield to the steady encroachment of power, the severest
and most debasing calamity and corruption will overspread the
land. Every Southern man, true to the interests of his section,
and faithful to the duties which Providence has allotted him,
will be for ever excluded from the honors and emoluments of
this government, which will be reserved for those only who have
qualified themselves, by political prostitution, for admission
into the Magdalen Asylum."
In this extract from that remarkable speech, the first one in which
Mr. Calhoun defended nullification and secession in the Senate, and
in which every word bears the impress of intense thought, there is
distinctly to be seen his opinion of the defects of our duplicate
form of government (State and federal), and of the remedy for
those defects. I say, in our form of government; for his speech
had a practical application to ourselves, and was a defence, or
justification of the actual measures of the State he represented.
And this defect was, _the unchecked authority of a majority_;
and the remedy was, _an authority in the minority to check that
majority, and to secede_. This clearly was an absolute condemnation
of the fundamental principle upon which the administration of the
federal constitution, and of the State constitutions rested. But
he did not limit himself to the benefits of the _veto_ and of
_secession_, as shown in Roman history; he had recourse to the
Jewish for the same purpose--and found it--not in a _veto_ in each
of the twelve tribes, but in the right of secession; and found it,
not in the minority, but the majority, in the reign of Jeroboam,
when ten tribes seceded. That example is thus introduced:
"Among the few exceptions in the Asiatic nations, the government
of the twelve tribes of Israel, in its early period, was
the most striking. Their government, at first, was a mere
confederation, without any central power, till a military
chieftain, with the title of king, was placed at its head,
without, however, merging the original organization of the
twelve distinct tribes. This was the commencement of that
central action among that peculiar people, which, in three
generations, terminated in a permanent division of their
tribes. It is impossible even for a careless reader to peruse
the history of that event without being forcibly struck with
the analogy in the causes which led to their separation, and
those which now threaten us with a similar calamity. With the
establishment of the central power in the king commenced a
system of taxation, which, under king Solomon, was greatly
increased, to defray the expense of rearing the temple,
of enlarging and embellishing Jerusalem, the seat of the
central government, and the other profuse expenditures of his
magnificent reign. Increased taxation was followed by its
natural consequences--discontent and complaint, which before
his death began to excite resistance. On the succession of his
son, Rehoboam, the ten tribes, headed by Jeroboam, demanded
a reduction of the taxes; the temple being finished, and the
embellishment of Jerusalem completed, and the money which had
been raised for that purpose being no longer required, or, in
other words, the debt being paid, they demanded a reduction
of the duties--a repeal of the tariff. The demand was taken
under consideration, and, after consulting the old men (the
counsellors of '98), who advised a reduction, he then took the
opinion of the younger politicians, who had since grown up, and
knew not the doctrines of their fathers. He hearkened unto their
counsel, and refused to make the reduction; and the secession
of the ten tribes, under Jeroboam, followed. The tribes of
Judah and Benjamin, which had received the disbursements, alone
remained to the house of David."
This example also had a practical application, and a squint at the
Virginia resolutions of '98-'99, and at the military chieftain then
at the head of our government, with a broad intimation of what was
to happen if the taxes were not reduced; and that happened to be
_secession_. And all this, and the elaborate speech from which it is
taken, and many others of the same character at the same time, was
delivered at a time when the elections had decided for a reduction
of the taxes--when a bill in the House was under consideration for
that purpose--and when his own "compromise" bill was in a state of
concoction, and advanced to a stage to assure its final passing.
Strong must have been Mr. Calhoun's desire for his favorite remedy,
when he could contend for it under such circumstances--under
circumstances which showed that it could not be wanted for the
purpose which he then avowed. Satisfied of the excellence, and
even necessity in our system, of this remedy, the next question
was to create it, or to find it; create it, by an amendment to the
constitution; or find it already existing there; and this latter was
done by a new reading of the famous Virginia resolutions of '98-'99.
The right in any State to arrest an act of Congress, and to stay it
until three fourths of the States ordered it to proceed, and with a
right forcibly to resist if any attempt was made in the mean time to
enforce it, with the correlative right of secession and permanent
separation, were all found by him in these resolutions--the third
especially, which was read, and commented upon for the purpose. Mr.
Rives, of Virginia, repulsed that interpretation of the act of his
State, and showed that an appeal to public opinion was all that was
intended; and quoted the message of Governor Monroe to show that the
judgment of the federal court, under one of the acts declared to be
unconstitutional, was carried into effect in the capital of Virginia
with the order and tranquillity of any other judgment. He said:
"But, sir, the proceedings of my State, on another occasion of
far higher importance, have been so frequently referred to, in
the course of this debate, as an example to justify the present
proceedings of South Carolina, that I may be excused for saying
something of them. What, then, was the conduct of Virginia,
in the memorable era of '98 and '99? She solemnly protested
against the alien and sedition acts, as 'palpable and alarming
infractions of the constitution;' she communicated that protest
to the other States of the Union, and earnestly appealed to them
to unite with her in a like declaration, that this deliberate
and solemn expression of the opinion of the States, as parties
to the constitutional compact, should have its proper effect on
the councils of the nation, in procuring a revision and repeal
of the obnoxious acts. This was 'the head and front of her
offending'--no more. The whole object of the proceedings was,
by the peaceful force of public opinion, embodied through the
organ of the State legislatures, to obtain a repeal of the laws
in question, not to oppose or arrest their execution, while
they remained unrepealed. That this was the true spirit and
real purpose of the proceeding, is abundantly manifested by the
whole of the able debate which took place in the legislature of
the State, on the occasion. All the speakers, who advocated the
resolutions which were finally adopted, distinctly placed them
on that legitimate, constitutional ground. I need only refer
to the emphatic declaration of John Taylor, of Caroline, the
distinguished mover and able champion of the resolutions. He
said 'the appeal was to public opinion; if that is against us,
we must yield.' The same sentiment was avowed and maintained by
every friend of the resolutions, throughout the debate.
"But, sir, the real intentions and policy of Virginia were
proved, not by declarations and speeches merely, but by facts.
If there ever was a law odious to a whole people, by its daring
violation of the fundamental guaranties of public liberty, the
freedom of speech and freedom of the press, it was the sedition
law to the people of Virginia. Yet, amid all this indignant
dissatisfaction, after the solemn protest of the legislature,
in '98, and the renewal of that protest, in '99, this most
odious and arbitrary law was peaceably carried into execution,
in the capital of the State, by the prosecution and punishment
of Callender, who was fined and imprisoned for daring to
canvass the conduct of our public men (as Lyon and Cooper had
been elsewhere), and was still actually imprisoned, when the
legislature assembled, in December, 1800. Notwithstanding the
excited sensibility of the public mind, no popular tumult, no
legislative interference, disturbed, in any manner, the full and
peaceable execution of the law. The Senate will excuse me, I
trust, for calling their attention to a most forcible commentary
on the true character of the Virginia proceedings of '98 and
'99 (as illustrated in this transaction), which was contained
in the official communication of Mr. Monroe, then Governor of
the State, to the legislature, at its assembling, in December,
1800. After referring to the distribution which had been ordered
to be made among the people, of Mr. Madison's celebrated report,
of '99, he says 'In connection with this subject, it is proper
to add, that, since your last session, the sedition law, one
of the acts complained of, has been carried into effect, in
this commonwealth, by the decision of a federal court. I notice
this event, not with a view of censuring or criticising it. The
transaction has gone to the world, and the impartial will judge
of it as it deserves. I notice it for the purpose of remarking
that the decision was executed with the same order and tranquil
submission, on the part of the people, as could have been shown
by them, on a similar occasion, to any the most necessary,
constitutional and popular acts of the government.'"
Mr. Webster, in denying the derivation of nullification and
secession from the constitution, said:
"The constitution does not provide for events which must be
preceded by its own destruction. Secession, therefore, since it
must bring these consequences with it, is revolutionary. And
nullification is equally revolutionary. What is revolution?
Why, sir, that is revolution which overturns, or controls, or
successfully resists the existing public authority; that which
arrests the exercise of the supreme power; that which introduces
a new paramount authority into the rule of the state. Now, sir,
this is the precise object of nullification. It attempts to
supersede the supreme legislative authority. It arrests the arm
of the Executive Magistrate. It interrupts the exercise of the
accustomed judicial power. Under the name of an ordinance, it
declares null and void, within the State, all the revenue laws
of the United States. Is not this revolutionary? Sir, so soon as
this ordinance shall be carried into effect, a revolution will
have commenced in South Carolina. She will have thrown off the
authority to which her citizens have, heretofore, been subject.
She will have declared her own opinions and her own will to be
above the laws, and above the power of those who are intrusted
with their administration. If she makes good these declarations,
she is revolutionized. As to her, it is as distinctly a change
of the supreme power as the American Revolution, of 1776. That
revolution did not subvert government, in all its forms. It
did not subvert local laws and municipal administrations. It
only threw off the dominion of a power claiming to be superior,
and to have a right, in many important respects, to exercise
legislative authority. Thinking this authority to have been
usurped or abused, the American colonies, now the United States,
bade it defiance, and freed themselves from it, by means of
a revolution. But that revolution left them with their own
municipal laws still, and the forms of local government. If
Carolina now shall effectually resist the laws of Congress--if
she shall be her own judge, take her remedy into her own hands,
obey the laws of the Union when she pleases, and disobey them
when she pleases--she will relieve herself from a paramount
power, as distinctly as did the American colonies, in 1776. In
other words, she will achieve, as to herself, a revolution."
The speaker then proceeded to show what nullification was, as
reduced to practice in the ordinance, and other proceedings of South
Carolina; and said:
"But, sir, while practical nullification in South Carolina would
be, as to herself, actual and distinct revolution, its necessary
tendency must also be to spread revolution, and to break up the
constitution, as to all the other States. It strikes a deadly
blow at the vital principle of the whole Union. To allow State
resistance to the laws of Congress to be rightful and proper,
to admit nullification in some States, and yet not expect
to see a dismemberment of the entire government, appears to
me the wildest illusion and the most extravagant folly. The
gentleman seems not conscious of the direction or the rapidity
of his own course. The current of his opinions sweeps him
along, he knows not whither. To begin with nullification, with
the avowed intent, nevertheless, not to proceed to secession,
dismemberment, and general revolution, is as if one were to take
the plunge of Niagara, and cry out that he would stop half-way
down. In the one case, as in the other, the rash adventurer must
go to the bottom of the dark abyss below, were it not that that
abyss has no discovered bottom.
"Nullification, if successful, arrests the power of the law,
absolves citizens from their duty, subverts the foundation
both of protection and obedience, dispenses with oaths and
obligations of allegiance, and elevates another authority to
supreme command. Is not this revolution? And it raises to
supreme command four-and-twenty distinct powers, each professing
to be under a general government, and yet each setting its
laws at defiance at pleasure. Is not this anarchy, as well as
revolution? Sir, the constitution of the United States was
received as a whole, and for the whole country. If it cannot
stand altogether, it cannot stand in parts; and, if the laws
cannot be executed every where, they cannot long be executed
any where. The gentleman very well knows that all duties and
imposts must be uniform throughout the country. He knows that
we cannot have one rule or one law for South Carolina, and
another for other States. He must see, therefore, and does
see--every man sees--that the only alternative is a repeal of
the laws throughout the whole Union, or their execution in
Carolina as well as elsewhere. And this repeal is demanded,
because a single State interposes her veto, and threatens
resistance! The result of the gentleman's opinions, or rather
the very text of his doctrine, is, that no act of Congress can
bind all the States, the constitutionality of which is not
admitted by all; or, in other words, that no single State is
bound, against its own dissent, by a law of imposts. This was
precisely the evil experienced under the old confederation, and
for remedy of which this constitution was adopted. The leading
object in establishing this government, an object forced on
the country by the condition of the times, and the absolute
necessity of the law, was to give to Congress power to lay and
collect imposts without the consent of particular States. The
revolutionary debt remained unpaid; the national treasury was
bankrupt; the country was destitute of credit; Congress issued
its requisitions on the States, and the States neglected them;
there was no power of coercion but war; Congress could not lay
imposts, or other taxes, by its own authority; the whole general
government, therefore, was little more than a name. The articles
of confederation, as to purposes of revenue and finance, were
nearly a dead letter. The country sought to escape from this
condition, at once feeble and disgraceful, by constituting a
government which should have power of itself to lay duties
and taxes, and to pay the public debt, and provide for the
general welfare; and to lay these duties and taxes in all the
States, without asking the consent of the State governments.
This was the very power on which the new constitution was to
depend for all its ability to do good; and, without it, it
can be no government, now or at any time. Yet, sir, it is
precisely against this power, so absolutely indispensable to
the very being of the government, that South Carolina directs
her ordinance. She attacks the government in its authority to
raise revenue, the very mainspring of the whole system; and,
if she succeed, every movement of that system must inevitably
cease. It is of no avail that she declares that she does not
resist the law as a revenue law, but as a law for protecting
manufactures. It is a revenue law; it is the very law by force
of which the revenue is collected; if it be arrested in any
State, the revenue ceases in that State; it is, in a word, the
sole reliance of the government for the means of maintaining
itself and performing its duties."
Mr. Webster condensed into four brief and pointed propositions his
opinion of the nature of our federal government, as being a UNION
in contradistinction to a LEAGUE, and as acting upon INDIVIDUALS
in contradistinction to STATES, and as being, in these features
discriminated from the old confederation.
"1. That the constitution of the United States is not a league,
confederacy, or compact, between the people of the several
States in their sovereign capacities; but a government proper,
founded on the adoption of the people, and creating direct
relations between itself and individuals.
"2. That no State authority has power to dissolve these
relations; that nothing can dissolve them but revolution; and
that, consequently, there can be no such thing as secession
without revolution.
"3. That there is a supreme law, consisting of the constitution
of the United States, acts of Congress passed in pursuance of
it, and treaties; and that, in cases not capable of assuming
the character of a suit in law or equity, Congress must judge
of, and finally interpret, this supreme law, so often as it has
occasion to pass acts of legislation; and, in cases capable of
assuming, and actually assuming, the character of a suit, the
Supreme Court of the United States is the final interpreter.
"4. That an attempt by a State to abrogate, annul, or nullify
an act of Congress, or to arrest its operation within her
limits, on the ground that, in her opinion, such law is
unconstitutional, is a direct usurpation on the just powers
of the general government, and on the equal rights of other
States; a plain violation of the constitution, and a proceeding
essentially revolutionary in its character and tendency."
Mr. Webster concluded his speech, an elaborate and able one, in
which he appeared in the high character of patriot still more than
that of orator, in which he intimated that some other cause, besides
the alleged one, must be at the bottom of this desire for secession.
He was explicit that the world could hardly believe in such a
reason, and that we ourselves who hear and see all that is said and
done, could not believe it. He concluded thus:
"Sir, the world will scarcely believe that this whole
controversy, and all the desperate measures which its support
requires, have no other foundation than a difference of opinion,
upon a provision of the constitution, between a majority of the
people of South Carolina, on one side, and a vast majority of
the whole people of the United States on the other. It will not
credit the fact, it will not admit the possibility, that, in an
enlightened age, in a free, popular republic, under a government
where the people govern, as they must always govern, under such
systems, by majorities, at a time of unprecedented happiness,
without practical oppression, without evils, such as may not
only be pretended, but felt and experienced; evils not slight
or temporary, but deep, permanent, and intolerable; a single
State should rush into conflict with all the rest, attempt to
put down the power of the Union by her own laws, and to support
those laws by her military power, and thus break up and destroy
the world's last hope. And well the world may be incredulous.
We, who hear and see it, can ourselves hardly yet believe it.
Even after all that had preceded it, this ordinance struck the
country with amazement. It was incredible and inconceivable,
that South Carolina should thus plunge headlong into resistance
to the laws, on a matter of opinion, and on a question in which
the preponderance of opinion, both of the present day and of
all past time, was so overwhelmingly against her. The ordinance
declares that Congress has exceeded its just power, by laying
duties on imports, intended for the protection of manufactures.
This is the opinion of South Carolina; and on the strength of
that opinion she nullifies the laws. Yet has the rest of the
country no right to its opinions also? Is one State to sit sole
arbitress? She maintains that those laws are plain, deliberate,
and palpable violations of the constitution; that she has a
sovereign right to decide this matter; and, that, having so
decided, she is authorized to resist their execution, by her
own sovereign power; and she declares that she will resist it,
though such resistance should shatter the Union into atoms."
Mr. Davis, of Massachusetts, had been still more explicit, in
the expression of the belief already given (in the extract from
his speech contained in this work), that the discontent in South
Carolina had a root deeper than that of the tariff; and General
Jackson intimated the same thing in his message to the two Houses
on the South Carolina proceedings, and in which he alluded to the
ambitious and personal feelings which might be involved in them.
Certainly it was absolutely incomprehensible that this doctrine of
nullification and secession, prefigured in the Roman secession to
the sacred mount, and the Jewish disruption of the twelve tribes,
should be thus enforced, and impressed, for that cause of the tariff
alone; when, to say nothing of the intention of the President, the
Congress and the country to reduce it, Mr. Calhoun himself had
provided for its reduction, satisfactorily to himself, in the act
called a "compromise;" to which he was a full contracting party.
It was impossible to believe in the soleness of that reason, in
the presence of circumstances which annulled it; and Mr. Calhoun
himself, in a part of his speech which had been quoted, seemed to
reveal a glimpse of two others--slavery, about which there was at
that time no agitation--and the presidency, to which patriotic
Southern men could not be elected. The glimpse exhibited of the
first of these causes, was in this sentence: "_The contest_ (between
the North and the South) _will, in fact, be a contest between
power and liberty, and such he considered the present; a contest
in which the weaker section, with its peculiar labor, productions
and situation, has at stake all that is dear to freemen._" Here is a
distinct declaration that there was then a contest between the two
sections of the Union, and that that contest was between power and
liberty, in which the freedom and the slave property of the South
were at stake. This declaration at the time attracted but little
attention, there being then no sign of a slavery agitation; but to
close observers it was an ominous revelation of something to come,
and an apparent laying an anchor to windward for a new agitation on
a new subject, after the tariff was done with. The second intimation
which he gave out, and which referred to the exclusion of the
patriotic men of the South from the presidency was in this sentence:
"_Every Southern man, true to the interests of his section, and
faithful to the duties which Providence has allotted him, will be
forever excluded from the honors and emoluments of this government,
which will be reserved for those only who have qualified themselves,
by political prostitution, for admission into the Magdalen asylum._"
This was bitter; and while revealing his own feelings at the
prospect of his own failure for the presidency (which from the
brightness of the noon-day sun was dimming down to the obscurity of
dark night), was, at the same time, unjust, and contradicted by all
history, previous and subsequent, of our national elections; and by
his own history in connection with them. The North had supported
Southern men for President--a long succession of them--and even
twice concurred in dropping a Northern President at the end of a
single term, and taking a Southern in his place. He himself had had
signal proofs of good will from the North in his two elections to
the vice-presidency; in which he had been better supported in the
North than in the South, getting the whole party vote in the former
while losing part of it in the latter. It was evident then, that
the protective tariff was not the sole, or the main cause of the
South Carolina discontent; that nullification and secession were to
continue, though their ostensible cause ceased; that resistance was
to continue on a new ground, upon the same principle, until a new
and impossible point was attained. This was declared by Mr. Calhoun
in his place, on the day of the passage of the "compromise" bill,
and on hearing that the "force bill" had finally passed the House of
Representatives. He then stood up, and spoke thus:
"He had said, that as far as this subject was concerned, he
believed that peace and harmony would follow. But there is
another connected with it, which had passed this House, and
which had just been reported as having passed the other, which
would prevent the return of quiet. He considered the measure to
which he referred as a virtual repeal of the constitution; and,
in fact, worse than a positive and direct repeal; as it would
leave the majority without any shackles on its power, while the
minority, hoping to shelter itself under its protection, and
having still some respect left for the instrument, would be
trammelled without being protected by its provisions. It would
be idle to attempt to disguise that the bill will be a practical
assertion of one theory of the constitution against another--the
theory advocated by the supporters of the bill, that ours is a
consolidated government, in which the States have no rights,
and in which, in fact, they bear the same relation to the whole
community as the counties do to the States; and against that
view of the constitution which considers it as a compact formed
by the States as separate communities, and binding between the
States, and not between the individual citizens. No man of
candor, who admitted that our constitution is a compact, and was
formed and is binding in the manner he had just stated, but must
acknowledge that this bill utterly overthrows and prostrates
the constitution; and that it leaves the government under the
control of the will of an absolute majority.
"If the measure be acquiesced in, it will be the termination of
that long controversy which began in the convention, and which
has been continued under various fortunes until the present
day. But it ought not--it will not--it cannot be acquiesced
in--unless the South is dead to the sense of her liberty, and
blind to those dangers which surround and menace them; she never
will cease resistance until the act is erased from the statute
book. To suppose that the entire power of the Union may be
placed in the hands of this government, and that all the various
interests in this widely extended country may be safely placed
under the will of an unchecked majority, is the extreme of folly
and madness. The result would be inevitable, that power would
be exclusively centered in the dominant interest north of this
river, and that all the south of it would be held as subjected
provinces, to be controlled for the exclusive benefit of the
stronger section. Such a state of things could not endure; and
the constitution and liberty of the country would fall in the
contest, if permitted to continue.
"He trusted that that would not be the case, but that the
advocates of liberty every where, as well in the North as in
the South; that those who maintained the doctrines of '98, and
the sovereignties of the States; that the republican party
throughout the country would rally against this attempt to
establish, by law, doctrines which must subvert the principles
on which free institutions could be maintained."
Here was a new departure, upon a new point, as violent as the former
complaint, looking to the same remedy, and unfounded and impossible.
This force bill, which was a repeal of the constitution, in the eyes
of Mr. Calhoun, was a mere revival of formerly existing statutes,
and could have no operation, if resistance to the tariff laws
ceased. Yet, nullification and secession were to proceed until it
was erased from the statute book; and all the morbid views of the
constitution, and of the Virginia resolutions of '98 and '99, were
to hold their places in Mr. Calhoun's imagination, and dominate his
conduct in all his political action, until this statute was erased.
But it is due to many of his friends and followers, to say that,
while concurring in his complaints against the federal government,
and in his remedies, they dissented from his source of derivation
of these remedies. He found them in the constitution, shown to
be there by the '98-'99 Virginia resolutions; the manly sense of
McDuffie, and some others, rejected that sophistry, and found their
justification wholly in the revolutionary right of self-defence from
intolerable oppression.
CHAPTER LXXXV.
SECRET HISTORY OF THE "COMPROMISE" OF 1833.
Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Clay were early, and long, rival aspirants for
the Presidency, and antagonistic leaders in opposite political
systems; and the coalition between them in 1833 was only a hollow
truce (embittered by the humiliations to which Mr. Calhoun was
subjected in the protective features of the "compromise") and only
kept alive for a few years by their mutual interest with respect to
General Jackson and Mr. Van Buren. A rupture was foreseen by every
observer; and in a few years it took place, and in open Senate,
and in a way to give the key to the secret motives which led to
that compromise. It became a question between them which had the
upper hand of the other--in their own language--which was master of
the other--on that occasion. Mr. Calhoun declared that he had Mr.
Clay down--had him on his back--was his master. Mr. Clay retorted:
He my master! I would not own him for the meanest of my slaves.
Of course, there were calls to order about that time; but the
question of mastery, and the causes which produced the passage of
the act, were still points of contestation between them, and came
up for altercation in other forms. Mr. Calhoun claimed a controling
influence for the military attitude of South Carolina, and its
intimidating effect upon the federal government. Mr. Clay ridiculed
this idea of intimidation, and said the little boys that muster in
the streets with their tiny wooden swords, had as well pretend to
terrify the grand army of Bonaparte: and afterwards said he would
tell how it happened, which was thus: His friend from Delaware (Mr.
John M. Clayton), said to him one day--these South Carolinians
act very badly, but they are good fellows, and it is a pity to
let Jackson hang them. This was after Mr. Clay had brought in his
bill, and while it lingered without the least apparent chance of
passing--paralyzed by the vehement opposition of the manufacturers:
and he urged Mr. Clay to take a new move with his bill--to get it
referred to a committee--and by them got into a shape in which it
could pass. Mr. Clay did so--had the reference made--and a committee
appointed suitable for the measure--some of strong will, and
earnest for the bill, and some of gentle temperament, inclined to
easy measures on hard occasions. They were: Messrs. Clay, Calhoun,
Clayton, Dallas, Grundy, Rives.
This was the movement, and the inducing cause on one side: now
for the cause on the other. Mr. Letcher, a representative from
Kentucky, was the first to conceive an idea of some compromise
to release South Carolina from her position; and communicated
it to Mr. Clay; who received it at first coolly and doubtfully.
Afterwards, beginning to entertain the idea, he mentioned it to Mr.
Webster, who repulsed it entirely, saying--"It would be yielding
great principles to faction; and that the time had come to test
the strength of the constitution and the government." After that
he was no more consulted. Mr. Clay drew up his bill, and sent it
to Mr. Calhoun through Mr. Letcher--he and Mr. Calhoun not being
on speaking terms. He objected decidedly to parts of the bill;
and said, if Mr. Clay knew his reasons, he certainly would yield
the objectionable parts. Mr. Letcher undertook to arrange an
interview;--which was effected--to take place in Mr. Clay's room.
The meeting was cold, distant and civil. Mr. Clay rose, bowed to his
visitor, and asked him to take a seat. Mr. Letcher, to relieve the
embarrassment, immediately opened the business of the interview:
which ended without results. Mr. Clay remained inflexible, saying
that if he gave up the parts of the bill objected to, it could not
be passed; and that it would be better to give it up at once. In
the mean time Mr. Letcher had seen the President, and sounded him
on the subject of a compromise: the President answered, he would
have no negotiation, and would execute the laws. This was told by
Mr. Letcher to Mr. McDuffie, to go to Mr. Calhoun. Soon after, Mr.
Letcher found himself required to make a direct communication to
Mr. Calhoun. Mr. Josiah S. Johnson, senator from Louisiana, came
to his room in the night, after he had gone to bed--and informed
him of what he had just learnt:--which was, that General Jackson
would admit of no further delay, and was determined to take at once
a decided course with Mr. Calhoun (an arrest and trial for high
treason being understood). Mr. Johnson deemed it of the utmost
moment that Mr. Calhoun should be instantly warned of his danger;
and urged Mr. Letcher to go and apprise him. He went--found Mr.
Calhoun in bed--was admitted to him--informed him. "He was evidently
disturbed." Mr. Letcher and Mr. Clay were in constant communication
with Mr. Clayton.
After the committee had been appointed, Mr. Clayton assembled the
manufacturers, for without their consent nothing could be done;
and in the meeting with them it was resolved to pass the bill,
provided the Southern senators, including the nullifiers, should
vote both for the amendments which should be proposed, and for the
passage of the bill itself--the amendments being the same afterwards
offered in the Senate by Mr. Clay, and especially the home valuation
feature. When these amendments, thus agreed upon by the friends of
the tariff, were proposed in the committee, they were voted down;
and not being able to agree upon any thing, the bill was carried
back to the senate without alteration. But Mr. Clayton did not give
up. Moved by a feeling of concern for those who were in peril, and
for the state of the country, and for the safety of the protective
system of which he was the decided advocate, he determined to have
the same amendments, so agreed upon by the friends of the tariff
and rejected by the committee, offered in the Senate; and, to
help Mr. Clay with the manufacturers, he put them into his hands
to be so offered--notifying Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Clay that unless
the amendments were adopted, and that by the Southern vote, every
nullifier inclusively, that the bill should not pass--that he
himself would move to lay it on the table. His reasons for making
the nullification vote a _sine qua non_ both on the amendments and
on the bill, and for them all, separately and collectively, was to
cut them off from pleading their unconstitutionality after they were
passed; and to make the authors of disturbance and armed resistance,
after resistance, parties upon the record to the measures, and
every part of the measures, which were to pacify them. Unless these
leaders were thus bound, he looked upon any pacification as a hollow
truce, to be succeeded by some new disturbance in a short time; and
therefore he was peremptory with both Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun,
denouncing the sacrifice of the bill if his terms were not complied
with; and letting them know that he had friends enough bound to his
support. They wished to know the names of the senators who were to
stand by him in this extreme course--which he refused to give; no
doubt restrained by an injunction of secrecy, there being many men
of gentle temperaments who are unwilling to commit themselves to
a measure until they see its issue, that the eclat of success may
consecrate what the gloom of defeat would damn. Being inexorable in
his claims, Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun agreed to the amendments, and
all voted for them, one by one, as Mr. Clay offered them, until it
came to the last--that revolting measure of the home valuation. As
soon as it was proposed, Mr. Calhoun and his friends met it with
violent opposition, declaring it to be unconstitutional, and an
insurmountable obstacle to their votes for the bill if put into
it. It was then late in the day, and the last day but one of the
session, and Mr. Clayton found himself in the predicament which
required the execution of his threat. He executed it, and moved to
lay it on the table, with the declaration that it was to lie there.
Mr. Clay went to him and besought him to withdraw the motion; but
in vain. He remained inflexible; and the bill then appeared to be
dead. In this extremity, the Calhoun wing retired to the colonnade
behind the Vice-President's chair, and held a brief consultation
among themselves: and presently Mr. Bibb, of Kentucky, came out, and
went to Mr. Clayton and asked him to withdraw his motion to give him
time to consider the amendment. Seeing this sign of yielding, Mr.
Clayton withdrew his motion--to be renewed if the amendment was not
voted for. A friend of the parties immediately moved an adjournment,
which was carried; and that night's reflections brought them to
the conclusion that the amendment must be passed; but still with
the belief, that, there being enough to pass it without him, Mr.
Calhoun should be spared the humiliation of appearing on the record
in its favor. This was told to Mr. Clayton, who declared it to be
impossible--that Mr. Calhoun's vote was indispensable, as nothing
would be considered secured by the passage of the bill unless his
vote appeared for every amendment separately, and for the whole
bill collectively. When the Senate met, and the bill was taken up,
it was still unknown what he would do; but his friends fell in, one
after the other, yielding their objections upon different grounds,
and giving their assent to this most flagrant instance (and that a
new one), of that protective legislation, against which they were
then raising troops in South Carolina! and limiting a day, and that
a short one, on which she was to be, _ipso facto_, a seceder from
the Union. Mr. Calhoun remained to the last, and only rose when the
vote was ready to be taken, and prefaced a few remarks with the
very notable declaration that he had then to "determine" which way
he would vote. He then declared in favor of the amendment, but upon
conditions which he desired the reporters to note; and which being
futile in themselves, only showed the desperation of his condition,
and the state of impossibility to which he was reduced. Several
senators let him know immediately the futility of his conditions;
and without saying more, he voted on ayes and noes for the
amendment; and afterwards for the whole bill. And this concluding
scene appears quite correctly reported in the authentic debates.
And thus the question of mastery in this famous "compromise," mooted
in the Senate by Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun as a problem between
themselves, is shown by the inside view of this bit of history,
to belong to neither of them, but to Mr. John M. Clayton, under
the instrumentality of Gen. Jackson, who, in the presidential
election, had unhorsed Mr. Clay and all his systems; and, in his
determination to execute the laws upon Mr. Calhoun, had left him
without remedy, except in the resource of this "compromise." Upon
the outside history of this measure which I have compiled, like a
chronicler, from the documentary materials, Mr. Calhoun and Mr.
Clay appear as master spirits, appeasing the storm which they had
raised; on the inside view they appear as subaltern agents dominated
by the necessities of their condition, and providing for themselves
instead of their country--Mr. Clay, in saving the protective policy,
and preserving the support of the manufacturers; and Mr. Calhoun,
in saving himself from the perils of his condition: and both, in
leaving themselves at liberty to act together in future against
General Jackson and Mr. Van Buren.
CHAPTER LXXXVI.
COMPROMISE LEGISLATION; AND THE ACT, SO CALLED, OF 1833.
This is a species of legislation which wears a misnomer--which has
no foundation in the constitution--and which generally begets more
mischief than it assumes to prevent; and which, nevertheless, is
very popular--the name, though fictitious, being generally accepted
for the reality. There are compromises in the constitution, founded
upon what gives them validity, namely, mutual consent; and they
are sacred. All compromises are agreements, made voluntarily by
independent parties--not imposed by one upon another. They may
be made by compact--not by votes. The majority cannot subject
the minority to its will, except in the present decision--cannot
bind future Congresses--cannot claim any sanctity for their acts
beyond that which grows out of the circumstances in which they
originate, and which address themselves to the moral sense of their
successors, and to reasons of justice or policy which should exempt
an act from the inherent fate of all legislation. The act of 1820,
called the Missouri Compromise, is one of the most respectable and
intelligible of this species of legislation. It composed a national
controversy, and upon a consideration. It divided a great province,
and about equally, between slaveholding and non-slaveholding States.
It admitted a State into the Union; and that State accepted that
admission upon the condition of fidelity to that compromise. And
being founded in the material operation of a line drawn upon the
earth under an astronomical law, subject to no change and open
to all observation, visible and tangible, it became an object
susceptible of certainty, both in its breach and in its observance.
That act is entitled to respect, especially from the party which
imposed it upon the other; and has been respected; for it has
remained inviolate for thirty years--neither side attempting to
break or abolish it--each having the advantage of it--and receiving
all the while, like the first _magna charta_, many confirmations
from successive Congresses, and from State legislatures.
The act of 1833, called a "compromise," was a breach of all the
rules, and all the principles of legislation--concocted out of
doors, managed by politicians dominated by an outside interest--kept
a secret--passed by a majority pledged to its support, and pledged
against any amendment except from its managers;--and issuing
from the conjunction of rival politicians who had lately, and
long, been in the most violent state of legislative as well as
political antagonism. It comprised every title necessary to stamp
a vicious and reprehensible act--bad in the matter--foul in the
manner--full of abuse--and carried through upon the terrors of
some, the interests of others, the political calculations of many,
and the dupery of more; and all upon a plea which was an outrage
upon representative government--upon the actual government--and
upon the people of the States. That plea was, that the elections
(presidential and congressional), had decided the fate of the
protective system--had condemned it--had sentenced it to death--and
charged a new Congress with the execution of the sentence; and,
therefore, that it should be taken out of the hands of that
new Congress, withdrawn from it before it met--and laid away
for nine years and a half under the sanction of a, so called,
compromise--intangible to the people--safe in its existence during
all that time; and trusting to the chapter of accidents, and the
skill of management, for its complete restoration at the end of the
term. This was an outrage upon popular representation--an estoppel
upon the popular will--the arrest of a judgment which the people
had given--the usurpation of the rights of ensuing Congresses.
It was the conception of some rival politicians who had lately
distracted the country by their contention, and now undertook to
compose it by their conjunction; and having failed in the game of
agitation, threw it up for the game of pacification; and, in this
new character, undertook to settle and regulate the affairs of
their country for a term only half a year less than the duration
of the siege of Troy; and long enough to cover two presidential
elections. This was a bold pretension. Rome had existed above five
hundred years, and citizens had become masters of armies, and the
people humbled to the cry of _panem et circenses_--bread and the
circus--before two or three rivals could go together in a corner,
and arrange the affairs of the republic for five years: now this was
done among us for double that time, and in the forty-fourth year
of our age, and by citizens neither of whom had headed, though one
had raised, an army. And now how could this be effected, and in a
country so vast and intelligent? I answer: The inside view which I
have given of the transaction explains it. It was an operation upon
the best, as well as upon the worst feelings of our nature--upon
the patriotic alarms of many, the political calculations of others,
the interested schemes of more, and the proclivity of multitudes
to be deceived. Some political rivals finding tariff no longer
available for political elevation, either in its attack or defence;
and, from a ladder to climb on, become a stumbling-block to fall
over, and a pit to fall into, agree to lay it aside for the term
of two presidential elections; upon the pretext of quieting the
country which they had been disturbing; but in reality to get the
crippled hobby out of the way, and act in concert against an old
foe in power, and a new adversary, lately supposed to have been
killed off, but now appearing high in the political firmament, and
verging to its zenith. That new adversary was Mr. Van Buren, just
elected Vice-President, and in the line of old precedents for the
presidency; and the main object to be able to work against him, and
for themselves, with preservation to the tariff, and extrication
of Mr. Calhoun. The masses were alarmed at the cry of civil war,
concerted and spread for the purpose of alarm; and therefore
ready to hail any scheme of deliverance from that calamity. The
manufacturers saw their advantage in saving their high protecting
duties from immediate reduction. The friends of Mr. Clay believed
that the title of pacificator, which he was to earn, would win for
him a return of the glory of the Missouri compromise. Mr. Calhoun's
friends saw, for him, in any arrangement, a release from his
untenable and perilous position. Members of gentle temperaments in
both Houses, saw relief in middle courses, and felt safety in the
very word "compromise," no matter how fictitious and fallacious. The
friends of Mr. Van Buren saw his advantage at getting the tariff
out of his way also; and General Jackson felt a positive relief in
being spared the dire necessity of enforcing the laws by the sword
and by criminal prosecutions. All these parties united to pass the
act; and after it was passed, to praise it; and so it passed easily,
and was ushered into life in the midst of thundering applause. Only
a few of the well-known senators voted against it--Mr. Webster, Mr.
Dickerson, General Samuel Smith, Mr. Benton.
My objections to this bill, and its mode of being passed, were deep
and abiding, and went far beyond its own obnoxious provisions, and
all the transient and temporary considerations connected with it.
As a friend to popular representative government, I could not see,
without insurmountable repugnance, two citizens set themselves up
for a _power_ in the State, and undertake to regulate, by their
private agreement (to be invested with the forms of law), the
public affairs for years to come. I admit no man to stand for
a _power_ in our country, and to assume to be able to save the
Union. Its safety does not depend upon the bargains of any two
men. Its safety is in its own constitution--in its laws--and in
the affections of the people; and all that is wanted in public men
is to administer the constitution in its integrity, and to enforce
the laws without fear or affection. A compromise made with a State
in arms, is a capitulation to that State; and in this light, Mr.
Calhoun constantly presented the act of 1833 and if it had emanated
from the government, he would have been right in his fact, and
in his inductions; and all discontented States would have been
justified, so far as successful precedent was concerned, in all
future interpositions of its _fiat_ to arrest the action of the
federal government. But it did not emanate from the government. It
(the government) was proceeding wisely, justly, constitutionally
in settling with South Carolina, by removing the cause of her real
grievance, and by enforcing the laws against their violators. It
(the constituted government) was proceeding regularly in this way,
with a prospect of a successful issue at the actual session, and a
certainty of it at the next one, when the whole subject was taken
out of its hands by an arrangement between a few members. The
injury was great then, and of permanent evil example. It remitted
the government to the condition of the old confederation, acting
upon sovereignties instead of individuals. It violated the feature
of our Union which discriminated it from all confederacies which
ever existed, and which was wisely and patriotically put into
the constitution to save it from the fate which had attended all
confederacies, ancient and modern. All these previous confederacies
in their general, or collective capacity, acted upon communities,
and met organized resistance as often as they decreed any thing
disagreeable to one of its strong members. This opposition could
only be subdued by force; and the application of force has always
brought on civil war; which has ended in the destruction of the
confederacy. The framers of our constitutional Union knew all this,
and had seen the danger of it in history, and felt the danger of it
in our confederation; and therefore established a UNION instead of
a LEAGUE--to be sovereign and independent within its sphere, acting
upon persons through its own laws and courts, instead of acting
on communities through persuasion or force. It was the crowning
wisdom of the new constitution; and the effect of this compromise
legislation, was to destroy that great feature of our Union--to
bring the general and State governments into conflict--and to
substitute a sovereign State for an offending individual as often as
a State chose to make the cause of that individual her own. A State
cannot commit treason, but a citizen can, and that against the laws
of the United States; and so, if a citizen commits treason against
the United States he may (if this interposition be admitted), be
shielded by a State. Our whole frame of government is unhinged
when the federal government shifts from its foundation, and goes
to acting upon States instead of individuals and, therefore, the
"compromise," as it was called, with South Carolina in 1833 was in
violation of the great Union principle of our government--remitting
it to the imbecility of the old confederation, giving inducement of
the Nashville convention of the present year (1850); and which has
only to be followed up to see the States of this Union, like those
of the Mexican republic, issuing their _pronunciamientos_ at every
discontent; and bringing the general government to a fight, or a
capitulation, as often as they please.
I omit all consideration of the minor vices of the act--great
and flagrant in themselves, but subordinate in comparison to the
mischiefs done to the frame of our government. At any other time
these vices of matter, and manner, would have been crushing to a
bill. No bill containing a tithe of the vices, crowded into this
one, could ever have got through Congress before. The overthrow
of the old revenue principle, that duties were to be levied on
luxuries, and not on necessaries--substitution of universal _ad
valorems_ to the exclusion of all specific duties--the substitution
of the home for the foreign valuation--the abolition of all
discrimination upon articles in the imposition of duties--the
preposterous stipulation against protection, while giving
protection, and even in new and unheard of forms; all these were
flagrant vices of the bill, no one of which could ever have been
carried through in a bill before; and which perished in this one
before they arrived at their period of operation. The year 1842 was
to have been the jubilee of all these inventions, and set them all
off in their career of usefulness; but that year saw all these fine
anticipations fail! saw the high protective policy re-established,
more burthensome than ever: but of this hereafter. Then the vices
in the passage of the bill, being a political, not a legislative
action--dominated by an outside interest of manufacturers--and
openly carried in the Senate by a _douceur_ to some men, not in
"Kendal Green," but Kendal cotton. Yet it was received by the
country as a deliverance, and the ostensible authors of it greeted
as public benefactors; and their work declared by legislatures to
be sacred and inviolable, and every citizen doomed to political
outlawry that did not give in his adhesion, and bind himself to
the perpetuity of the act. I was one of those who refused this
adhesion--who continued to speak of the act as I thought--and who,
in a few years, saw it sink into neglect and oblivion--die without
the solace of pity or sorrow--and go into the grave without mourners
or witnesses, or a stone to mark the place of its interment.
CHAPTER LXXXVII.
VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS OF '98-'99--DISABUSED OF THEIR SOUTH CAROLINA
INTERPRETATION--1. UPON THEIR OWN WORDS--2. UPON CONTEMPORANEOUS
INTERPRETATION.
The debate in the Senate, in 1830, on Mr. Foot's resolutions,
has been regarded as the dawn of those ideas which, three years
later, under the name of "nullification," but with the character
and bearing the seeds of disorganization and civil war, agitated
and endangered the Union. In that debate, Mr. Hayne, as heretofore
stated, quoted the third clause of the Virginia resolutions of
1798, as the extent of the doctrines he intended to avow. Though
Mr. Webster, at the time, gave a different and more portentous
interpretation to Mr. Hayne's course of argument, I did not believe
that Mr. Hayne purposed to use those resolutions to any other effect
than that intended by their authors and adopters; and they, I well
knew, never supposed any right in a State of the Union, of its
own motion, to annul an act of Congress, or resist its operation.
Soon after the discussion of 1830, however, nullification assumed
its name, with a clear annunciation of its purpose, namely, to
maintain an inherent right in a State to annul the acts of the
federal government, and resist their operation, in any case in which
the State might judge an act of Congress to exceed the limits of
the constitution. And to support this disorganizing doctrine, the
resolutions of 1798, were boldly and perseveringly appealed to, and
attempted to be wrested from their real intent. Nor is this effort
yet abandoned; nor can we expect it to be whilst nullification still
exists, either avowed or covert. The illustrious authorship of the
Resolutions of 1798; the character and reputation of the legislators
who adopted them; their general acceptance by the republican party,
the influence they exercised, not only on questions of the day,
but on the fate of parties, and in shaping the government itself,
all combine to give them importance, and a high place in public
esteem; and would go far to persuade the country that nullification
was right, if _they_ were nullification. In connection, therefore,
with the period and events in which nullification had its rise, the
necessity is imposed of an examination into the scope and objects of
those resolutions; and the same reasons that have made, and make,
the partisans of nullification so urgent to identify their fallacies
with the resolutions, must make every patriot solicitous for the
_vindication_ of them and their author and adopters from any such
affinity.
Fortunately, the material is at hand, and abundant. The resolutions
are vindicated on their text alone; and contemporaneous
authentic interpretation, and the reiterated, earnest--even
indignant--disclaimers of the illustrious author himself, utterly
repudiate the intent that nullification attempts to impute to them.
I propose, therefore, to treat them in these three aspects:
I. _Vindicated on their text._
The clause of the resolutions, chiefly relied on as countenancing
nullification, is the third resolution of the series, and is as
follows:
"That this assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare
that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting
from the compact, to which the States are parties, as limited
by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting
that compact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable,
and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the
said compact, the States, who are the parties thereto, have
the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting
the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their
respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties
appertaining to them."
The right and duty of interposition is certainly here claimed for
the States, in case of a "deliberate, palpable, and dangerous
assumption of powers, by the federal government;" but, looking
alone to the words of the text, it is an unreasonable inference,
that forcible or nullifying interposition is meant. The word does
not import resistance, but rather the contrary; and can only be
understood in a hostile sense, when the connection in which it
is used necessarily implies force. Such is not the case in this
resolution; and no one has a right to suppose that, if its authors
had intended to assert a principle of such transcendent importance,
as that the States were severally possessed of the right to annul
an act of Congress, and resist its execution, they would not have
used words to declare that meaning explicitly, or, that they would
intimate covertly a doctrine they dared not avow.
The constitution itself suggests several modes of interposition,
competent for either the States or the people. It provides for the
election (by a mixed system, popular and State), at brief intervals,
of all the functionaries of the federal government; and hence,
the interposition of the will of the States and people to effect
a change of rulers; hence, of policy. It provides that freedom of
speech and the press, shall not be abridged, which is equivalent to
a provision that those powerful means be perpetually interposed to
affect the public conscience and sentiment--to counsel and alarm
the public servants; to influence public policy--to restrain and
remedy government abuses. It recognizes the right, and provides that
it shall not be abridged, of the people "to assemble and petition
the government for the redress of grievances;" hence, contemplating
that there may be grievances on the part of the government, and
suggesting a means of meeting and overcoming them. Finally, it
provides that, on the application of a designated proportion of
the States, Congress shall cause a convention to be called, to
provide, in the constitution itself, should it be judged necessary,
additional securities to the States and the people, and additional
restraints on the government.
To act on the sentiments of the country then; to bring to their aid
the potent engines of the press and public harangues; to move the
people to petition and remonstrance against the obnoxious measures;
to draw the attention of other States to the abuses complained
of, and to the latitudinous construction the federal authorities
were giving to their powers; and thus bring those States, in like
manner, to act on their senators and representatives, and on the
public voice, so as to produce an immediate remedy, or to co-operate
in calling a convention to provide further securities--one or
both; these alone are the modes of "interposition" the Virginia
resolutions of 1798 contemplated; all they professed; all they
attempted; all that the resolutions, or their history, warrant to
be imputed to them. These modes of interposition are all consistent
with peace and order; with obedience to the laws, and respect
to the lawful authorities; the very means, as was well argued
by the supporters of the resolutions, to prevent civil strife,
insubordination, or revolution; in all respects, the antipodes of
nullification.
To enlarge somewhat on the force of the words of the resolutions:
The right and duty of "the States" to interpose, certainly does
not mean the right of "a State" to nullify and set at nought. The
States--less than the whole number--have a right to interpose,
secured, as already shown, in the constitution; and this, not only
persuasively, but peremptorily; to compel the action they may
desire; and it is demonstrable, that it was this constitutional
provision that the Virginia legislature had in mind, as a last
resort. The resolutions do not speak any where of the right of a
State; but use the plural number, States. Virginia exercises the
right that pertains to a State--all the right that, in the premises,
she pretends to--in passing the resolutions, declaring her views,
and inviting the like action of her co-States. Instead, therefore,
of the resolutions being identical with nullification, the two
doctrines are not merely hostile, but exactly opposites; the sum of
the Virginia doctrine being, that it belongs to a State to take,
as Virginia does in this instance, the initiative in impeaching
any objectionable action of the federal government, and to ask
her co-States to co-operate in procuring the repeal of a law, a
change of policy, or an amendment of the constitution--according
as one or the other, or all, may be required to remedy the evil
complained of; whereas, nullification claims, that a single State
may, of its own motion, nullify any act of the federal government it
objects to, and stay its operation, until three fourths of all the
States come to the aid of the national authority, and re-enact the
nullified measure. One submits to the law, till a majority repeal
it, or a convention provides a constitutional remedy for it; the
other undertakes to annul the law, and suspend its operation, so
long as three fourths of the States are not brought into active
co-operation to declare it valid. The resolutions maintain the
government in all its functions, only seeking to call into use the
particular function of repeal or amendment: nullification would
stop the functions of government, and arrest laws indefinitely;
and is incapable of being brought to actual experiment, in a
single instance, without a subversion of authority, or civil war.
To this essential, radical, antagonistic degree do the Virginia
resolutions and the doctrine of nullification differ, one from the
other; and thus unjustly are the Virginia republicans, of 1798,
accused of planting the seeds of dissolution--a "deadly poison,"
as Mr. Madison, himself, emphatically calls the doctrine of
nullification--in the institutions they had so labored to construct.
II. _Upon their contemporaneous interpretation._
The contemporaneous construction of the resolutions is found in the
debates on their adoption; in the responses to them of other State
legislatures; and in the confirmatory report prepared by the same
author, and adopted by the Virginia general assembly, in January,
1800; and by the conduct of the State, in the case of Callender.
And it is remarkable (when we consider the uses to which the
resolutions have subsequently been turned), that, while the friends
of the resolutions nowhere claim more than a declaratory right for
the legislature, and deny all idea of force or resistance, their
adversaries, in the heat of debate, nor the States which manifested
the utmost bitterness in their responses, have not attributed to
the resolutions any doctrine like that of nullification. Both
in the debates and in the State responses, the opponents of the
resolutions denounce them as inflamatory, and "tending" to produce
insubordination, and whatever other evil could then be thought of,
concerning them; but no one attributes to them the absurdity of
claiming for the State a right to arrest, of its own motion, the
operation of the acts of Congress.
The principal speakers, in the Virginia legislature, in opposition
to the resolutions, were: Mr. George Keith Taylor, Mr. Magill, Mr.
Brooke, Mr. Cowan, Gen. Henry Lee, and Mr. Cureton. Nearly the whole
debate turned, not on the abstract propriety or expediency of such
resolutions, on the question whether the acts of Congress, which
were specially complained of, were, in fact, unconstitutional.
It was admitted, indeed, by Gen. Lee, who spoke elaborately and
argumentatively against the resolutions, that, if the acts were
unconstitutional, it was "proper to interfere;" but the extreme
notions of the powers of the federal government that then prevailed
in the federal party, led them to contend that those powers extended
to the acts in question, though, at this day, they are universally
acknowledged to be out of the pale of federal legislation.
Beyond the discussion of this point, and one or two others not
pertinent to the present matter, the speakers dwelt only on the
supposed "tendency" of such declarations to excite the people to
insubordination and non-submission to the law.
Mr. George K. Taylor complained at the commencement of his speech,
that the resolutions "contained a declaration, not of opinion, but
of fact;" and he apprehended that "the consequences of pursuing the
advice of the resolutions would be insurrection, confusion, and
anarchy;" but the legal effect and character that he attributed to
the resolutions, is shown in his concluding sentence, as follows:
"The members of that Congress which had passed those laws, had
been, so far as he could understand, since generally re-elected;
therefore he thought the people of the United States had decided
in favor of their constitutionality, and that such an attempt
as they were then making to induce Congress to repeal the laws
would be nugatory."
Mr. Brooke thought resolutions "declaring laws which had been made
by the government of the United States to be unconstitutional, null
and void," were "dangerous and improper;" that they had a "tendency
to inflame the public mind;" to lessen the confidence that ought to
subsist between the representatives of the people in the general
government and their constituents; and to "sap the very foundations
of the government, by producing resistance to its laws." But that
he did not apprehend the resolutions to be, or to intend, any thing
beyond an expression of sentiment, is evident from his further
declaration, that he was opposed to the resolutions, and equally
opposed to any modification of them, that should be "intended as
an expression of the general sentiment on the subject, because he
conceived it to be an improper mode by which to express the wishes
of the people of the State on the subject."
General Lee thought the alien and sedition laws "not
unconstitutional;" but if they were unconstitutional he "admitted
the right of interposition on the part of the general assembly."
But he thought these resolutions showed "indecorum and hostility,"
and were "not the likeliest way to obtain a repeal of the laws."
He "suspected," in fact, that "the repeal of the laws was not
the leading point in view," but that they "covered" the objects
of "promotion of disunion and separation of the States." The
resolutions "struck him as recommending resistance. They declared
the laws null and void. Our citizens thus thinking would disobey the
laws." His plan would be, if he thought the laws unconstitutional,
to let the people petition, or that the legislature come forward at
once, "with a proposition for amending the doubtful parts of the
constitution;" or with a "respectful or friendly memorial, urging
Congress to repeal the laws." But he "admitted" the only right
which the resolutions assert for the State, namely, the right "to
interpose." The remarks of the other opponents to the resolutions
were to the same effect.
On behalf of the resolutions, the principal speakers were, Mr.
John Taylor, of Caroline, who had introduced them, Mr. Ruffin, Mr.
Mercer, Mr. Pope, Mr. Foushee, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Peter Johnston, Mr.
Giles, Mr. James Barbour.
They obviated the objection of the speakers on the other side,
that the resolutions "contained a declaration, not of opinion,
but of fact," by striking out the words which, in the original
draft, declared the acts in question to be "null, void, and of
no force or effect;" so as to make it manifest, as the advocates
of the resolutions maintained, that they intended nothing beyond
an expression of sentiment. They obviated another objection
which appeared in the original draft, which asserted the States
_alone_ to be the parties to the constitution, by striking out
the word "alone." They thoroughly and successfully combated both
the "suspicion" that they hid any ulterior object of dissension
or disunion, and the "apprehension" that the resolutions would
encourage insubordination among the people. They acceded to
and affirmed, that their object was to obtain a repeal of the
offensive measures, that the resolutions might ultimately lead to
a convention for amending the constitution, and that they were
intended both to express and to affect public opinion; but nothing
more.
Says Mr. Taylor, of Caroline:
"If Congress should, as was certainly possible, legislate
unconstitutionally, it was evident that in theory they have
done wrong, and it only remained to consider whether the
constitution is so defective as to have established limitations
and reservations, without the means of enforcing them, in a
mode by which they could be made practically useful. Suppose
a clashing of opinion should exist between Congress and the
States, respecting the true limits of their constitutional
territories, it was easy to see, that if the right of decision
had been vested in either party, that party, deciding in the
spirit of party, would inevitably have swallowed up the other.
The constitution must not only have foreseen the possibility of
such a clashing, but also the consequence of a preference on
either side as to its construction. And out of this foresight
most have arisen the fifth article, by which two thirds of
Congress may call upon the States for an explanation of any
such controversy as the present; and thus correct an erroneous
construction of its own acts by a minority of the States, whilst
two thirds of the States are also allowed to compel Congress to
call a convention, in case so many should think an amendment
necessary for the purpose of checking the unconstitutional acts
of that body.... Congress is the creature of the States and the
people; but neither the States nor the people are the creatures
of Congress. It would be eminently absurd, that the creature
should exclusively construe the instrument of its own existence;
and therefore this construction was reserved indiscriminately
to one or the other of those powers, of which Congress was the
joint work; namely, to the people whenever a convention was
resorted to, or to the States whenever the operation should be
carried on by three fourths."
"Mr. Taylor then proceeded to apply these observations to
the threats of war, and the apprehension of civil commotion,
'towards which the resolutions were said to have a tendency.'
Are the republicans, said he, possessed of fleets and armies?
If not, to what could they appeal for defence and support?
To nothing, except public opinion. If that should be against
them, they must yield; if for them, did gentlemen mean to say,
that public will should be assailed by force?... And against a
State which was pursuing the only possible and ordinary mode
of ascertaining the opinion of two thirds of the States, by
declaring its own and asking theirs?"
"He observed that the resolutions had been objected to, as
couched in language too strong and offensive; whilst it
had also been said on the same side, that if the laws were
unconstitutional, the people ought to fly to arms and resist
them. To this he replied that he was not surprised to hear
the enemies of the resolutions recommending measures which
were either feeble or rash. Timidity only served to invite a
repetition of injury, whilst an unconstitutional resort to arms
would not only justly exasperate all good men, but invite those
who differed from the friends of the resolutions to the same
appeal, and produce a civil war. Hence, those who wished to
preserve the peace, as well as the constitution, had rejected
both alternatives, and chosen the middle way. They had uttered
what they conceived to be truth, and they had pursued a system
which was only an appeal to public opinion; because that appeal
was warranted by the constitution and by principle."
Mr. Mercer, in reply to Mr. G. K. Taylor, said:
"The gentleman from Prince George had told the committee
that the resolutions were calculated to rouse the people to
resistance, to excite the people of Virginia against the federal
government. Mr. Mercer did not see how such consequences could
result from their adoption. They contained nothing more than
the sentiment which the people in many parts of the State had
expressed, and which had been conveyed to the legislature in
their memorials and resolutions then lying on the table. He
would venture to say that an attention to the resolutions from
the committee would prove that the qualities attempted to be
attached to them by the gentleman could not be found."
"The right of the State government to interfere in the manner
proposed by the resolutions, Mr. Mercer contended was clear to
his mind.... The State believed some of its rights had been
invaded by the late acts of the general government, and proposed
a remedy whereby to obtain a repeal of them. The plan contained
in the resolutions appeared to Mr. Mercer the most advisable.
Force was not thought of by any one.... The States were equally
concerned, as their rights had been equally invaded; and nothing
seemed more likely to produce a temper in Congress for a repeal."
"The object (of the friends of the resolutions), in addressing
the States, is to obtain a similar declaration of opinion, with
respect to several late acts of the general government, ... and
thereby to obtain a repeal."
Mr. Barbour, likewise, in reply to Mr. G. K. Taylor, said:
"The gentleman from Prince George had remarked that those
resolutions invited the people to insurrection and to arms; but,
if he could conceive that the consequences foretold would grow
out of the measure, he would become its bitterest enemy."...
The resolutions were "addressed, not to the people but to the
sister States; praying, in a pacific way, their co-operation, in
arresting the tendency and effect of unconstitutional laws.
"For his part, he was for using no violence. It was the peculiar
blessing of the American people to have redress within their
reach, by constitutional and peaceful means."
On the same point, Mr. Daniel spoke as follows:
"If the other States think, with this, that the laws are
unconstitutional, the laws will be repealed, and the
constitutional question will be settled by this declaration of a
majority of the States."... "If, on the contrary, a sufficient
majority of the States should declare their opinion, that the
constitution gave Congress authority to pass these laws, the
constitutional question would still be settled; but an attempt
might be made so to amend the constitution as to take from
Congress this authority."
And, finally, Mr. Taylor of Caroline, in closing the debate, and
in explanation of his former remarks in respect to calling a
convention, said:
"He would explain, in a few words, what he had before said. That
the plan proposed by the resolutions would not eventuate in war,
but might in a convention. He did not admit, or contemplate,
that a convention would be called. He only said, that if
Congress, upon being addressed to have these laws repealed,
should persist, they might, by a concurrence of three fourths of
the States, be compelled to call a convention."
It is seen, then, by these extracts, that the opposers of the
resolutions did not charge upon them, nor their supporters in any
manner contend for, any principle like that of nullification;
that, on the contrary, the supporters of the resolutions, so far
from the absurd proposition that each State could, for itself,
annul the acts of Congress, and to that extent stop the operation
of the federal government, they did not recognize that power in a
majority of the States, nor even in all the States together, by
any extra-constitutional combination or process, or to annul a law
otherwise than through the prescribed forms of legislative repeal,
or constitutional amendment.
The resolutions were, however, vigorously assailed by the federal
party throughout the Union, especially in the responses of
several of the States; and at the ensuing session of the Virginia
legislature, those State responses were sent to a committee,
who made an elaborate examination of the resolutions, and of
the objections that had been made to them, concluding by a
justification of them in all particulars, and reiterating their
declarations. This report was adopted by the general assembly and is
a part of the contemporaneous and authentic interpretation of the
resolutions. The report says:
"A declaration that proceedings of the federal government are
not warranted by the constitution, is a novelty neither among
the citizens, nor among the legislatures of the States.
"Nor can the declarations of either, whether affirming or
denying the constitutionality of measures of the federal
government, or whether made before or after judicial decisions
thereon, be deemed, in any point of view, an assumption of
the office of judge. The declarations, in such cases, are
expressions of opinion, unaccompanied by any other effect than
what they may produce on opinion, by exciting reflection. The
expositions of the judiciary, on the other hand, are carried
into immediate effect by force."
Again: "In the example given by the State, of declaring
the alien and sedition acts to be unconstitutional, and of
communicating the declaration to other States, no trace of
improper means has appeared. And if the other States had
concurred in making a like declaration, supported too, by the
numerous applications flowing immediately from the people, it
can scarcely be doubted, that these simple means would have been
as sufficient, as they are unexceptionable.
"It is no less certain that other means might have been
employed, which are strictly within the limits of the
constitution. The legislatures of the States might have made
a direct representation to Congress, with a view to obtain
a rescinding of the two offensive acts; or they might have
represented to their respective senators in Congress their wish,
that two-thirds thereof would propose an explanatory amendment
to the constitution; or two-thirds of themselves, if such had
been their option, might, by an application to Congress, have
obtained a convention for the same object.
"These several means, though not equally eligible in themselves,
nor probably to the States, were all constitutionally open for
consideration. And if the general assembly, after declaring the
two acts to be unconstitutional, the first and most obvious
proceeding on the subject, did not undertake to point out to
the other States a choice among the farther measures that
might become necessary and proper, the resource will not be
misconstrued by liberal minds into any culpable imputation."
These extracts are valuable, not only for their positive testimony
that the Resolution of 1798, nor their authors, had ever
contemplated such a doctrine as Nullification; but also for their
precise definition and enumeration of the powers which, in the
premises, were really claimed for the States, by the State-Rights
Republicans of that day. They are all distinctly laid down:
1. By a solemn declaration of opinion, calculated to operate on the
public sentiment, and to induce the co-operation of other States in
like declarations.
2. To make a direct representation to Congress, with a view to
obtain a repeal of the acts complained of.
3. To represent to their respective senators their wish that
two-thirds thereof would propose an explanatory amendment to the
constitution.
4. By the concurrence of two-thirds of the States to cause Congress
to call a convention for the same object.
These are the entire list of the remedial powers suspected, by
the Resolutions of 1798, and their author and adopters, to exist
in the States with reference to federal enactments. Their variant
character from the peremptory arrest of acts of Congress proposed
by nullification, is well illustrated in the comparison made in the
report between expressions of opinion like those of the resolutions,
and the compulsory operation of a judicial process. Supposing,
says the report, "that it belongs to the judiciary of the United
States, and not the State legislatures, to declare the meaning of
the federal constitution," yet the declarations either of a State,
or the people, "whether affirming or denying the constitutionality
of measures of the federal government, or whether made before or
after judicial decisions thereon," cannot "be deemed in any point
of view an assumption of the office of the judge;" because, "the
declarations in such cases are expressions of opinions unaccompanied
with any other effect than what they may produce on opinion, by
exciting reflection;"--whereas, "the expositions of the judiciary
are carried into immediate effect by force."
The Republicans who adopted the Resolutions of 1798, never
contemplated carrying their expositions into effect by force; never
contemplated imparting to them the character of decisions, or
decrees, or the legal determination of a question; or of arresting
by means of them the operation of the acts they condemned. The
worst the enemies of the resolutions undertook to say of them,
was that they were intemperate, and might mislead the people into
disobedience of the laws. This was successfully combated; but had
it been true--had the authors of the resolutions even intended any
thing so base, it would still have been nothing comparable to the
crime of State nullification; of placing the State itself in hostile
array to the federal government. Insubordination of individuals
may usually be overcome by ordinary judicial process, or by the
_posse_ of the county where it occurs; or even if so extensive as
to require the peace-officers to be aided by the military, it is
still but a matter of police, and in our country cannot endanger the
existence of the government. But the array of a _State_ of the Union
against the federal authority, is _war_--a war between powers--both
sovereign in their respective spheres--and that could only terminate
in the destruction of the one, or the subjugation and abasement of
the other.
But neither the one or the other of these crimes was contemplated by
the authors of the Resolutions of 1798. The remedies they claimed a
right to exercise are all pointed out in the constitution itself;
capable of application without disturbing the processes of the
law, or suggesting an idea of insubordination; remedies capable of
saving the liberties of the people and the rights of the States,
and bringing back the federal government to its constitutional
track, without a jar or a check to its machinery; remedies felt to
be sufficient, and by crowning experience soon proven to be so. It
is due to the memory of those men and those times that their acts
should no longer be misconstrued to cover a doctrine synonymous with
disorganization and civil war. The conduct both of the government,
and the people, on the occasion of these resolutions, show how far
they were from any nullifying or insubordinate intention; and this
furnishes us with another convincing proof of the contemporaneous
interpretation of the resolutions. So far (as Mr. Madison justly
says,)[6] was the State of Virginia from countenancing the
nullifying doctrine, that the occasion was viewed as a proper one
for exemplifying its devotion to public order, and acquiescence in
laws which it deemed unconstitutional, while those laws were not
repealed. The language of the Governor of the State (Mr. James
Monroe), in a letter to Mr. Madison, in May and June of 1800, will
attest the principles and feelings which dictated the course pursued
on the occasion, and whether the people understood the resolutions
in any inflammatory or vicious sense.
[6] Selections from the correspondence of Madison, p. 399.
On the 15th May, 1800, Governor Monroe writes to Mr. Madison as
follows:
"Besides, I think there is cause to suspect the sedition law
will be carried into effect in this State at the approaching
federal court, and I ought to be there (Richmond) to aid in
preventing trouble.... I think it possible an idea may be
entertained of opposition, and by means whereof the fair
prospect of the republican party may be overcast. But in this
they are deceived, as certain characters in Richmond and some
neighboring counties are already warned of their danger, so that
an attempt to excite a hot-water insurrection will fail."
And on the 4th of June, 1800, he wrote again, as follows:
"The conduct of the people on this occasion was exemplary, and
does them the highest honor. They seemed aware that the crisis
demanded of them a proof of their respect for law and order,
and resolved to show they were equal to it. I am satisfied a
different conduct was expected from them, for every thing that
could was done to provoke it. It only remains that this business
be closed on the part of the people, as it has been so far
acted; that the judge, after finishing his career, go off in
peace, without experiencing the slightest insult from any one;
and that this will be the case I have no doubt."
Governor Monroe was correct in the supposition that the sedition
law would be carried into effect, at the approaching session of the
federal court, and he was also right in the anticipation that the
people would know how to distinguish between the exercise of means
to procure the repeal of an act, and the exercise of violence to
stop its operation. The act was enforced; was "carried into effect"
in their midst, and a fellow-citizen incarcerated under its odious
provisions, without a suggestion of official or other interference.
Thus we have the contemporaneous interpretation of the resolutions
exemplified and set at rest, by the most powerful of arguments: by
the impressive fact, that when the public indignation was at its
height, subsequent to the resolutions of 1798, and subsequent to the
report of '99, and when both had been universally disseminated and
read, and they had had, with the debates upon them, their entire
influence on the public mind; that at that moment, the act of
Congress against which the resolutions were chiefly aimed, and the
indignation of the community chiefly kindled, was then and there
carried into execution, and that in a form--the unjust deprivation
of a citizen of his liberty--the most obnoxious to a free people,
and the most likely to rouse their opposition; yet quietly and
peaceably done, by the simple, ordinary process of the federal
court. This fact, so creditable to the people of Virginia, is thus
noted in the annual message of Governor Monroe, to the general
assembly, at their next meeting, December, 1800:
"In connection with this subject [of the resolutions] it is
proper to add, that, since your last session, the sedition law,
one of the acts complained of, has been carried into effect in
this commonwealth by the decision of a federal court. I notice
this event, not with a view of censuring or criticising it. The
transaction has gone to the world, and the impartial will judge
of it as it deserves. I notice it for the purpose of remarking
that the decision was executed with the same order and tranquil
submission on the part of the people, as could have been shown
by them on a similar occasion, to any the most necessary,
constitutional and popular acts of the government."
Governor Monroe then adds his official and personal testimony to
the proper intent and character of the proceedings of '98, '9, as
follows:
"The general assembly and the good people of this commonwealth
have acquitted themselves to their own consciences, and to their
brethren in America, in support of a cause which they deem a
national one, by the stand which they made, and the sentiments
they expressed of these acts of the general government; but
they have looked for a change in that respect, to a change in
the public opinion, which ought to be free; not to measures of
violence, discord and disunion, which they abhor."
CHAPTER LXXXVIII.
VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS OF 1798:--DISABUSED OF NULLIFICATION, BY THEIR
AUTHOR.
Vindicated upon their words, and upon contemporaneous
interpretation, another vindication, superfluous in point of proof,
but due to those whose work has been perverted, awaits these
resolutions, derived from the words of their author (after seeing
their perversion); and to absolve himself and his associates from
the criminal absurdity attributed to them.
The contemporary opponents of the Resolutions of 1798 said all the
evil of them, and represented them in every odious light, that
persevering, keen and enlightened opposition could discover or
imagine. Their defenders successfully repelled the charges then made
against them; but could not vindicate them from intending the modern
doctrine of Nullification, because that doctrine had not then been
invented, and the ingenuity of their adversaries did not conceive
of that ground of attack. Their venerable author, however--the
illustrious MADISON[7]--was still alive, when this new perversion
of his resolutions had been invented, and when they were quoted to
sustain doctrines synonymous with disorganization and disunion. He
was still alive, in retirement on his farm. His modesty and sense
of propriety hindered him from carrying the prestige and influence
of his name into the politics of the day; but his vigorous mind
still watched with anxious and patriotic interest the current of
public affairs, and recoiled with instinctive horror both from the
doctrine and attempted practice of Nullification, and the attempted
connection of his name and acts with the origination of it. He held
aloof from the public contest; but his sentiments were no secret.
His private correspondence, embracing in its range distinguished men
of all sections of the Union and of all parties, was full of the
subject, from the commencement of the Nullification excitement down
to the time of his death: sometimes at length, and argumentatively;
sometimes with a brief indignant disclaimer; always earnestly
and unequivocally. Some of these letters, although private, were
published during Mr. Madison's lifetime, especially an elaborate one
to Mr. Edward Everett; and many of the remainder have recently been
put into print, through the liberality of a patriotic citizen of
Washington (Mr. J. Maguire), but only for private distribution, and
hence not accessible to the public. They are a complete storehouse
of material, not only for the vindication of Madison and his
compeers, from the doctrine of Nullification, but of argument and
reasons against Nullification and every kindred suggestion.
[7] Mr. Madison did not introduce the Resolutions into the Virginia
legislature. He was not a member of that body in 1798. The
resolutions were reported by John Taylor, of Caroline. Mr. Madison,
however, was always reputed to be their author, and in a letter to
Mr. James Robertson, written in March, 1831, he distinctly avows it.
He was both the author and reporter of the Report and Resolution of
1799-1800.
From the letter to Mr. Everett, published in the North American
Review, shortly after it was written (August, 1830), the following
extracts are taken:
"It (the constitution of the United States) was formed by the
States, that is, by the people in each of the States, acting in
their highest sovereign capacity; and formed consequently by the
same authority which formed the State constitutions.
"Being thus derived from the same source as the constitutions of
the States, it has, within each State, the same authority as the
constitution of the State, and is as much a constitution in the
strict sense of the term within its prescribed sphere, as the
constitutions of the States are within their respective spheres;
but with this obvious and essential difference, that being a
compact among the States in their highest sovereign capacity,
and constituting the people thereof one people for certain
purposes, it cannot be altered or annulled at the will of the
States individually, as the constitution of a State may be at
its individual will."
"Nor is the government of the United States, created by the
constitution, less a government in the strict sense of the term,
within the sphere of its powers, than the governments created
by the constitutions of the States are, within their several
spheres. It is like them organized into legislative, executive
and judiciary departments. It operates, like them, directly on
persons and things. And, like them, it has at command a physical
force for executing the powers committed to it.
"Between these different constitutional governments, the one
operating in all the States, the others operating separately in
each, with the aggregate powers of government divided between
them, it could not escape attention, that controversies would
arise concerning the boundaries of jurisdiction."
"That to have left a final decision, in such cases, to each
of the States, could not fail to make the constitution and
laws of the United States different in different States, was
obvious, and not less obvious that this diversity of independent
decisions, must altogether distract the government of the Union,
and speedily put an end to the Union itself."
"To have made the decision under the authority of the individual
States, co-ordinate in all cases, with decisions under the
authority of the United States, would unavoidably produce
collisions incompatible with the peace of society."
"To have referred every clashing decision, under the two
authorities, for a final decision, to the States as parties
to the constitution, would be attended with delays, with
inconveniences and expenses, amounting to a prohibition of the
expedient."
"To have trusted to 'negotiation' for adjusting disputes between
the government of the United States and the State governments,
as between independent and separate sovereignties, would have
lost sight altogether of a constitution and government of the
Union, and opened a direct road, from a failure of that resort,
to the _ultima ratio_, between nations wholly independent of,
and alien to each other.... Although the issue of negotiation
might sometimes avoid this extremity, how often would it happen
among so many States, that an unaccommodating spirit in some
would render that resource unavailing?"
After thus stating, with other powerful reasons, why all those
fanciful and impracticable theories were rejected in the
constitution, the letter proceeds to show what the constitution does
adopt and rely on, "as a security of the rights and powers of the
States," namely:
"1. The responsibility of the senators and representatives in
the legislature of the United States to the legislatures and
people of the States; 2. The responsibility of the President to
the people of the United States; and, 3. The liability of the
executive and judicial functionaries of the United States to
impeachment by the representatives of the people of the States
in one branch of the legislature of the United States, and trial
by the representatives of the States, in the other branch."
And then, in order to mark how complete these provisions are for
the security of the States, shows that while the States thus
hold the functionaries of the United States to these several
responsibilities, the State functionaries, on the other hand, in
their appointment and responsibility, are "altogether independent of
the agency or authority of the United States."
Of the doctrine of nullification, "the expedient lately advanced,"
the letter says:
"The distinguished names and high authorities which appear to
have asserted and given a practical scope to this doctrine,
entitle it to a respect which it might be difficult otherwise to
feel for it."
"The resolutions of Virginia, as vindicated in the report
on them, will be found entitled to an exposition, showing a
consistency in their parts, and an inconsistency of the whole
with the doctrine under consideration."
"That the legislature could not have intended to sanction
any such doctrine is to be inferred from the debates in the
House of Delegates. The tenor of the debates, which were ably
conducted, discloses no reference whatever to a constitutional
right in an individual State to arrest by force a law of the
United States."
"If any further light on the subject could be needed, a very
strong one is reflected in the answers to the resolutions, by
the States which protested against them.... Had the resolutions
been regarded as avowing and maintaining a right, in an
individual State, to arrest by force the execution of a law of
the United States, it must be presumed that it would have been a
conspicuous object of their denunciation."
In a letter to Mr. Joseph C. Cabell, May 31, 1830, Mr. Madison says:
"I received yesterday yours of the 26th. Having never concealed
my opinions of the nullifying doctrines of South Carolina, I did
not regard the allusion to it in the _Whig_, especially as the
manner of the allusion showed that I did not obtrude it.... I
have latterly been drawn into a correspondence with an advocate
of the doctrine, which led me to a review of it to some extent,
and particularly to a vindication of the proceedings of Virginia
in 1798, '99, against the misuse made of them. That you may see
the views I have taken of the aberrations of South Carolina, I
enclose you an extract."
And in a letter to Mr. Daniel Webster, written a few days
previously, he uses nearly the same language; as also in a letter in
February, 1830, to Mr. Trist.
To Mr. James Robertson, March 27, 1831, Mr. Madison writes as
follows:
"The veil which was originally over the draft of the resolutions
offered in 1798 to the Virginia Assembly having been long since
removed, I may say, in answer to your inquiries, that it was
penned by me."
"With respect to the terms following the term
'unconstitutional,' viz., 'not law, but null, void, and of
no force or effect,' which were stricken out of the seventh
resolution, my memory cannot say positively whether they were
or were not in the original draft, and no copy of it appears
to have been retained. On the presumption that they were in
the draft as it went from me, I am confident that they must
have been regarded only as giving accumulated emphasis to the
declaration, that the alien and sedition acts had, in the
opinion of the assembly, violated the constitution of the United
States, and not that the addition of them could annul the acts
or sanction a resistance of them. The resolution was expressly
_declaratory_, and, proceeding from the legislature only, which
was not even a party to the constitution, could be declaratory
of opinion only."
To Joseph C. Cabell, Sept. 16, 1831:
"I congratulate you on the event which restores you to the
public councils, where your services will be valuable,
particularly in defending the constitution and Union against the
false doctrines which assail them. That of nullification seems
to be generally abandoned in Virginia, by those who had most
leaning towards it. But it still flourishes in the hot-bed where
it sprung up."
"I know not whence the idea could proceed that I concurred in
the doctrine, that although a State could not nullify a law of
the Union, it had a right to secede from the Union. Both spring
from the same poisonous root."
To Mr. N. P. Trist, December, 1831:
"I cannot see the advantage of this perseverance of South
Carolina in claiming the authority of the Virginia proceedings
in 1798, '99, as asserting a right in a single State to nullify
an act of the United States. Where, indeed, is the fairness
of attempting to palm on Virginia an intention which is
contradicted by such a variety of contradictory proofs; which
has at no intervening period, received the slightest countenance
from her, and which with one voice she now disclaims?"
"To view the doctrine in its true character, it must be
recollected that it asserts a right in a single State to stop
the execution of a federal law, until a convention of the States
could be brought about by a process requiring an uncertain time;
and, finally, in the convention, when formed, a vote of seven
States, if in favor of the veto, to give it a prevalence over
the vast majority of seventeen States. For this preposterous and
anarchical pretension there is not a shadow of countenance in
the constitution; and well that there is not, for it is certain
that, with such a deadly poison in it, no constitution could be
sure of lasting a year."
To Mr. C. E. Haynes, August 26, 1832:
"In the very crippled and feeble state of my health, I cannot
undertake an extended answer to your inquiries, nor should
I suppose it necessary if you have seen my letter to Mr.
Everett, in August, 1830, in which the proceedings of Virginia,
in 1798-'99, were explained, and the novel doctrine of
nullification adverted to.
"The distinction is obvious between such interpositions on
the part of the States against unjustifiable acts of the
federal government as are within the provisions and forms of
the constitution. These provisions and forms certainly do not
embrace the nullifying process proclaimed in South Carolina,
which begins with a single State, and ends with the ascendency
of a minority of States over a majority; of seven over
seventeen; a federal law, during the process, being arrested
within the nullifying State; and, if a revenue law, frustrated
through all the States."
To Mr. Trist, December 23, 1832:
"If one State can, at will, withdraw from the others, the
others can, at will, withdraw from her, and turn her _nolentem
volentem_ out of the Union. Until of late, there is not a
State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South
Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself. The
same may be said of the doctrine of nullification which she now
preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved."
In a letter to Mr. Joseph C. Cabell, December 28, 1832:
"It is not probable that (in the adoption of the resolutions
of 1798), such an idea as the South Carolina nullification had
ever entered the thoughts of a single member, or even that of a
citizen of South Carolina herself."
To Andrew Stevenson, February 4, 1833:
"I have received your communication of the 29th ultimo, and
have read it with much pleasure. It presents the doctrine of
nullification and secession in lights that must confound,
if failing to convince their patrons. You have done well in
rescuing the proceedings of Virginia in 1798-'99, from the many
misconstructions and misapplications of them."
"Of late, attempts are observed to shelter the heresy of
secession under the case of expatriation, from which it
essentially differs. The expatriating party removes only his
person and his movable property, and does not incommode those
whom he leaves. A seceding State mutilates the domain, and
disturbs the whole system from which it separates itself. Pushed
to the extent in which the right is sometimes asserted, it might
break into fragments every single community."
To Mr. Stevenson, February 10, 1833, in reference to the South
Carolina nullifying ordinance:
"I consider a successful resistance to the laws as now
attempted, if not immediately mortal to the Union, as at least a
mortal wound to it."
To "a Friend of the Union and State rights," 1833:
"It is not usual to answer communications without proper names
to them. But the ability and motives disclosed in the essays
induce me to say, in compliance with the wish expressed, that
I do not consider the proceedings of Virginia, in 1798-'99, as
countenancing the doctrine that a State may, at will, secede
from its constitutional compact with the other States."
To Mr. Joseph C. Cabell, April 1, 1833:
"The attempt to prove me a nullifier, by a misconstruction
of the resolutions of 1798-'99, though so often and so
lately corrected, was, I observe, renewed some days ago in
the 'Richmond Whig,' by an inference from an erasure in the
House of Delegates from one of those resolutions, of the
words 'are null, void and of no effect,' which followed the
word 'unconstitutional.' These words, though synonymous
with 'unconstitutional,' were alleged by the critic to mean
nullification; and being, of course, ascribed to me, I was, of
course, a nullifier. It seems not to have occurred, that if the
insertion of the words could convict me of being a nullifier,
the erasure of them (unanimous, I believe), by the legislature,
was the strongest of protests against the doctrine.... The vote,
in that case seems not to have engaged the attention due to
it. It not merely deprives South Carolina of the authority of
Virginia, on which she has relied and exulted so much in support
of her cause, but turns that authority pointedly against her."
From a memorandum "On Nullification," written in 1835-'36:
"Although the legislature of Virginia declared, at a late
session, almost unanimously, that South Carolina was not
supported in her doctrine of nullification by the resolutions of
1798, it appears that those resolutions are still appealed to as
expressly or constructively favoring the doctrine."
"And what is the text in the proceedings of Virginia which this
spurious doctrine of nullification claims for its patronage? It
is found in the third of the resolutions of 1798."
"Now is there any thing here from which a 'single' State
can infer a right to arrest or annul an act of the general
government, which it may deem unconstitutional? So far from it,
that the obvious and proper inference precludes such a right."
"In a word, the nullifying claims, if reduced to practice,
instead of being the conservative principle of the constitution,
would necessarily, and it may be said, obviously, be a deadly
poison."
"The true question, therefore, is, whether there be a
'constitutional' right in a single State to nullify a law of
the United States? We have seen the absurdity of such a claim,
in its naked and suicidal form. Let us turn to it, as modified
by South Carolina, into a right in every State to resist within
itself the execution of a federal law, deemed by it to be
unconstitutional, and to demand a convention of the States to
decide the question of constitutionality, the annulment of the
law to continue in the mean time, and to be permanent unless
three fourths of the States concur in overruling the annulment.
"Thus, during the temporary nullification of the law, the
results would be the same as those proceeding from an
unqualified nullification, and the result of a convention
might be that seven out of twenty-four States might make the
temporary results permanent. It follows, that any State which
could obtain the concurrence of six others, might abrogate any
law of the United States whatever, and give to the constitution,
constructively, any shape they pleased, in opposition to the
construction and will of the other seventeen.[8] Every feature
of the constitution might thus be successively changed; and
after a scene of unexampled confusion and distraction, what had
been unanimously agreed to as a whole, would not, as a whole, be
agreed to by a single party."
[8] The above was written when the number of the States was
twenty-four. Now, when there are thirty-one States, the proportion
would be _eight to twenty-three_! that is, that a single State
nullifying, the nullification would hold good till a convention were
called, and then if the nullifying State could procure seven others
to join, the nullification would become absolute--the eight States
overruling the twenty-three.
To this graphic picture of the disorders which even the first stages
of nullification would necessarily produce, drawn when the graphic
limner was in the eighty-sixth and last year of his life, the
following warning pages, written only a few months earlier, may be
properly appended:
"What more dangerous than nullification, or more evident than
the progress it continues to make, either in its original shape
or in the disguises it assumes? Nullification has the effect
of putting powder under the constitution and Union, and a
match in the hand of every party to blow them up, at pleasure.
And for its progress, hearken to the tone in which it is now
preached; cast your eyes on its increasing minorities in most
of the Southern States, without a decrease in any one of them.
Look at Virginia herself, and read in the gazettes, and in the
proceedings of popular meetings, the figure which the anarchical
principle now makes, in contrast with the scouting reception
given to it but a short time ago.
"It is not probable that this offspring of the discontents of
South Carolina will ever approach success in a majority of the
States. But a susceptibility of the contagion in the Southern
States is visible; and the danger not to be concealed, that
the sympathy arising from known causes, and the inculcated
impression of a permanent incompatibility of interests between
the South and the North, may put it in the power of popular
leaders, aspiring to the highest stations, to unite the South,
on some critical occasion, in a course that will end in creating
a new theatre of great though inferior extent. In pursuing this
course, the first and most obvious step is nullification, the
next, secession, and the last, a farewell separation. How near
has this course been lately exemplified! and the danger of its
recurrence, in the same or some other quarter, may be increased
by an increase of restless aspirants, and by the increasing
impracticability of retaining in the Union a large and cemented
section against its will. It may, indeed, happen, that a return
of danger from abroad, or a revived apprehension of danger at
home, may aid in binding the States in one political system,
or that the geographical and commercial ligatures may have
that effect, or that the present discord of interests between
the North and the South may give way to a less diversity in
the application of labor, or to the mutual advantage of a safe
and constant interchange of the different products of labor in
different sections. All this may happen, and with the exception
of foreign hostility, hoped for. But, in the mean time, local
prejudices and ambitious leaders may be but too successful in
finding or creating occasions for the nullifying experiment of
breaking a more beautiful China vase[9] than the British empire
ever was, into parts which a miracle only could reunite."
[9] See Franklin's letter to Lord Howe, in 1776.
Incidentally, Mr. Madison, in these letters, vindicates also his
compeers, Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Monroe. In the letter to Mr. Cabell,
of May 31, 1830, he says:
"You will see, in vol. iii., page 429, of Mr. Jefferson's
Correspondence, a letter to W. C. Nicholas, proving that he
had nothing to do with the Kentucky resolutions, of 1799, in
which the word 'nullification' is found. The resolutions of
that State, in 1798, which were drawn by him, and have been
republished with the proceedings of Virginia, do not contain
this or any equivalent word."
In the letter to Mr. Trist, of December, 1831, after developing at
some length the inconsistencies and fatuity of the "nullification
prerogative," Mr. Madison says:
"Yet this has boldly sought a sanction, under the name of Mr.
Jefferson, because, in his letter to Mr. Cartwright, he held
out a convention of the States as, with us, a peaceful remedy,
in cases to be decided in Europe by intestine wars. Who can
believe that Mr. Jefferson referred to a convention summoned
at the pleasure of a single State, with an interregnum during
its deliberations; and, above all, with a rule of decision
subjecting nearly three fourths to one fourth? No man's creed
was more opposed to such an inversion of the republican order of
things."
In a letter to Mr. Townsend of South Carolina, December 18, 1831:
"You ask 'whether Mr. Jefferson was really the author of the
Kentucky resolutions, of 1799;' [in which the word 'nullify' is
used, though not in the sense of South Carolina nullification.]
The inference that he was not is as conclusive as it is
obvious, from his letter to Col. Wilson Cary Nicholas, of
September 5, 1799, in which he expressly declines, for reasons
stated, preparing any thing for the legislature of that year.
"That he (Mr. Jefferson) ever asserted a right in a single State
to arrest the execution of an act of Congress--the arrest to be
valid and permanent, unless reversed by three fourths of the
States--is countenanced by nothing known to have been said or
done by him. In his letter to Major Cartwright, he refers to
a convention as a peaceable remedy for conflicting claims of
power in our compound government; but, whether he alluded to a
convention as prescribed by the constitution, or brought about
by any other mode, his respect for the will of majorities, as
the vital principle of republican government, makes it certain
that he could not have meant a convention in which a minority of
seven States was to prevail over seventeen, either in amending
or expounding the constitution."
In the letter (before quoted) to Mr. Trist, December 23, 1832:
"It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers, who make the name
of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut
their eyes and lips whenever his authority is ever so clearly
and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in
his letters to Monroe and Carrington, pages 43 and 302, vol.
ii., with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce
delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the
purpose a naval to a military force; and, moreover, that it was
not necessary to find a right to coerce in the federal articles,
that being inherent in the nature of a compact."
In another letter to Mr. Trist, dated August 25, 1834:
"The letter from Mr. Monroe to Mr. Jefferson, of which you
inclose an extract, is important. I have one from Mr. Monroe, on
the same occasion, more in detail, and not less emphatic in its
anti-nullifying language."
In the notes "On Nullification," written in 1835-'6:
"The amount of this modified right of nullification is, that a
single State may arrest the operation of a law of the United
States, and institute a process which is to terminate in the
ascendency of a minority over a large majority. And this
new-fangled theory is attempted to be fathered on Mr. Jefferson,
the apostle of republicanism, and whose own words declare,
that 'acquiescence in the decision of the majority is the
vital principle of it.' Well may the friends of Mr. Jefferson
disclaim any sanction to it, or to any constitutional right of
nullification from his opinions."
In a paper drawn by Mr. Madison, in September, 1829, when his
anxieties began first to be disturbed by the portentous approach
of the nullification doctrine, he concludes with this earnest
admonition, appropriate to the time when it was written, and not
less so to the present time, and to posterity:
"In all the views that may be taken of questions between
the State governments and the general government, the awful
consequences of a final rupture and dissolution of the Union
should never for a moment be lost sight of. Such a prospect
must be deprecated--must be shuddered at by every friend of his
country, to liberty, to the happiness of man. For, in the event
of a dissolution of the Union, an impossibility of ever renewing
it is brought home to every mind by the difficulties encountered
in establishing it. The propensity of all communities to divide,
when not pressed into a unity by external dangers, is a truth
well understood. There is no instance of a people inhabiting
even a small island, if remote from foreign danger, and
sometimes in spite of that pressure, who are not divided into
alien, rival, hostile tribes. The happy union of these States is
a wonder; their constitution a miracle; their example the hope
of liberty throughout the world. Wo to the ambition that would
meditate the destruction of either."
These extracts, voluminous as they are, are far from exhausting the
abundant material which these admirable writings of Mr. Madison
contain, on the topic of nullification. They come to us, for our
admonition and guidance, with the solemnity of a voice from the
grave; and I leave them, without comment, to be pondered in the
hearts of his countrymen. Notwithstanding the advanced age and
growing bodily infirmities of Mr. Madison, at the time when these
letters were written, his mind was never more vigorous nor more
luminous. Every generous mind must sympathize with him, in this
necessity, in which he felt himself in his extreme age, and when
done, not only with the public affairs of the country, but nearly
done with all the affairs of the world, to defend himself and
associates from the attempt to fasten upon him and them, in spite of
his denials, a criminal and anarchical design--wicked in itself, and
subversive of the government which he had labored so hard to found,
and utterly destructive to that particular feature considered the
crowning merit of the constitution; and which wise men and patriotic
had specially devised to save our Union from the fate of all
leagues. We sympathize with him in such a necessity. We should feel
for any man, in the most ordinary case, to whose words a criminal
intention should be imputed in defiance of his disclaimers; but,
in the case of Mr. Madison--a man so modest, so pure, so just--of
such dignity and gravity, both for his age, his personal qualities,
and the exalted offices which he had held; and in a case which went
to civil war, and to the destruction of a government of which he
was one of the most faithful and zealous founders--in such a case,
an attempt to force upon such a man a meaning which he disavows,
becomes not only outrageous and odious, but criminal and impious.
And if, after the authentic disclaimers which he has made in his
advanced age, and which are now published, any one continues to
attribute this heresy to him, such a person must be viewed by the
public as having a mind that has lost its balance! or, as having a
heart void of social duty, and fatally bent on a crime, the guilt
of which must be thrown upon the tenants of the tomb--speechless,
but not helpless! for, every just man must feel their cause his own!
and rush to a defence which public duty, private honor, patriotism,
filial affection, and gratitude to benefactors impose on every man
(born wheresoever he may have been) that enjoys the blessings of the
government which their labors gave us.
CHAPTER LXXXIX.
THE AUTHOR'S OWN VIEW OF THE NATURE OF OUR GOVERNMENT, AS BEING A
UNION IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO A LEAGUE: PRESENTED IN A SUBSEQUENT
SPEECH ON MISSOURI RESOLUTIONS.
I do not discuss these resolutions at this time. That discussion
is no part of my present object. I speak of the pledge which they
contain, and call it a mistake; and say, that whatever may be the
wishes or the opinions of the people of Missouri on the subject of
the extension or non-extention of slavery to the Territories, they
have no idea of resisting any act of Congress on the subject. They
abide the law, when it comes, be it what it may, subject to the
decision of the ballot-box and the judiciary.
I concur with the people of Missouri in this view of their duty,
and believe it to be the only course consistent with the terms and
intention of our constitution, and the only one which can save this
Union from the fate of all the confederacies which have successively
appeared and disappeared in the history of nations. Anarchy among
the members, and not tyranny in the head, has been the rock on which
all such confederacies have split. The authors of our present form
of government knew the danger of this rock, and they endeavored to
provide against it. They formed a Union--not a league--a federal
legislature to act upon persons, not upon States; and they provided
peaceful remedies for all the questions which could arise between
the people and the government. They provided a federal judiciary
to execute the federal laws when found to be constitutional; and
popular elections to repeal them when found to be bad. They formed a
government in which the law and the popular will, and not the sword,
was to decide questions; and they looked upon the first resort to
the sword for the decision of such questions as the death of the
Union.
The old confederation was a league, with a legislature acting upon
sovereignties, without power to enforce its decrees, and without
union except at the will of the parties. It was powerless for
government, and a rope of sand for union. It was to escape from that
helpless and tottering government that the present constitution
was formed; and no less than ten numbers of the federalist--from
the tenth to the twentieth--were devoted to this defect of the old
system, and the necessity of the new one. I will read some extracts
from these numbers--the joint product of Hamilton and Madison--to
show the difference between the league which we abandoned and the
Union which we formed--the dangers of the former and the benefits of
the latter--that it may be seen that the resolutions of the general
assembly of Missouri, if carried out to their conclusions, carry
back this Union to the league of the confederation--make it a rope
of sand, and the sword the arbiter between the federal head and its
members.
Mr. B. then read as follows:
"The great and radical vice, in the structure of the existing
confederation, is in the principle of legislation for States or
governments, in their corporate or collective capacities, and as
contra-distinguished from the individuals of which they consist.
Though this principle does not run through all the powers delegated
to the Union, yet it prevades and governs those on which the
efficacy of the rest depends. The consequence of this is, that,
though in theory constitutionally binding on the members of the
Union, yet in practice they are mere recommendations, which the
States observe or disregard at their option. Government implies
the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law
that it be attended with a sanction, or, in other words, a penalty
or punishment for disobedience. This penalty, whatever it may be,
can only be inflicted in two ways--by the agency of the courts and
ministers of justice, or by military force; by the coercion of the
magistracy, or by the coercion of arms. The first kind can evidently
apply only to men; the last kind must of necessity be employed
against bodies politic, or communities, or States. It is evident
there is no process of a court by which their observance of the laws
can, in the last resort, be enforced. Sentences may be denounced
against them for violations of their duty; but these sentences can
only be carried into execution by the sword. In an association where
the general authority is confined to the collective bodies of the
communities that compose it, every breach of the laws must involve a
state of war; and military execution must become the only instrument
of civil obedience. Such a state of things can certainly not deserve
the name of government, nor would any prudent man choose to commit
his happiness to it."
Of the certain destruction of the Union when the sword is once drawn
between the members of a Union and their head, they speak thus:
"When the sword is once drawn, the passions of men observe no bounds
of moderation. The suggestions of wounded pride, the instigations
of irritated resentment, would be apt to carry the States, against
which the arms of the Union were exerted, to any extremes necessary
to avenge the affront, or to avoid the disgrace of submission. The
first war of this kind would probably terminate in a dissolution of
the Union."
Of the advantage and facility of the working of the federal
system, and its peaceful, efficient, and harmonious operation--if
the federal laws are made to operate upon citizens, and not upon
States--they speak in these terms:
"But if the execution of the laws of the national government
should not require the intervention of the State legislatures;
if they were to pass into immediate operation upon the citizens
themselves, the particular governments could not interrupt their
progress without an open and violent exertion of unconstitutional
power. They would be obliged to act, and in such manner as would
leave no doubt that they had encroached on the national rights. An
experiment of this nature would always be hazardous in the face of
a constitution in any degree competent to its own defence, and of a
people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise
and an illegal usurpation of authority. The success of it would
require not merely a factious majority in the legislature, but
the concurrence of the courts of justice, and of the body of the
people. If the judges were not embarked in a conspiracy with the
legislature, they would pronounce the resolutions of such a majority
to be contrary to the supreme law of the land, unconstitutional and
void. If the people were not tainted with the spirit of their State
representatives, they, as the natural guardians of the constitution,
would throw their weight into the national scale, and give it a
decided preponderance in the contest."
Of the ruinous effects of these civil wars among the members of a
republican confederacy, and their disastrous influence upon the
cause of civil liberty itself throughout the world, they thus speak:
"It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of
Greece and Italy, without feeling sensations of disgust and horror
at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and
at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept
continually vibrating between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy.
From the disorders which disfigure the annals of those republics,
the advocates of despotism have drawn arguments, not only against
the forms of republican government, but against the very principles
of civil liberty. They have decried all free government as
inconsistent with the order of society, and have indulged themselves
in malicious exultation over its friends and partisans."
And again they say:
"It must carry its agency to the persons of the citizens. It must
stand in need of no intermediate legislation; but must itself be
empowered to employ the arm of the ordinary magistrate to execute
its own resolutions. The majesty of the national authority must be
manifested through the medium of the courts of justice."
After reading these extracts, Mr. B. said: It was to get rid of the
evils of the old confederation that the present Union was formed;
and, having formed it, they who formed it undertook to make it
perpetual, and for that purpose had recourse to all the sanctions
held sacred among men--commands, prohibitions, oaths. The States
were forbid to form compacts or agreements with each other; the
constitution and the laws made in pursuance of it, were declared
to be the supreme law of the land; and all authorities, State and
federal, legislative, executive, and judicial, were to be sworn to
support it. The resolutions which have been read contradict all
this; and the General Assembly mistook their own powers as much as
they mistook the sentiments of the people of Missouri when they
adopted them.
CHAPTER XC.
PUBLIC LANDS:--DISTRIBUTION OF PROCEEDS.
Mr. Clay renewed, at this session, 1832-'33, the bill which he had
brought in the session before, and which had passed the Senate,
to divide the net proceeds of the sales of public lands among the
States, to be applied to such purposes as the legislatures of the
respective States should think proper. His principal arguments, in
favor of the bill, were: _first_, the aid which the distribution
would give to the States, in developing their resources and
promoting their prosperity; _secondly_, the advantage to the federal
government, in settling the question of the mode of disposing of the
public lands. He explained his bill, which, at first, contained a
specification of the objects to which the States should apply the
dividends they received, which was struck out, in the progress of
the bill, and stated its provisions to be:
"To set apart, for the benefit of the new States, twelve and a
half per cent., out of the aggregate proceeds, in addition to
the five per cent., which was now allowed to them by compact,
before any division took place among the States generally.
It was thus proposed to assign, in the first place, seventeen
and a half per cent. to the new States, and then to divide the
whole of the residue among the twenty-four States. And, in order
to do away any inequality among the new States, grants are
specifically made by the bill to those who had not received,
heretofore, as much lands as the rest of the new States, from
the general government, so as to put all the new States on
an equal footing. This twelve and a half per cent., to the
new States, to be at their disposal, for either education or
internal improvement, and the residue to be at the disposition
of the States, subject to no other limitation than this: that it
shall be at their option to apply the amount received either to
the purposes of education, or the colonization of free people of
color, or for internal improvements, or in debts which may have
been contracted for internal improvements. And, with respect
to the duration of this scheme of distribution proposed by the
bill, it is limited to five years, unless hostilities shall
occur between the United States and any foreign power; in which
event, the proceeds are to be applied to the carrying on such
war, with vigor and effect, against any common enemy with whom
we may be brought in contact. After the conclusion of peace,
and after the discharge of the debt created by any such war,
the aggregate funds to return to that peaceful destination to
which it was the intention of the bill that they should now be
directed, that is, to the improvement of the moral and physical
condition of the country, and the promotion of the public
happiness and prosperity."
He then spoke of the advantages of settling the question of the
manner of disposing of the public lands, and said:
"The first remark which seemed to him to be called for, in
reference to this subject, was as to the expediency, he would
say the necessity, of its immediate settlement. On this point,
he was happy to believe that there was a unanimous concurrence
of opinion in that body. However they might differ as to the
terms on which the distribution of these lands should be
made, they all agreed that it was a question which ought to
be promptly and finally, he hoped amicably, adjusted. No time
more favorable than the present moment could be selected for
the settlement of this question. The last session was much less
favorable for the accomplishment of this object; and the reasons
were sufficiently obvious, without any waste of time in their
specification. If the question were not now settled, but if it
were to be made the subject of an annual discussion, mixing
itself up with all the measures of legislation, it would be
felt in its influence upon all, would produce great dissensions
both in and out of the House, and affect extensively all the
great and important objects which might be before that body.
They had had, in the several States, some experience on that
subject; and, without going into any details on the subject, he
would merely state that it was known, that, for a long period,
the small amount of the public domain possessed by some of the
States, in comparison with the quantity possessed by the general
government, had been a cause of great agitation in the public
mind, and had greatly influenced the course of legislation.
Persons coming from the quarter of the State in which the
public land was situated, united in sympathy and interest,
constituted always a body who acted together, to promote their
common object, either by donations to settlers, or reduction in
the price of the public lands, or the relief of those who are
debtors for the public domain; and were always ready, as men
always will be, to second all those measures which look towards
the accomplishment of the main object which they have in view.
So, if this question were not now settled, it would be a source
of inexpressible difficulty hereafter, influencing all the great
interests of the country, in Congress, affecting great events
without, and perhaps adding another to those unhappy causes of
division, which unfortunately exist at this moment."
In his arguments in support of his bill, Mr. Clay looked to
the lands as a source of revenue to the States or the federal
government, from their sale, and not from their settlement and
cultivation, and the revenue to be derived from the wealth and
population to which their settlement would give rise; and,
concluding with an encomium on his bill under the aspect of revenue
from sales, he said:
"He could not conceive a more happy disposition of the proceeds
of the public lands, than that which was provided by this bill.
It was supposed that five years would be neither too long nor
too short a period for a fair experiment. In case a war should
break out, we may withdraw from its peaceful destination a sum
of from two and a half to three and a half millions of dollars
per annum, and apply it to a vigorous prosecution of the war--a
sum which would pay the interest on sixty millions of dollars,
which might be required to sustain the war, and a sum which is
constantly and progressively increasing. It proposes, now that
the general government has no use for the money, now that the
surplus treasure is really a source of vexatious embarrassment
to us, and gives rise to a succession of projects, to supply for
a short time a fund to the States which want our assistance,
to advance to them that which we do not want, and which they
will apply to great beneficial national purposes; and, should
war take place, to divert it to the vigorous support of the
war; and, when it ceases, to apply it again to its peaceful
purposes. And thus we may grow, from time to time, with a fund
which will endure for centuries, and which will augment with the
growth of the nation, aiding the States in seasons of peace, and
sustaining the general government in periods of war."
Mr. Calhoun deprecated this distribution of the land money as being
dangerous in itself and unconstitutional, and as leading to the
distribution of other revenue--in which he was prophetic. He said:
"He could not yield his assent to the mode which this bill
proposed to settle the agitated question of the public lands.
In addition to several objections of a minor character, he
had an insuperable objection to the leading principle of the
bill, which proposed to distribute the proceeds of the lands
among the States. He believed it to be both dangerous and
unconstitutional. He could not assent to the principle, that
Congress had a right to denationalize the public funds. He
agreed that the objection was not so decided in case of the
proceeds of lands, as in that of revenue collected from taxes
or duties. The senator from Ohio had adduced evidence from the
deed of cession, which certainly countenanced the idea that
the proceeds of the lands might be subject to the distribution
proposed in the bill; but he was far from being satisfied that
the argument was solid or conclusive. If the principle of
distribution could be confined to the proceeds of the lands, he
would acknowledge that his objection to the principle would be
weakened.
"He dreaded the force of precedent, and he foresaw that the time
would come when the example of the distribution of the proceeds
of the public lands would be urged as a reason for distributing
the revenue derived from other sources. Nor would the argument
be devoid of plausibility. If we, of the Atlantic States,
insist that the revenue of the West, derived from lands, should
be equally distributed among all the States, we must not be
surprised if the interior States should, in like manner, insist
to distribute the proceeds of the customs, the great source
of revenue in the Atlantic States. Should such a movement be
successful, it must be obvious to every one, who is the least
acquainted with the workings of the human heart, and the nature
of government, that nothing would more certainly endanger the
existence of the Union. The revenue is the power of the State,
and to distribute its revenue is to dissolve its power into its
original elements."
Attempts were made to postpone the bill to the next session, which
failed; and it passed the Senate by a vote of 24 to 20.
YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Chambers, Clay, Clayton, Dallas, Dickerson,
Dudley, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Hendricks, Holmes,
Johnston, Knight, Poindexter, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles,
Seymour, Silsbee, Sprague, Tomlinson, Waggaman, Wilkins--24.
NAYS.--Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Buckner, Calhoun, Forsyth,
Grundy, Hill, Kane, King, Mangum, Miller, Moore, Rives,
Robinson, Smith, Tipton, Tyler, White, Wright--20.
The bill went to the House and received amendments, which did not
obtain the concurrence of the Senate until midnight of the first
of March, which, being the short session, was within twenty-four
hours of the constitutional termination of the Congress, which was
limited to the 3d--which falling this year on Sunday, the Congress
would adjourn at midnight of the 2nd. Further efforts were made to
postpone it, and upon the ground that, in a bill of that magnitude
and novelty, the President was entitled to the full ten days for
the consideration of it which the constitution allowed him, and he
would have but half a day; for if passed that night it could only
reach him in the forenoon of the next day--leaving him but half a
day for his consideration of the measure, where the constitution
allowed him ten; and that half day engrossed with all crowded
business of an expiring session. The next evening, the President
attended, as usual, in a room adjoining the Senate chamber, to be
at hand to sign bills and make nominations. It was some hours in
the night when the President sent for me, and withdrawing into the
recess of a window, told me that he had a veto message ready on the
land bill, but doubted about sending it in, lest there should not
be a full Senate; and intimated his apprehension that Mr. Calhoun
and some of his friends might be absent, and endanger the bill: and
wished to consult me upon that point. I told him I would go and
reconnoitre the chamber, and adjacent rooms; did so--found that Mr.
Calhoun and his immediate friends were absent--returned and informed
him, when he said he would keep the bill until the next session,
and then return it with a fully considered message--his present one
being brief, and not such as to show his views fully. I told him
I thought he ought to do so--that such a measure ought not to be
passed in the last hours of a session, in a thin Senate, and upon an
imperfect view of his objections; and that the public good required
it to be held up. It was so; and during the long vacation of nine
months which intervened before the next session, the opposition
presses and orators kept the country filled with denunciations of
the enormity of his conduct in "_pocketing_" the hill--as if it
had been a case of "flat burglary," instead of being the exercise
of a constitutional right, rendered most just and proper under the
extraordinary circumstances which had attended the passage, and
intended return of the bill. At the commencement of the ensuing
session he returned the bill, with his well-considered objections,
in an ample message, which, after going over a full history of the
derivation of the lands, came to the following conclusions:
"1. That one of the fundamental principles, on which the
confederation of the United States was originally based, was,
that the waste lands of the West, within their limits, should be
the common property of the United States.
"2. That those lands were ceded to the United States by the
States which claimed them, and the cessions were accepted, on
the express condition that they should be disposed of for the
common benefit of the States, according to their respective
proportions in the general charge and expenditure, and for no
other purpose whatsoever.
"3. That, in execution of these solemn compacts, the Congress of
the United States did, under the confederation, proceed to sell
these lands, and put the avails into the common treasury; and,
under the new constitution, did repeatedly pledge them for the
payment of the public debt of the United States, by which pledge
each State was expected to profit in proportion to the general
charge to be made upon it for that object.
"These are the first principles of this whole subject, which,
I think, cannot be contested by any one who examines the
proceedings of the revolutionary Congress, the sessions of
the several States, and the acts of Congress, under the new
constitution. Keeping them deeply impressed upon the mind, let
us proceed to examine how far the objects of the cessions have
been completed, and see whether those compacts are not still
obligatory upon the United States.
"The debt, for which these lands were pledged by Congress,
may be considered as paid, and they are consequently released
from that lien. But that pledge formed no part of the compacts
with the States, or of the conditions upon which the cessions
were made. It was a contract between new parties--between the
United States and their creditors. Upon payment of the debt,
the compacts remain in full force, and the obligation of the
United States to dispose of the lands for the common benefit, is
neither destroyed nor impaired. As they cannot now be executed
in that mode, the only legitimate question which can arise is,
in what other way are these lands to be hereafter disposed of
for the common benefit of the several States, 'according to
their respective and usual proportion in the general charge and
expenditure?' The cessions of Virginia, North Carolina, and
Georgia, in express terms, and all the rest impliedly, not only
provide thus specifically the proportion, according to which
each State shall profit by the proceeds of the land sales, but
they proceed to declare that they shall be 'faithfully and _bona
fide_ disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or
purpose whatsoever.' This is the fundamental law of the land, at
this moment, growing out of compacts which are older than the
constitution, and formed the corner stone on which the Union
itself was erected.
"In the practice of the government, the proceeds of the public
lands have not been set apart as a separate fund for the payment
of the public debt, but have been, and are now, paid into
the treasury, where they constitute a part of the aggregate
of revenue, upon which the government draws, as well for its
current expenditures as for payment of the public debt. In this
manner, they have heretofore, and do now, lessen the general
charge upon the people of the several States, in the exact
proportions stipulated in the compacts.
"These general charges have been composed, not only of the
public debt and the usual expenditures attending the civil and
military administrations of the government, but of the amounts
paid to the States, with which these compacts were formed; the
amounts paid the Indians for their right of possession; the
amounts paid for the purchase of Louisiana and Florida; and
the amounts paid surveyors, registers, receivers, clerks, &c.,
employed in preparing for market, and selling, the western
domain. From the origin of the land system, down to the 30th
September, 1832, the amount expended for all these purposes has
been about $49,701,280 and the amount received from the sales,
deducting payments on account of roads, &c., about $38,386,624.
The revenue arising from the public lands, therefore, has not
been sufficient to meet the general charges on the treasury,
which have grown out of them, by about $11,314,656. Yet, in
having been applied to lessen those charges, the conditions
of the compacts have been thus far fulfilled, and each State
has profited according to its usual proportion in the general
charge and expenditure. The annual proceeds of land sales have
increased, and the charges have diminished; so that, at a
reduced price, those lands would now defray all current charges
growing out of them, and save the treasury from further advances
on their account. Their original intent and object, therefore,
would be accomplished, as fully as it has hitherto been, by
reducing the price, and hereafter, as heretofore, bringing the
proceeds into the treasury. Indeed, as this is the only mode in
which the objects of the original compact can be attained, it
may be considered, for all practical purposes, that it is one of
their requirements.
"The bill before me begins with an entire subversion of every
one of the compacts by which the United States became possessed
of their western domain, and treats the subject as if they never
had existence, and as if the United States were the original and
unconditional owners of all the public lands. The first section
directs--
"'That, from and after the 31st day of December, 1832, there
shall be allowed and paid to each of the States of Ohio,
Indiana, Illinois, Alabama, Missouri, Mississippi, and
Louisiana, over and above what each of the said States is
entitled to by the terms of the compacts entered into between
them, respectively, upon their admission into the Union and the
United States, the sum of twelve and a half per centum upon the
net amount of the sales of the public lands, which, subsequent
to the day aforesaid, shall be made within the several limits
of the said States; which said sum of twelve and a half per
centum shall be applied to some object or objects of internal
improvement or education, within the said States, under the
direction of their several legislatures.'
"This twelve and a half per centum is to be taken out of the
net proceeds of the land sales, before any apportionment is
made; and the same seven States, which are first to receive this
proportion, are also to receive their due proportion of the
residue, according to the ratio of general distribution.
"Now, waiving all considerations of equity or policy, in regard
to this provision, what more need be said to demonstrate
its objectionable character, than that it is in direct and
undisguised violation of the pledge given by Congress to the
States, before a single cession was made; that it abrogates the
condition upon which some of the States came into the Union;
and that it sets at nought the terms of cession spread upon the
face of every grant under which the title to that portion of the
public land is held by the federal government?
"In the apportionment of the remaining seven eighths of
the proceeds, this bill, in a manner equally undisguised,
violates the conditions upon which the United States acquired
title to the ceded lands. Abandoning altogether the ratio of
distribution, according to the general charge and expenditure
provided by the compacts, it adopts that of the federal
representative population. Virginia, and other States, which
ceded their lands upon the express condition that they should
receive a benefit from their sales, in proportion to their
part of the general charge, are, by the bill, allowed only a
portion of seven eighths of their proceeds, and that not in the
proportion of general charge and expenditure, but in the ratio
of their federal representative population.
"The constitution of the United States did not delegate to
Congress the power to abrogate these compacts. On the contrary,
by declaring that nothing in it 'shall be so construed as to
prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular
State,' it virtually provides that these compacts, and the
rights they secure, shall remain untouched by the legislative
power, which shall only make all 'needful rules and regulations'
for carrying them into effect. All beyond this, would seem to be
an assumption of undelegated power.
"These ancient compacts are invaluable monuments of an age of
virtue, patriotism, and disinterestedness. They exhibit the
price that great States, which had won liberty, were willing to
pay for that Union, without which, they plainly saw, it could
not be preserved. It was not for territory or State power that
our revolutionary fathers took up arms; it was for individual
liberty, and the right of self-government. The expulsion, from
the continent, of British armies and British power was to them
a barren conquest, if, through the collisions of the redeemed
States, the individual rights for which they fought should
become the prey of petty military tyrannies established at
home. To avert such consequences, and throw around liberty the
shield of union, States, whose relative strength, at the time,
gave them a preponderating power, magnanimously sacrificed
domains which would have made them the rivals of empires, only
stipulating that they should be disposed of for the common
benefit of themselves and the other confederated States. This
enlightened policy produced union, and has secured liberty. It
has made our waste lands to swarm with a busy people, and added
many powerful States to our confederation. As well for the
fruits which these noble works of our ancestors have produced,
as for the devotedness in which they originated, we should
hesitate before we demolish them.
"But there are other principles asserted in the bill, which
would have impelled me to withhold my signature, had I not
seen in it a violation of the compacts by which the United
States acquired title to a large portion of the public lands.
It reasserts the principle contained in the bill authorizing
a subscription to the stock of the Maysville, Washington,
Paris, and Lexington Turnpike Road Company, from which I was
compelled to withhold my consent, for reasons contained in my
message of the 27th May 1830, to the House of Representatives.
The leading principle, then asserted, was, that Congress
possesses no constitutional power to appropriate any part of the
moneys of the United States for objects of a local character
within the States. That principle, I cannot be mistaken in
supposing, has received the unequivocal sanction of the American
people, and all subsequent reflection has but satisfied me
more thoroughly that the interests of our people, and the
purity of our government, if not its existence, depend on its
observance. The public lands are the common property of the
United States, and the moneys arising from their sales are a
part of the public revenue. This bill proposes to raise from,
and appropriate a portion of, this public revenue to certain
States, providing expressly that it shall 'be applied to objects
of internal improvement or education within those States,' and
then proceeds to appropriate the balance to all the States,
with the declaration that it shall be applied 'to such purposes
as the legislatures of the said respective States shall deem
proper.' The former appropriation is expressly for internal
improvements or education, without qualification as to the kind
of improvements, and, therefore, in express violation of the
principle maintained in my objections to the turnpike road bill,
above referred to. The latter appropriation is more broad, and
gives the money to be applied to any local purpose whatsoever.
It will not be denied, that, under the provisions of the bill,
a portion of the money might have been applied to making the
very road to which the bill of 1830 had reference, and must,
of course, come within the scope of the same principle. If the
money of the United States cannot be applied to local purposes
through its own agents, as little can it be permitted to be thus
expended through the agency of the State governments.
"It has been supposed that, with all the reductions in our
revenue which could be speedily effected by Congress, without
injury to the substantial interests of the country, there might
be, for some years to come, a surplus of moneys in the treasury;
and that there was, in principle, no objection to returning
them to the people by whom they were paid. As the literal
accomplishment of such an object is obviously impracticable,
it was thought admissible, as the nearest approximation to
it, to hand them over to the State governments, the more
immediate representatives of the people, to be by them applied
to the benefit of those to whom they properly belonged. The
principle and the object was, to return to the people an
unavoidable surplus of revenue which might have been paid by
them under a system which could not at once be abandoned; but
even this resource, which at one time seemed to be almost the
only alternative to save the general government from grasping
unlimited power over internal improvements, was suggested with
doubts of its constitutionality.
"But this bill assumes a new principle. Its object is not to
return to the people an unavoidable surplus of revenue paid in
by them, but to create a surplus for distribution among the
States. It seizes the entire proceeds of one source of revenue,
and sets them apart as a surplus, making it necessary to raise
the money for supporting the government, and meeting the general
charges, from other sources. It even throws the entire land
system upon the customs for its support, and makes the public
lands a perpetual charge upon the treasury. It does not return
to the people moneys accidentally or unavoidably paid by them
to the government by which they are not wanted; but compels the
people to pay moneys into the treasury for the mere purpose of
creating a surplus for distribution to their State governments.
If this principle be once admitted, it is not difficult to
perceive to what consequences it may lead. Already this bill,
by throwing the land system on the revenues from imports for
support, virtually distributes among the States a part of those
revenues. The proportion may be increased from time to time,
without any departure from the principle now asserted, until
the State governments shall derive all the funds necessary for
their support from the treasury of the United States; or, if
a sufficient supply should be obtained by some States and not
by others, the deficient States might complain, and, to put
an end to all further difficulty, Congress, without assuming
any new principle, need go but one step further, and put the
salaries of all the State governors, judges, and other officers,
with a sufficient sum for other expenses, in their general
appropriation bill.
"It appears to me that a more direct road to consolidation
cannot be devised. Money is power, and in that government which
pays all the public officers of the States, will all political
power be substantially concentrated. The State governments,
if governments they might be called, would lose all their
independence and dignity. The economy which now distinguishes
them would be converted into a profusion, limited only by the
extent of the supply. Being the dependants of the general
government, and looking to its treasury as the source of all
their emoluments, the State officers, under whatever names
they might pass, and by whatever forms their duties might be
prescribed, would, in effect, be the mere stipendaries and
instruments of the central power.
"I am quite sure that the intelligent people of our several
States will be satisfied, on a little reflection, that it is
neither wise nor safe to release the members of their local
legislatures from the responsibility of levying the taxes
necessary to support their State governments, and vest it in
Congress, over most of whose members they have no control.
They will not think it expedient that Congress shall be the
tax-gatherer and paymaster of all their State governments, thus
amalgamating all their officers into one mass of common interest
and common feeling. It is too obvious that such a course would
subvert our well-balanced system of government, and ultimately
deprive us of the blessings now derived from our happy union.
"However willing I might be that any unavoidable surplus in the
treasury should be returned to the people through their State
governments, I cannot assent to the principle that a surplus may
be created for the purpose of distribution. Viewing this bill
as, in effect, assuming the right not only to create a surplus
for that purpose, but to divide the contents of the treasury
among the States without limitation, from whatever source they
may be derived, and asserting the power to raise and appropriate
money for the support of every State government and institution,
as well as for making every local improvement, however trivial,
I cannot give it my assent.
"It is difficult to perceive what advantages would accrue to
the old States or the new from the system of distribution which
this bill proposes, if it were otherwise unobjectionable. It
requires no argument to prove, that if three millions of dollars
a year, or any other sum, shall be taken out of the treasury
by this bill for distribution, it must be replaced by the same
sum collected from the people through some other means. The old
States will receive annually a sum of money from the treasury,
but they will pay in a larger sum, together with the expenses
of collection and distribution. It is only their proportion of
seven eights of the proceeds of land sales which they are to
receive, but they must pay their due proportion of the whole.
Disguise it as we may, the bill proposes to them a dead loss in
the ratio of eight to seven, in addition to expenses and other
incidental losses. This assertion is not the less true because
it may not at first be palpable. Their receipts will be in
large sums, but their payments in small ones. The governments
of the States will receive seven dollars, for which the people
of the States will pay eight. The large sums received will be
palpable to the senses; the small sums paid, it requires thought
to identify. But a little consideration will satisfy the people
that the effect is the same as if seven hundred dollars were
given them from the public treasury, for which they were at the
same time required to pay in taxes, direct or indirect, eight
hundred.
"I deceive myself greatly if the new States would find their
interests promoted by such a system as this bill proposes. Their
true policy consists in the rapid settling and improvement of
the waste lands within their limits. As a means of hastening
those events, they have long been looking to a reduction in the
price of public lands upon the final payment of the national
debt. The effect of the proposed system would be to prevent
that reduction. It is true, the bill reserves to Congress the
power to reduce the price, but the effect of its details, as now
arranged, would probably be forever to prevent its exercise.
"With the just men who inhabit the new States, it is a
sufficient reason to reject this system, that it is in violation
of the fundamental laws of the republic and its constitution.
But if it were a mere question of interest or expediency, they
would still reject it. They would not sell their bright prospect
of increasing wealth and growing power at such a price. They
would not place a sum of money to be paid into their treasuries,
in competition with the settlement of their waste lands, and
the increase of their population. They would not consider a
small or large annual sum to be paid to their governments, and
immediately expended, as an equivalent for that enduring wealth
which is composed of flocks and herds, and cultivated farms.
No temptation will allure them from that object of abiding
interest, the settlement of their waste lands, and the increase
of a hardy race of free citizens, their glory in peace and their
defence in war.
"On the whole, I adhere to the opinion expressed by me in my
annual message of 1832, that it is our true policy that the
public lands shall cease, as soon as practicable, to be a source
of revenue, except for the payment of those general charges
which grow out of the acquisition of the lands, their survey,
and sale. Although these expenses have not been met by the
proceeds of sales heretofore, it is quite certain they will be
hereafter, even after a considerable reduction in the price. By
meeting in the treasury so much of the general charge as arises
from that source, they will be hereafter, as they have been
heretofore, disposed of for the common benefit of the United
States, according to the compacts of cession. I do not doubt
that it is the real interest of each and all the States in the
Union, and particularly of the new States, that the price of
these lands shall be reduced and graduated; and that, after they
have been offered for a certain number of years, the refuse,
remaining unsold, shall be abandoned to the States, and the
machinery of our land system entirely withdrawn. It cannot be
supposed the compacts intended that the United States should
retain forever a title to lands within the States, which are of
no value; and no doubt is entertained that the general interest
would be best promoted by surrendering such lands to the States.
"This plan for disposing of the public lands impairs no
principle, violates no compact, and deranges no system. Already
has the price of those lands been reduced from two dollars
per acre to one dollar and a quarter; and upon the will of
Congress, it depends whether there shall be a further reduction.
While the burdens of the East are diminishing by the reduction
of the duties upon imports, it seems but equal justice that
the chief burden of the West should be lightened in an equal
degree at least. It would be just to the old States and the
new, conciliate every interest, disarm the subject of all its
dangers, and add another guaranty to the perpetuity of our happy
Union."
_Statement respecting the revenue derived from the public lands,
accompanying the President's Message to the Senate, December 4th,
1833, stating his reasons for not approving the Land Bill:_
Statement of the amount of money which has been paid by the
United States for the title to the public lands, including the
payments made under the Louisiana and Florida treaties; the
compact with Georgia; the settlement with the Yazoo claimants;
the contracts with the Indian tribes; and the expenditures for
compensation to commissioners, clerks, surveyors, and other
officers, employed by the United States for the management and
sale of the Western domain; the gross amount of money received
into the treasury, as the proceeds of public lands, to the 30th
of September, 1832; also, the net amount, after deducting five
per cent., expended on account of roads within, and leading to
the Western States, &c., and sums refunded on account of errors
in the entries of public lands.
Payment on account of the purchase of Louisiana:
Principal, $14,984,872 28
Interest on $11,250,000 8,529,353 43
------------- $23,514,225 71
Payment on account of the purchase of Florida:
Principal, $4,985,599 82
Interest to 30th September, 1832, 1,489,768 66
------------- $6,475,368 48
Payment of compact with Georgia, 1,065,484 06
Payment of the settlement with the Yazoo
claimants, 1,830,808 04
Payment of contracts with the several Indian
tribes (all expenses on account of Indians), 13,064,677 45
Payment of commissioners, clerks, and other
officers, employed by the United States for
the management and sale of the Western
domain, 3,750,716 43
--------------
$49,701,280 17
--------------
Amount of money received into the treasury
as the proceeds of public lands to 30th
September, 1832, $39,614,000 07
Deduct payments from the treasury on account
of roads, &c., 1,227,375 94
--------------
$38,386,624 13
--------------
T. L. SMITH, _Reg._
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, }
_Register's Office, March 1, 1833_. }
Such was this ample and well-considered message, one of the wisest
and most patriotic ever delivered by any President, and presenting
General Jackson under the aspect of an immense elevation over the
ordinary arts of men who run a popular career, and become candidates
for popular votes. Such arts require addresses to popular interests,
the conciliation of the interested passions, the gratification of
cupidity, the favoring of the masses in the distribution of money or
property as well as the enrichment of classes in undue advantages.
General Jackson exhibits himself as equally elevated above all
these arts--as far above seducing the masses with agrarian laws as
above enriching the few with the plundering legislation of banks
and tariffs; and the people felt this elevation, and did honor to
themselves in the manner in which they appreciated it. Far from
losing his popularity, he increased it, by every act of disdain
which he exhibited for the ordinary arts of conciliating popular
favor. His veto message, on this occasion was an exemplification of
all the high qualities of the public man. He sat out with showing
that these lands, so far as they were divided from the States,
were granted as a common fund, to be disposed of for the benefit
of all the States, according to their usual respective proportions
in the general charge and expenditure, and for no other use or
purpose whatsoever; and that by the principles of our government
and sound policy, those acquired from foreign governments could
only be disposed of in the same manner. In addition to these great
reasons of principle and policy, the message clearly points out the
mischief which any scheme of distribution will inflict upon the new
States in preventing reductions in the price of the public lands--in
preventing donations to settlers--and in preventing the cession of
the unsalable lands to the States in which they lie; and recurs to
his early messages in support of the policy, now that the public
debt was paid, of looking to settlement and population as the chief
objects to be derived from these lands, and for that purpose that
they be sold to settlers at cost.
CHAPTER XCI.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE TWENTY-THIRD CONGRESS.--THE MEMBERS, AND
PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE.
On the second day of December, 1833, commenced the first session of
the Twenty-third Congress, commonly called the Panic session--one of
the most eventful and exciting which the country had ever seen, and
abounding with high talent. The following is the list of members:
SENATE.
MAINE--Peleg Sprague, Ether Shepley.
NEW HAMPSHIRE--Samuel Bell, Isaac Hill.
MASSACHUSETTS--Daniel Webster, Nathaniel Silsbee.
RHODE ISLAND--Nehemiah R. Knight, Asher Robbins.
CONNECTICUT--Gideon Tomlinson, Nathan Smith.
VERMONT--Samuel Prentiss, Benjamin Swift.
NEW YORK--Silas Wright, N. P. Tallmadge.
NEW JERSEY--Theodore Frelinghuysen, S. L. Southard.
PENNSYLVANIA--William Wilkins, Samuel McKean.
DELAWARE--John M. Clayton, Arnold Naudain.
MARYLAND--Ezekiel F. Chambers, Joseph Kent.
VIRGINIA--Wm. C. Rives, John Tyler.
NORTH CAROLINA--Bedford Brown, W. P. Mangum.
SOUTH CAROLINA--J. C. Calhoun, William C. Preston.
GEORGIA--John Forsyth, John P. King.
KENTUCKY--George M. Bibb, Henry Clay.
TENNESSEE--Felix Grundy, Hugh L. White.
OHIO--Thomas Ewing, Thomas Morris.
LOUISIANA--G. A. Waggaman, Alexander Porter.
INDIANA--Wm. Hendricks, John Tipton.
MISSISSIPPI--George Poindexter, John Black.
ILLINOIS--Elias K. Kane, John M. Robinson.
ALABAMA--William R. King, Gabriel Moore.
MISSOURI--Thomas H. Benton, Lewis F. Linn.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MAINE--George Evans, Joseph Hall, Leonard Jarvis, Edward
Kavanagh, Moses Mason, Rufus McIntyre, Gorham Parks, Francis O.
J. Smith.
NEW HAMPSHIRE--Benning M. Bean, Robert Burns, Joseph M. Harper,
Henry Hubbard, Franklin Pierce.
MASSACHUSETTS--John Quincy Adams, Isaac C. Bates, William
Baylies, George N. Briggs, Rufus Choate, John Davis, Edward
Everett, Benjamin Gorham, George Grennell, jr., Gayton P.
Osgood, John Reed.
RHODE ISLAND--Tristam Burges, Dutea J. Pearce.
CONNECTICUT--Noyes Barber, William W. Ellsworth, Samuel A. Foot,
Jabez W. Huntington, Samuel Tweedy, Ebenezer Young.
VERMONT--Heman Allen, Benjamin F. Deming, Horace Everett, Hiland
Hall, William Slade.
NEW YORK--John Adams, Samuel Beardsley, Abraham Bockee, Charles
Bodle, John W. Brown, Churchill C. Cambreleng, Samuel Clark,
John Cramer, Rowland Day, John Dickson, Millard Fillmore,
Philo C. Fuller, William K. Fuller, Ransom H. Gillet, Nicoll
Halsey, Gideon Hard, Samuel C. Hathaway, Abner Hazeltine, Edward
Howell, Abel Huntington, Noadiah Johnson, Gerrit Y. Lansing,
Cornelius W. Lawrence, George W. Lay, Abijah Mann, jr., Henry
C. Martindale, Charles McVean, Henry Mitchell, Sherman Page,
Job Pierson, Dudley Selden, William Taylor, Joel Turrill, Aaron
Vanderpoel, Isaac B. Van Houten, Aaron Ward, Daniel Wardwell,
Reuben Whallon, Campbell P. White, Frederick Whittlesey.
NEW JERSEY--Philemon Dickerson, Samuel Fowler, Thomas Lee, James
Parker, Ferdinand S. Schenck, William N. Shinn.
PENNSYLVANIA--Joseph B. Anthony, John Banks, Charles A. Barnitz,
Andrew Beaumont, Horace Binney, George Burd, George Chambers,
William Clark, Richard Coulter, Edward Darlington, Harmar Denny,
John Galbraith, James Harper, Samuel S. Harrison, William
Hiester, Joseph Henderson, Henry King, John Laporte, Joel K.
Mann, Thomas M. T. McKennan, Jesse Miller, Henry A. Muhlenberg,
David Potts, jr., Robert Ramsay, Andrew Stewart, Joel B.
Sutherland, David E. Wagener, John G. Watmough.
DELAWARE--John J. Milligan.
MARYLAND--Richard B. Carmichael, Littleton P. Dennis, James P.
Heath, William Cost Johnson, Isaac McKim, John T. Stoddert,
Francis Thomas, James Turner.
VIRGINIA--John J. Allen, William S. Archer, James M. H. Beale,
Thomas T. Bouldin, Joseph W. Chinn, Nathaniel H. Claiborne,
Thomas Davenport, John H. Fulton, James H. Gholson, William F.
Gordon, George Loyall, Edward Lucas, John Y. Mason, William
McComas, Charles F. Mercer, Samuel McDowell Moore, John M.
Patton, Andrew Stevenson, William P. Taylor, Edgar C. Wilson,
Henry A. Wise.
NORTH CAROLINA--Daniel L. Barringer, Jesse A. Bynum, Henry W.
Connor, Edmund Deberry, James Graham, Thomas H. Hall, Micajah T.
Hawkins, James J. McKay, Abraham Rencher, William B. Shepard,
Augustine H. Shepperd, Jesse Speight, Lewis Williams.
SOUTH CAROLINA--James Blair, William K. Clowney, Warren R.
Davis, John M. Felder, William J. Grayson, John K. Griffin,
George McDuffie, Henry L. Pinckney.
GEORGIA--Augustine S. Clayton, John Coffee, Thomas F. Foster,
Roger L. Gamble, George R. Gilmer, Seaborn Jones, William
Schley, James M. Wayne, Richard H. Wilde.
KENTUCKY--Chilton Allan, Martin Beaty, Thomas Chilton, Amos
Davis, Benjamin Hardin, Albert G. Hawes, Richard M. Johnson,
James Love, Chittenden Lyon, Thomas A. Marshall, Patrick H.
Pope, Christopher Tompkins.
TENNESSEE--John Bell, John Blair, Samuel Bunch, David Crockett,
David W. Dickinson, William C. Dunlap, John B. Forester, William
M. Inge, Cave Johnson, Luke Lea, Balie Peyton, James K. Polk,
James Standifer.
OHIO--William Allen, James M. Bell, John Chaney, Thomas Corwin,
Joseph H. Crane, Thomas L. Hamer, Benjamin Jones, Henry H.
Leavitt, Robert T. Lytle, Jeremiah McLean, Robert Mitchell,
William Patterson, Jonathan Sloane, David Spangler, John
Thomson, Joseph Vance, Samuel F. Vinton, Taylor Webster, Elisha
Whittlesey.
LOUISIANA--Philemon Thomas, Edward D. White.
INDIANA--Ratliff Boon, John Carr, John Ewing, Edward A.
Hannegan, George L. Kinnard, Amos Lane, Jonathan McCarty.
MISSISSIPPI--Harry Cage, Franklin E. Plumer.
ILLINOIS--Zadok Casey, Joseph Duncan, Charles Slade.
ALABAMA--Clement C. Clay, Dixon H. Lewis, Samuel W. Mardis, John
McKinley, John Murphy.
MISSOURI--William H. Ashley, John Bull.
Lucius Lyon also appeared as the delegate from the territory of
Michigan.
Ambrose H. Sevier also appeared as the delegate from the
territory of Arkansas,--Joseph M. White from Florida.
Mr. Andrew Stevenson, who had been chosen Speaker of the House
for the three succeeding Congresses, was re-elected by a great
majority--indicating the administration strength, and his own
popularity. The annual message was immediately sent in, and
presented a gratifying view of our foreign relations--all nations
being in peace and amity with us, and many giving fresh proofs of
friendship, either in new treaties formed, or indemnities made for
previous injuries. The state of the finances was then adverted to,
and shown to be in the most favorable condition. The message said:
"It gives me great pleasure to congratulate you upon the
prosperous condition of the finances of the country, as will
appear from the report which the Secretary of the Treasury will,
in due time, lay before you. The receipts into the Treasury
during the present year will amount to more than thirty-two
millions of dollars. The revenue derived from customs will, it
is believed, be more than twenty-eight millions, and the public
lands will yield about three millions. The expenditures within
the year, for all objects, including two millions five hundred
and seventy-two thousand two hundred and forty dollars and
ninety-nine cents on account of the public debt, will not amount
to twenty-five millions, and a large balance will remain in the
Treasury after satisfying all the appropriations chargeable on
the revenue for the present year."
The act of the last session, called the "compromise," the President
recommended to observance, "unless it should be found to produce
more revenue than the necessities of the government required."
The extinction of the public debt presented, in the opinion of
the President, the proper occasion for organizing a system of
expenditure on the principles of the strictest economy consistent
with the public interest; and the passage of the message in relation
to that point was particularly grateful to the old friends of an
economical administration of the government. It said:
"But, while I forbear to recommend any further reduction of
the duties, beyond that already provided for by the existing
laws, I must earnestly and respectfully press upon Congress the
importance of abstaining from all appropriations which are not
absolutely required for the public interests, and authorized
by the powers clearly legated to the United States. We are
beginning a new era in our government. The national debt, which
has so long been a burden on the Treasury, will be finally
discharged in the course of the ensuing year. No more money
will afterwards be needed than what may be necessary to meet
the ordinary expenses of the government. Now then is the proper
moment to fix our system of expenditure on firm and durable
principles; and I cannot too strongly urge the necessity of a
rigid economy, and an inflexible determination not to enlarge
the income beyond the real necessities of the government, and
not to increase the wants of the government by unnecessary and
profuse expenditures. If a contrary course should be pursued,
it may happen that the revenue of 1834 will fall short of the
demands upon it; and after reducing the tariff in order to
lighten the burdens of the people, and providing for a still
further reduction to take effect hereafter, it would be much
to be deplored if, at the end of another year, we should find
ourselves obliged to retrace our steps, and impose additional
taxes to meet unnecessary expenditures."
The part of the message, however, which gave the paper uncommon
emphasis, and caused it to be received with opposite, and violent
emotions by different parts of the community, was that which related
to the Bank of the United States--its believed condition--and the
consequent removal of the public deposits from its keeping. The
deposits had been removed--done in vacation by the order of the
President--on the ground of insecurity, as well as of misconduct
in the corporation: and as Congress, at the previous session had
declared its belief of their safety, this act of the President
had already become a point of vehement newspaper attack upon
him--destined to be continued in the halls of Congress. His conduct
in this removal, and the reasons for it, were thus communicated:
"Since the last adjournment of Congress, the Secretary of the
Treasury has directed the money of the United States to be
deposited in certain State banks designated by him, and he will
immediately lay before you his reasons for this direction.
I concur with him entirely in the view he has taken of the
subject; and, some months before the removal, I urged upon the
department the propriety of taking that step. The near approach
of the day on which the charter will expire, as well as the
conduct of the bank, appeared to me to call for this measure
upon the high considerations of public interest and public
duty. The extent of its misconduct, however, although known
to be great, was not at that time fully developed by proof.
It was not until late in the month of August, that I received
from the government directors an official report, establishing
beyond question that this great and powerful institution had
been actively engaged in attempting to influence the elections
of the public officers by means of its money; and that, in
violation of the express provisions of its charter, it had, by
a formal resolution, placed its funds at the disposition of its
President, to be employed in sustaining the political power of
the bank. A copy of this resolution is contained in the report
of the government directors, before referred to; and however
the object may be disguised by cautious language, no one can
doubt that this money was in truth intended for electioneering
purposes, and the particular uses to which it was proved to have
been applied, abundantly show that it was so understood. Not
only was the evidence complete as to the past application of the
money and power of the bank to electioneering purposes, but that
the resolution of the board of directors authorized the same
course to be pursued in future.
"It being thus established, by unquestionable proof, that
the Bank of the United States was converted into a permanent
electioneering engine, it appeared to me that the path of duty
which the Executive department of the government ought to
pursue, was not doubtful. As by the terms of the bank charter,
no officer but the Secretary of the Treasury could remove the
deposits, it seemed to me that this authority ought to be at
once exerted to deprive that great corporation of the support
and countenance of the government in such a use of its funds,
and such an exertion of its power. In this point of the case,
the question is distinctly presented, whether the people of the
United States are to govern through representatives chosen by
their unbiassed suffrages, or whether the money and power of a
great corporation are to be secretly exerted to influence their
judgment, and control their decisions. It must now be determined
whether the bank is to have its candidates for all offices
in the country, from the highest to the lowest, or whether
candidates on both sides of political questions shall be brought
forward as heretofore, and supported by the usual means.
"At this time, the efforts of the bank to control public
opinion, through the distresses of some and the fears of others,
are equally apparent, and, if possible, more objectionable. By a
curtailment of its accommodations, more rapid than any emergency
requires, and even while it retains specie to an almost
unprecedented amount in its vaults, it is attempting to produce
great embarrassment in one portion of the community, while,
through presses known to have been sustained by its money, it
attempts, by unfounded alarms, to create a panic in all.
"These are the means by which it seems to expect that it can
force a restoration of the deposits, and, as a necessary
consequence, extort from Congress a renewal of its charter. I am
happy to know that, through the good sense of our people, the
effort to get up a panic has hitherto failed, and that, through
the increased accommodations which the State banks have been
enabled to afford, no public distress has followed the exertions
of the bank; and it cannot be doubted that the exercise of its
power, and the expenditure of its money, as well as its efforts
to spread groundless alarm, will be met and rebuked as they
deserve. In my own sphere of duty, I should feel myself called
on, by the facts disclosed, to order a _scire facias_ against
the bank, with a view to put an end to the chartered rights it
has so palpably violated, were it not that the charter itself
will expire as soon as a decision would probably be obtained
from the court of last resort.
"I called the attention of Congress to this subject in my last
annual message, and informed them that such measures as were
within the reach of the Secretary of the Treasury, had been
taken to enable him to judge whether the public deposits in
the Bank of the United States were entirely safe; but that
as his single powers might be inadequate to the object, I
recommended the subject to Congress, as worthy of their serious
investigation: declaring it as my opinion that an inquiry
into the transactions of that institution, embracing the
branches as well as the principal bank, was called for by the
credit which was given throughout the country to many serious
charges impeaching their character, and which, if true, might
justly excite the apprehension that they were no longer a
safe depository for the public money. The extent to which the
examination, thus recommended, was gone into, is spread upon
your journals, and is too well known to require to be stated.
Such as was made resulted in a report from a majority of the
Committee of Ways and Means, touching certain specified points
only, concluding with a resolution that the government deposits
might safely be continued in the Bank of the United States. This
resolution was adopted at the close of the session, by the vote
of a majority of the House of Representatives."
The message concluded with renewing the recommendation, which the
President had annually made since his first election, in favor of
so amending the constitution in the article of the presidential
and vice-presidential elections, as to give the choice of the two
first officers of the government to a direct vote of the people, and
that "every intermediate agency in the election of those officers
should be removed." This recommendation, like all which preceded
it, remained without practical results. For ten years committees
had reported amendments, and members had supported them, but
without obtaining in Congress the requisite two thirds to refer
the proposition of amendment to the vote of the people. Three
causes combined always to prevent the concurrence of that majority:
1. The conservative spirit of many, who are unwilling, under any
circumstances, to touch an existing institution. 2. The enemies of
popular elections, who deem it unsafe to lodge the high power of
the presidential election, directly in the hands of the people. 3.
The intriguers, who wish to manage these elections for their own
benefit, and have no means of doing it except through the agency
of intermediate bodies. The most potent of these agencies, and the
one in fact which controls all the others, is the one of latest and
most spontaneous growth, called "conventions"--originally adopted to
supersede the caucus system of nominations, but which retains all
the evils of that system, and others peculiar to itself. They are
still attended by members of Congress, and with less responsibility
to their constituents than when acting in a Congress caucus. A
large proportion of the delegates are either self-appointed or so
intriguingly appointed, and by such small numbers, as to constitute
a burlesque upon popular representation. Delegates even transfer
their functions, and make proxies--a prerogative only allowed to
peers of the realm, in England, in their parliamentary voting,
because they are legislators in their own right, and represent, each
one, himself, as his own constituent body, and owing responsibility
to no one. They meet in taverns, the delegates of some of the
large States, attended by one or two thousand backers, supplied
with money, and making all the public appliances of feasting and
speaking, to conciliate or control votes, which ample means and
determined zeal can supply, in a case in which a personal benefit is
expected. The minority rules, that is to say, baffles the majority
until it yields, and consents to a "compromise," accepting for that
purpose the person whom the minority has held in reserve for that
purpose; and this minority of one third, which governs two thirds,
is itself usually governed by a few managers. And to complete
the exclusion of the people from all efficient control, in the
selection of a presidential candidate, an interlocutory committee is
generally appointed out of its members to act from one convention
to another--during the whole interval of four years between their
periodical assemblages--to guide and conduct the public mind, in
the different States, to the support of the person on whom they have
secretly agreed. After the nomination is over, and the election
effected, the managers in these nominations openly repair to the
new President, if they have been successful, and demand rewards for
their labor, in the shape of offices for themselves and connections.
This is the way that presidential elections are now made in the
United States; for, a party nomination is an election, if the party
is strong enough to make it; and, if one is not, the other is; for,
both parties act alike, and thus the mass of the people have no
more part in selecting the person who is to be their President than
the subjects of hereditary monarchs have in begetting the child
who is to rule over them. To such a point is the greatest of our
elections now sunk by the arts of "intermediate agencies;" and it
may be safely assumed, that the history of free elective governments
affords no instance of such an abandonment, on the part of legal
voters, of their great constitutional privileges, and quiet sinking
down of the millions to the automaton performance of delivering
their votes as the few have directed.
CHAPTER XCII.
REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS FROM THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.
The fact of this removal was communicated to Congress, in the
annual message of the President; the reasons for it, and the mode
of doing it, were reserved for a separate communication; and
especially a report from the Secretary of the Treasury, to whom
belonged the absolute right of the removal, without assignment of
any reasons except to Congress, after the act was done. The order
for the removal, as it was called--for it was only an order to the
collectors of revenue to cease making their deposits in that bank,
leaving the amount actually in it, to be drawn out of intervals,
and in different sums, according to the course at the government
disbursements--was issued the 22d of September, and signed by Roger
B. Taney, Esq., the new Secretary of the Treasury, appointed in
place of Mr. Wm. J. Duane, who, refusing to make the removal, upon
the request of the President, was himself removed. This measure (the
ceasing to deposit the public moneys with the Bank of the United
States) was the President's own measure, conceived by him, carried
out by him, defended by him, and its fate dependent upon him. He
had coadjutors in every part of the business, but the measure was
his own; for this heroic civil measure, like a heroic military
resolve, had to be the offspring of one great mind--self-acting and
poised--seeing its way through all difficulties and dangers; and
discerning ultimate triumph over all obstacles in the determination
to conquer them, or to perish. Councils are good for safety, not
for heroism--good for escapes from perils, and for retreats, but
for action, and especially high and daring action, but one mind is
wanted. The removal of the deposits was an act of that kind--high
and daring, and requiring as much nerve as any enterprise of arms,
in which the President had ever been engaged. His military exploits
had been of his own conception; his great civil acts were to be
the same: more impeded than promoted by councils. And thus it was
in this case. The majority of his cabinet was against him. His
Secretary of the Treasury refused to execute his will. A few only--a
fraction of the cabinet and some friends--concurred heartily in the
act: Mr. Taney, attorney general, Mr. Kendall, Mr. Francis P. Blair,
editor of the _Globe_; and some few others.
He took his measures carefully and deliberately, and with due
regard to keeping himself demonstrably, as well as actually right.
Observation had only confirmed his opinion, communicated to the
previous Congress, of the misconduct of the institution, and the
insecurity of the public moneys in it: and the almost unanimous vote
of the House of Representatives to the contrary, made no impression
upon his strong conviction. Denied a legislative examination into
its affairs, he determined upon an executive one, through inquiries
put to the government directors, and the researches into the state
of the books, which the Secretary of the Treasury had a right to
make. Four of those directors, namely, Messrs. Henry D. Gilpin, John
T. Sullivan, Peter Wager, and Hugh McEldery, made two reports to
the President, according to the duty assigned them, in which they
showed great misconduct in its management, and a great perversion
of its funds to undue and political purposes. Some extracts from
these reports will show the nature of this report, the names of
persons to whom money was paid being omitted, as the only object, in
making the extracts, is to show the conduct of the bank, and not to
disturb or affect any individuals.
"On the 30th November, 1830, it is stated on the minutes, that
'the president submitted to the board a copy of an article on
banks and currency, just published in the _American Quarterly
Review_ of this city, containing a favorable notice of this
institution, and suggested the expediency of making the views of
the author more extensively known to the public than they can
be by means of the subscription list.' Whereupon, it was, on
motion, '_Resolved_, That the president be authorized to take
such measures, in regard to the circulation of the contents of
the said article, either in whole or in part, as he may deem
most for the interests of the bank.' On the 11th March, 1831,
it again appears by the minutes that 'the president stated to
the board, that, in consequence of the general desire expressed
by the directors, at one of their meetings of the last year,
subsequent to the adjournment of Congress, and a verbal
understanding with the board, measures had been taken by him,
in the course of that year, for furnishing numerous copies of
the reports of General Smith and Mr. McDuffie on the subject of
this bank, and for widely disseminating their contents through
the United States; and that he has since, by virtue of the
authority given him by a resolution of this board, on the 30th
day of November last, caused a large edition of Mr. Gallatin's
essay on banks and currency to be published and circulated,
in like manner, at the expense of the bank. He suggested, at
the same time, the propriety and expediency of extending still
more widely a knowledge of the concerns of this institution, by
means of the republication of other valuable articles, which had
issued from the daily and periodical press.' Whereupon, it was,
on motion, '_Resolved_, That the president is hereby authorized
to cause to be prepared and circulated, such documents and
papers as may communicate to the people information, in regard
to the nature and operations of the bank.'
"In pursuance, it is presumed, of these resolutions, the item
of stationary and printing was increased, during the first half
year of 1831, to the enormous sum of $29,979 92, exceeding
that of the previous half year by $23,000, and exceeding the
semi-annual expenditure of 1829, upwards of $26,000. The expense
account itself, as made up in the book which was submitted
to us, contained very little information relative to the
particulars of this expenditure, and we are obliged, in order
to obtain them, to resort to an inspection of the vouchers.
Among other sums, was one of $7,801, stated to have been paid
on orders of the president, under the resolution of 11th March,
1831, and the orders themselves were the only vouchers of the
expenditure which we found on file. Some of the orders, to the
amount of about $1,800, stated that the expenditure was for
distributing General Smith's and Mr. McDuffie's reports, and
Mr. Gallatin's pamphlet; but the rest stated generally that it
was made under the resolution of 11th of March, 1831. There
were also numerous bills and receipts for expenditures to
individuals: $1,300 for distributing Mr. Gallatin's pamphlet;
$1,675 75 for 5,000 copies of General Smith's and Mr. McDuffie's
reports, &c.; $440 for 11,000 extra papers; of the _American
Sentinel_, $125 74 for printing, folding, packing, and postage
on 3,000 extras; $1,830 27 for upwards of 50,000 copies of the
_National Gazette_, and supplements containing addresses to
members of State legislatures, reviews of Mr. Benton's speech,
abstracts of Mr. Gallatin's article from the _American Quarterly
Review_, and editorial article on the project of a Treasury
Bank; $1,447 75 for 25,000 copies of the reports of Mr. McDuffie
and General Smith, and for 25,000 copies of the address to
members of the State legislatures, agreeably to order; $2,850
for 10,000 copies of 'Gallatin on Banking,' and 2,000 copies of
Professor Tucker's article.
"During the second half year of 1831, the item of stationery and
printing was $13,224 87, of which $5,010 were paid on orders of
the president, and stated generally to be under the resolution
of 11th March, 1831, and other sums were paid to individuals, as
in the previous account, for printing and distributing documents.
"During the first half year of 1832, the item of stationery and
printing was $12,134 16, of which $2,150 was stated to have
been paid on orders of the president, under the resolution of
11th March, 1831. There are also various individual payments,
of which we noticed $106 38 for one thousand copies of the
review of Mr. Benton's speech; $200 for one thousand copies of
the _Saturday Courier_; $1,176 for twenty thousand copies of a
pamphlet concerning the bank, and six thousand copies of the
minority report relative to the bank; $1,800 for three hundred
copies of Clarke & Hall's bank book. During the last half year
of 1832, the item of stationery and printing rose to $26,543
72, of which $6,350 are stated to have been paid on orders
of the president, under the resolution of 11th March, 1831.
Among the specified charges we observe $821 78 for printing a
review of the veto; $1,371 04 for four thousand copies of Mr.
Ewing's speech, bank documents, and review of the veto; $4,106
13 for sixty-three thousand copies of Mr. Webster's speech,
Mr. Adams's and Mr. McDuffie's reports, and the majority and
minority reports; $295 for fourteen thousand extras of _The
Protector_, containing bank documents; $2,583 50 for printing
and distributing reports, Mr. Webster's speech, &c. $150 12
for printing the speeches of Messrs. Clay, Ewing, and Smith,
and Mr. Adams's report; $1,512 75 to Mr. Clark, for printing
Mr. Webster's speech and articles on the veto, and $2,422 65
for fifty-two thousand five hundred copies of Mr. Webster's
speech. There is also a charge of $4,040 paid on orders of the
president, stating that it is for expenses in measures for
protecting the bank against a run on the Western branches.
"During the first half year of 1833, the item of stationery and
printing was $9,093 59, of which $2,600 are stated to have been
paid on orders of the president, under the resolution of 11th
March, 1831. There is also a charge of $800 for printing the
report of the exchange committee."
These various items, amounting to about $80,000, all explain
themselves by their names and dates--every name of an item referring
to a political purpose, and every date corresponding with the
impending questions of the recharter and the presidential election;
and all charged to the expense account of the bank--a head of
account limited, by the nature of the institution, so far as
printing was concerned, to the printing necessary for the conducting
of its own business; yet in the whole sum, making the total of
$80,000, there is not an item of that kind included. To expose,
or correct these abuses, the government directors submitted the
following resolution to the board:
"Whereas, it appears by the expense account of the bank for
the years 1831 and 1832, that upwards of $80,000 were expended
and charged under the head of stationery and printing during
that period; that a large proportion of this sum was paid to
the proprietors of newspapers and periodical journals, and for
the printing, distribution, and postage of immense numbers of
pamphlets and newspapers; and that about $20,000 were expended
under the resolutions of 30th November, 1830, and 11th March,
1831, without any account of the manner in which, or the persons
to whom, they were disbursed: and whereas it is expedient and
proper that the particulars of this expenditure, so large and
unusual, which can now be ascertained only by the examination
of numerous bills and receipts, should be so stated as to be
readily submitted to, and examined by, the board of directors
and the stockholders: Therefore, _Resolved_, That the cashier
furnish to the board, at as early a day as possible, a full and
particular statement of all these expenditures, designating
the sums of money paid to each person, the quantity and names
of the documents furnished by him, and his charges for the
distribution and postage of the same; together with as full a
statement as may be of the expenditures under the resolutions
of 30th November, 1830, and 11th March, 1831. That he ascertain
whether expenditures of the same character have been made at any
of the offices, and if so, procure similar statements thereof,
with the authority on which they were made. That the said
resolutions be rescinded, and no further expenditures made under
the same."
This resolution was rejected by the board, and in place of it
another was adopted, declaring perfect confidence in the president
of the bank, and directing him to continue his expenditures
under the two resolves of November and March according to his
discretion;--thus continuing to him the power of irresponsible
expenditure, both in amount and object, to any extent that he
pleased. The reports also showed that the government directors were
treated with the indignity of being virtually excluded, both from
the transactions of the bank, and the knowledge of them; and that
the charter was violated to effect these outrages. As an instance,
this is given: the exchange committee was in itself, and even
confined to its proper duties, that of buying and selling exchange,
was a very important one, having the application of an immense
amount of the funds of the bank. While confined to its proper
duties, it was changed monthly, and the directors served upon it by
turns; so that by the process of rotation and speedy renewal, every
member of the directory was kept well informed of the transactions
of this committee, and had their due share in all its great
operations. But at this time--(time of the renewed charter and the
presidential election)--both the duties of the committee, and its
mode of appointment were altered; discounting of notes was permitted
to it, and the appointment of its members was invested in Mr.
Biddle; and no government director was henceforth put upon it. Thus,
a few directors made the loans in the committee's room, which by the
charter could only be made by seven directors at the board; and the
government directors, far from having any voice in these exchange
loans, were ignorant of them until afterwards found on the books. It
was in this exchange committee that most of the loans to members of
Congress were made, and under whose operations the greatest losses
were eventually incurred. The report of the four directors also
showed other great misconduct on the part of the bank, one of which
was to nearly double its discounts at the approaching termination
of the charter, running them up in less than a year and a half from
about forty-two and a half to about seventy and a half millions
of dollars. General Jackson was not the man to tolerate these
illegalities, corruptions and indignities. He, therefore, determined
on ceasing to use the institution any longer as a place of deposit
for the public moneys; and accordingly communicated his intention
to the cabinet, all of whom had been requested to assist him in his
deliberations on the subject. The major part of them dissented from
his design; whereupon he assembled them the 22nd of September, and
read to them a paper, of which the following are the more essential
parts:
"Having carefully and anxiously considered all the facts and
arguments which have been submitted to him, relative to a
removal of the public deposits from the Bank of the United
States, the President deems it his duty to communicate in this
manner to his cabinet the final conclusions of his own mind, and
the reasons on which they are founded, in order to put them in
durable form, and to prevent misconceptions.
"The President's convictions of the dangerous tendencies of the
Bank of the United States, since signally illustrated by its
own acts, were so overpowering when he entered on the duties
of chief magistrate, that he felt it his duty, notwithstanding
the objections of the friends by whom he was surrounded, to
avail himself of the first occasion to call the attention of
Congress and the people to the question of its recharter. The
opinions expressed in his annual message of December, 1829,
were reiterated in those of December, 1830 and 1831, and in
that of 1830, he threw out for consideration some suggestions
in relation to a substitute. At the session of 1831-'32 an act
was passed by a majority of both Houses of Congress rechartering
the present bank, upon which the President felt it his duty to
put his constitutional veto. In his message, returning that
act, he repeated and enlarged upon the principles and views
briefly asserted in his annual messages, declaring the bank
to be, in his opinion, both inexpedient and unconstitutional,
and announcing to his countrymen, very unequivocally, his
firm determination never to sanction, by his approval, the
continuance of that institution or the establishment of any
other upon similar principles.
"There are strong reasons for believing that the motive of the
bank in asking for a recharter at that session of Congress, was
to make it a leading question in the election of a President of
the United States the ensuing November, and all steps deemed
necessary were taken to procure from the people a reversal of
the President's decision.
"Although the charter was approaching its termination, and the
bank was aware that it was the intention of the government to
use the public deposit as fast as it has accrued, in the payment
of the public debt, yet did it extend its loans from January,
1831, to May, 1832, from $42,402,304 24 to $70,428,070 72,
being an increase of $28,025,766 48, in sixteen months. It is
confidently believed that the leading object of this immense
extension of its loans was to bring as large a portion of the
people as possible under its power and influence; and it has
been disclosed that some of the largest sums were granted on
very unusual terms to the conductors of the public press.
In some of these cases, the motive was made manifest by the
nominal or insufficient security taken for the loans, by the
large amounts discounted, by the extraordinary time allowed
for payment, and especially by the subsequent conduct of those
receiving the accommodations.
"Having taken these preliminary steps to obtain control over
public opinion, the bank came into Congress and asked a new
charter. The object avowed by many of the advocates of the bank,
was to _put the President to the test_, that the country might
know his final determination relative to the bank prior to the
ensuing election. Many documents and articles were printed and
circulated at the expense of the bank, to bring the people to
a favorable decision upon its pretensions. Those whom the bank
appears to have made its debtors for the special occasion, were
warned of the ruin which awaited them, should the President be
sustained, and attempts were made to alarm the whole people by
painting the depression in the price of property and produce,
and the general loss, inconvenience, and distress, which it was
represented would immediately follow the re-election of the
President in opposition to the bank.
"Can it now be said that the question of a recharter of the
bank was not decided at the election which ensued? Had the veto
been equivocal, or had it not covered the whole ground--if it
had merely taken exceptions to the details of the bill, or to
the time of its passage--if it had not met the whole ground
of constitutionality and expediency, then there might have
been some plausibility for the allegation that the question
was not decided by the people. It was to compel the President
to take his stand, that the question was brought forward at
that particular time. He met the challenge, willingly took the
position into which his adversaries sought to force him, and
frankly declared his unalterable opposition to the bank as
being both unconstitutional and inexpedient. On that ground the
case was argued to the people, and now that the people have
sustained the President, notwithstanding the array of influence
and power which was brought to bear upon him, it is too late,
he confidently thinks, to say that the question has not been
decided. Whatever may be the opinions of others, the President
considers his re-election as a decision of the people against
the bank. In the concluding paragraph of his veto message he
said:
"'I have now done my duty to my country. If sustained by my
fellow-citizens, I shall be grateful and happy; if not, I
shall find in the motives which impel me, ample grounds for
contentment and peace.'
"He was sustained by a just people, and he desires to evince his
gratitude by carrying into effect their decision, so far as it
depends upon him.
"Of all the substitutes for the present bank, which have been
suggested, none seems to have united any considerable portion
of the public in its favor. Most of them are liable to the same
constitutional objections for which the present bank has been
condemned, and perhaps to all there are strong objections on the
score of expediency. In ridding the country of an irresponsible
power which has attempted to control the government, care must
be taken not to unite the same power with the executive branch.
To give a President the control over the currency and the power
over individuals now possessed by the Bank of the United States,
even with the material difference that he is responsible to the
people, would be as objectionable and as dangerous as to leave
it as it is. Neither the one nor the other is necessary, and
therefore ought not to be resorted to.
"But in the conduct of the bank may be found other reasons,
very imperative in their character, and which require prompt
action. Developments have been made from time to time of its
faithlessness as a public agent, its misapplication of public
funds, its interference in elections, its efforts, by the
machinery of committees, to deprive the government directors
of a full knowledge of its concerns, and above all, its
flagrant misconduct as recently and unexpectedly disclosed, in
placing all the funds of the bank, including the money of the
government, at the disposition of the president of the bank,
as means of operating upon public opinion and procuring a new
charter without requiring him to render a voucher for their
disbursement. A brief recapitulation of the facts which justify
these charges and which have come to the knowledge of the public
and the President, will, he thinks, remove every reasonable
doubt as to the course which it is now the duty of the President
to pursue.
"We have seen that in sixteen months, ending in May, 1832, the
bank had extended its loans more than $28,000,000, although it
knew the government intended to appropriate most of its large
deposit during that year in payment of the public debt. It was
in May, 1832, that its loans arrived at the maximum, and in the
preceding March, so sensible was the bank that it would not be
able to pay over the public deposit when it would be required by
the government, that it commenced a secret negotiation without
the approbation or knowledge of the government, with the agents,
for about $2,700,000 of the three per cent. stocks held in
Holland, with a view of inducing them not to come forward for
payment for one or more years after notice should be given by
the Treasury Department. This arrangement would have enabled the
bank to keep and use during that time the public money set apart
for the payment of these stocks.
"Although the charter and the rules of the bank, both, declare
that 'not less than seven directors' shall be necessary to the
transaction of business, yet, the most important business, even
that of granting discounts to any extent, is intrusted to a
committee of five members who do not report to the board.
"To cut off all means of communication with the government, in
relation to its most important acts, at the commencement of the
present year, not one of the government directors was placed on
any one committee. And although since, by an unusual remodelling
of those bodies, some of those directors have been placed on
some of the committees, they are yet entirely excluded from
the committee of exchange, through which the greatest and most
objectionable loans have been made.
"When the government directors made an effort to bring back the
business of the bank to the board, in obedience to the charter
and the existing regulations, the board not only overruled
their attempt, but altered the rule so as to make it conform to
the practice, in direct violation of one of the most important
provisions of the charter which gave them existence.
"It has long been known that the president of the bank, by
his single will, originates and executes many of the most
important measures connected with the management and credit
of the bank, and that the committee, as well as the board of
directors, are left in entire ignorance of many acts done,
and correspondence carried on, in their names, and apparently
under their authority. The fact has been recently disclosed,
that an unlimited discretion has been, and is now, vested in
the president of the bank to expend its funds in payment for
preparing and circulating articles, and purchasing pamphlets and
newspapers, calculated by their contents to operate on elections
and secure a renewal of its charter.
"With these facts before him, in an official report from the
government directors, the President would feel that he was
not only responsible for all the abuses and corruptions the
bank has committed, or may commit, but almost an accomplice
in a conspiracy against that government which he has sworn
honestly to administer, if he did not take every step, within
his constitutional and legal power, likely to be efficient in
putting an end to these enormities. If it be possible, within
the scope of human affairs, to find a reason for removing the
government deposits, and leaving the bank to its own resource
for the means of effecting its criminal designs, we have it
here. Was it expected, when the moneys of the United States
were directed to be placed in that bank, that they would be
put under the control of one man, empowered to spend millions
without rendering a voucher or specifying the object? Can they
be considered safe, with the evidence before us that tens of
thousands have been spent for highly improper, if not corrupt,
purposes, and that the same motive may lead to the expenditure
of hundreds of thousands and even millions more? And can we
justify ourselves to the people by longer lending to it the
money and power of the government, to be employed for such
purposes?
"In conclusion, the President must be permitted to remark that
he looks upon the pending question as of higher consideration
than the mere transfer of a sum of money from one bank to
another. Its decision may affect the character of our government
for ages to come. Should the bank be suffered longer to use
the public moneys, in the accomplishment of its purposes,
with the proof of its faithlessness and corruption before our
eyes, the patriotic among our citizens will despair of success
in struggling against its power; and we shall be responsible
for entailing it upon our country for ever. Viewing it as a
question of transcendent importance, both in the principles and
consequences it involves, the President could not, in justice
to the responsibility which he owes to the country, refrain
from pressing upon the Secretary of the Treasury his view of
the considerations which impel to immediate action. Upon him
has been devolved, by the constitution and the suffrages of the
American people, the duty of superintending the operation of
the Executive departments of the governments, and seeing that
the laws are faithfully executed. In the performance of this
high trust, it is his undoubted right to express to those whom
the laws and his own choice have made his associates in the
administration of the government, his opinion of their duties,
under circumstances, as they arise. It is this right which he
now exercises. Far be it from him to expect or require that
any member of the cabinet should, at his request, order, or
dictation, do any act which he believes unlawful, or in his
conscience condemns. From them, and from his fellow-citizens in
general, he desires only that aid and support which their reason
approves and their conscience sanctions.
"The President again repeats that he begs his cabinet to
consider the proposed measure as his own, in the support of
which he shall require no one of them to make a sacrifice of
opinion or principle. Its responsibility has been assumed, after
the most mature deliberation and reflection, as necessary to
preserve the morals of the people, the freedom of the press,
and the parity of the elective franchise, without which, all
will unite in saying that the blood and treasure expended by
our forefathers, in the establishment of our happy system of
government, will have been vain and fruitless. Under these
convictions, he feels that a measure so important to the
American people cannot be commenced too soon; and he, therefore,
names the first day of October next as a period proper for
the change of the deposits, or sooner, provided the necessary
arrangements with the State banks can be made."
I was in the State of Virginia, when the _Globe_ newspaper arrived,
towards the end of September, bringing this "paper," which the
President had read to his cabinet, and the further information
that he had carried his announced design into affect. I felt an
emotion of the moral sublime at beholding such an instance of
civic heroism. Here was a President, not bred up in the political
profession, taking a great step upon his own responsibility from
which many of his advisers shrunk; and magnanimously, in the act
itself, releasing all from the peril that he encountered, and boldly
taking the whole upon himself. I say peril; for if the bank should
conquer, there was an end to the political prospects of every public
man concurring in the removal. He believed the act to be necessary;
and believing that, he did the act--leaving the consequences to
God and the country. I felt that a great blow had been struck, and
that a great contest must come on, which could only be crowned with
success by acting up to the spirit with which it had commenced.
And I repaired to Washington at the approach of the session with
a full determination to stand by the President, which I believed
to be standing by the country; and to do my part in justifying his
conduct, and in exposing and resisting the powerful combination
which it was certain would be formed against him.
CHAPTER XCIII.
BANK PROCEEDINGS, ON SEEING THE DECISION OF THE PRESIDENT, IN
RELATION TO THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS.
Immediately on the publication in the _Globe_ of the "Paper read
to the Cabinet," the bank took it into consideration in all
the forms of a co-ordinate body. It summoned a meeting of the
directors--appointed a committee--referred the President's "Paper"
to it--ordered it to report--held another meeting to receive the
report--adopted it (the government directors, Gilpin, Wager, and
Sullivan voting against it)--and ordered five thousand copies of
the report to be printed. A few extracts from the report, entitled
a Memorial to Congress, are here given, for the purpose of showing,
_First_, The temper and style in which this moneyed corporation,
deriving its existence from the national Congress, indulged itself,
and that in its corporate capacity, in speaking of the President of
the United States and his cabinet; and, _next_, to show the lead
which it gave to the proceedings which were to be had in Congress.
Under the first head, the following passages are given:
"The committee to whom was referred on the 24th of September,
a paper signed 'Andrew Jackson,' purporting to have been read
to a cabinet on the 18th, and also another paper signed 'H.
D. Gilpin, John T. Sullivan, Peter Wager, and Hugh McEldery,'
bearing date August 19th, 1833--with instructions to consider
the same, and report to the board 'whether any, and what steps
may be deemed necessary on the part of the board in consequence
of the publication of said letter and report,' beg leave to
state--
"To justify this measure is the purpose of the paper signed
'Andrew Jackson.' Of the paper itself, and of the individual who
has signed it, the committee find it difficult to speak with the
plainness by which alone such a document, from such a source,
should be described, without wounding their own self-respect,
and violating the consideration which all American citizens
must feel for the chief magistracy of their country. Subduing,
however, their feelings and their language down to that
respectful tone which is due to the office, they will proceed
to examine the history of this measure, its character and the
pretexts offered in palliation of it.
"1st. It would appear from its contents and from other sources
of information, that the President had a meeting of what is
called the cabinet, on Wednesday, the 18th September, and there
read this paper. Finding that it made no impression on the
majority of persons assembled, the subject was postponed, and
in the mean time this document was put into the newspapers.
It was obviously published for two reasons. The first was to
influence the members of the cabinet by bringing to bear upon
their immediate decision the first public impression excited by
misrepresentations, which the objects of them could not refute
in time--the second was, by the same excitement, to affect the
approaching elections in Pennsylvania, Maryland and New Jersey.
Its assailants are what are called politicians (i.e., the
assailants of the bank)."
Such is the temper and style in which the President of the United
States is spoken of by this great moneyed corporation, in a memorial
addressed to Congress. Erecting itself into a co-ordinate body,
and assuming in its corporate capacity an authority over the
President's act, it does not even condescend to call him President.
It is "Andrew Jackson," and the name always placed between inverted
commas to mark the higher degree of contempt. Then the corporation
shrinks from remarking on the "paper" itself, and the "individual"
who signed it, as a thing injurious to their own self-respect,
and only to be done in consideration of the "office" which he
fills, and that after "subduing" their feelings--and this was the
insolence of the moneyed power in defeat, when its champion had
received but forty-nine votes for the Presidency out of two hundred
and eighty-eight given in! What would it have been in victory? The
lead which it gave to the intended proceedings in Congress, is well
indicated in these two paragraphs, and the specifications under them:
"The indelicacy of the form of those proceedings corresponds
well with the substance of them, which is equally in violation
of the rights of the bank and the laws of the country.
"The committee willingly leave to the Congress of the United
States, the assertion of their own constitutional power, and the
vindication of the principles of our government, against the
most violent assault they have ever yet encountered; and will
now confine themselves to the more limited purpose of showing
that the reasons assigned for this measure are as unfounded as
the object itself is illegal."
The illegality of the proceeding, and the vindication of the
constitution, and the principles of the government, from a most
violent assault, are the main objects left by the bank to the
Congress; the invalidity of the reasons assigned for the removal,
are more limited, and lest the Congress might not discover these
violations of law and constitution, the corporation proceeds to
enumerate and establish them. It says:
"Certainly since the foundation of this government, nothing
has ever been done which more deeply wounds the spirit of
our free institutions. It, in fact, resolves itself into
this--that whenever the laws prescribe certain duties to an
officer, if that officer, acting under the sanctions of his
official oath and his private character, refuses to violate
that law, the President of the United States may dismiss
him and appoint another; and if he too should prove to be a
'refractory subordinate,' to continue his removals until he
at last discovers in the descending scale of degradation some
irresponsible individual fit to be the tool of his designs.
Unhappily, there are never wanting men who will think as
their superiors wish them to think--men who regard more the
compensation than the duties of their office--men to whom daily
bread is sufficient consolation for daily shame.
"The present state of this question is a fearful illustration
of the danger of it. At this moment the whole revenue of
this country is at the disposal--the absolute, uncontrolled
disposal--of the President of the United States. The laws
declare that the public funds shall be placed in the Bank of the
United States, unless the Secretary of the Treasury forbids it.
The Secretary of the Treasury will not forbid it. The President
dismisses him, and appoints somebody who will. So the laws
declare that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, except
on warrants for appropriations made by law. If the Treasurer
refuses to draw his warrant for any disbursement, the President
may dismiss him and appoint some more flexible agent, who will
not hesitate to gratify his patron. The text is in the official
gazette, announcing the fate of the dismissed Secretary to
all who follow him. 'The agent cannot conscientiously perform
the service, and refuses to co-operate, and desires to remain
to thwart the President's measures. To put an end to this
difficulty between the head and the hands of the executive
department, the constitution arms the chief magistrate with
authority to remove the refractory subordinate.' The theory thus
avowed, and the recent practice under it, convert the whole free
institutions of this country into the mere absolute will of a
single individual. They break down all the restraints which the
framers of the government hoped they had imposed on arbitrary
power, and place the whole revenue of the United States in the
hands of the President.
"For it is manifest that this removal of the deposits is not
made by the order of the Secretary of the Treasury. It is a
perversion of language so to describe it. On the contrary, the
reverse is openly avowed. The Secretary of the Treasury refused
to remove them, believing, as his published letter declares,
that the removal was 'unnecessary, unwise, vindictive, arbitrary
and unjust.' He was then dismissed because he would not remove
them, and another was appointed because he would remove them.
Now this is a palpable violation of the charter. The bank and
Congress agree upon certain terms, which no one can change but
a particular officer; who, although necessarily nominated to
the Senate by the President, was designated by the bank and by
Congress as the umpire between them. Both Congress and the bank
have a right to the free and honest and impartial judgment of
that officer, whoever he may be--the bank, because the removal
may injure its interests--the Congress, because the removal
may greatly incommode and distress their constituents. In this
case, they are deprived of it by the unlawful interference of
the President, who 'assumes the responsibility,' which, being
interpreted, means, usurps the power of the Secretary.
"The whole structure of the Treasury shows that the design of
Congress was to make the Secretary as independent as possible
of the President. The other Secretaries are merely executive
officers; but the Secretary of the Treasury, the guardian of
the public revenue, comes into more immediate sympathy with
the representatives of the people who pay that revenue; and
although, according to the general scheme of appointment, he is
nominated by the President to the Senate, yet he is in fact the
officer of Congress, not the officer of the President.
"This independence of the Secretary of the Treasury--if it be
true in general--is more especially true in regard to the bank.
It was in fact the leading principle in organizing the bank,
that the President should be excluded from all control of it.
The question which most divided the House of Representatives
was, whether there should be any government directors at all;
and although this was finally adopted, yet its tendency to
create executive influence over the bank was qualified by two
restrictions: first, that no more than three directors should be
appointed from any one State; and, second, that the president
of the bank should not be, as was originally designed by the
Secretary of the Treasury, chosen from among the government
directors. Accordingly, by the charter, the Secretary of the
Treasury is every thing--the President comparatively nothing.
The Secretary has the exclusive supervision of all the relations
of the bank with the government."
These extracts are sufficient to show that the corporation charged
the President with illegal and unconstitutional conduct, subversive
of the principles of our government, and dangerous to our liberties
in causing the deposits to be removed--that they looked upon this
illegal, unconstitutional, and dangerous conduct as the principal
wrong--and left to Congress the assertion of its own constitutional
power, and the vindication of the principles of the government
from the assault which they had received. And this in a memorial
addressed to Congress, of which five thousand copies, in pamphlet
form, were printed, and the members of Congress liberally supplied
with copies. It will be seen, when we come to the proceedings of
Congress, how far the intimations of the memorial in showing what
ought to be done, and leaving Congress to do it, was complied with
by that body.
CHAPTER XCIV.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO CONGRESS ON THE REMOVAL
OF THE DEPOSITS.
By the clause in the charter authorizing the Secretary of the
Treasury to remove the deposits, that officer was required to
communicate the fact immediately to Congress, if in session, if
not, at the first meeting; together with his reasons for so doing.
The act which had been done was not a "removal," in the sense of
that word; for not a dollar was taken from the Bank of the United
States to be deposited elsewhere; and the order given was not for
a "removal," but for a cessation of deposits in that institution,
leaving the public moneys which were in it to be drawn out in the
regular course of expenditure. An immediate and total removal might
have been well justified by the misconduct of the bank; a cessation
to deposit might have been equally well justified on the ground
of the approaching expiration of the charter, and the propriety
of providing in time for the new places of deposit which that
expiration would render necessary. The two reasons put together
made a clear case, both of justification and of propriety, for the
order which had been given; and the secretary, Mr. Taney, well set
them forth in the report which he made, and which was laid before
Congress on the day after its meeting. The following are extracts
from it:
"The Treasury department being intrusted with the administration
of the finances of the country, it was always the duty of the
Secretary, in the absence of any legislative provision on the
subject, to take care that the public money was deposited in
safe keeping, in the hands of faithful agents, and in convenient
places, ready to be applied according to the wants of the
government. The law incorporating the bank has reserved to him,
in its full extent, the power he before possessed. It does
not confer on him a new power, but reserves to him his former
authority, without any new limitation. The obligation to assign
the reasons for his direction to deposit the money of the United
States elsewhere, cannot be considered as a restriction of
the power, because the right of the Secretary to designate the
place of deposit was always necessarily subject to the control
of Congress. And as the Secretary of the Treasury presides over
one of the executive departments of the government, and his
power over this subject forms a part of the executive duties of
his office, the manner in which it is exercised must be subject
to the supervision of the officer to whom the constitution has
confided the whole executive power, and has required to take
care that the laws be faithfully executed.
"The faith of the United States is, however, pledged, according
to the terms of the section above stated, that the public
money shall be deposited in this bank, unless 'the Secretary
of the Treasury shall otherwise order and direct.' And as this
agreement has been entered into by Congress, in behalf of the
United States, the place of deposit could not be changed by
a legislative act, without disregarding a pledge, which the
legislature has given; and the money of the United States must
therefore continue to be deposited in the bank, until the last
hour of its existence, unless it shall be otherwise ordered by
the authority mentioned in the charter. The power over the place
of deposit for the public money would seem properly to belong
to the legislative department of the government, and it is
difficult to imagine why the authority to withdraw it from this
bank was confided exclusively to the Executive. But the terms
of the charter appear to be too plain to admit of question; and
although Congress should be satisfied that the public money was
not safe in the care of the bank, or should be convinced that
the interests of the people of the United States imperiously
demanded the removal, yet the passage of a law directing it to
be done, would be a breach of the agreement into which they have
entered.
"In deciding upon the course which it was my duty to pursue
in relation to the deposits, I did not feel myself justified
in anticipating the renewal of the charter on either of the
above-mentioned grounds. It is very evident that the bank has
no claim to renewal, founded on the justice of Congress. For,
independently of the many serious and insurmountable objections,
which its own conduct has furnished, it cannot be supposed that
the grant to this corporation of exclusive privileges, at the
expense of the rest of the community, for twenty years, can
give it a right to demand the still further enjoyment of its
profitable monopoly. Neither could I act upon the assumption
that the public interest required the recharter of the bank,
because I am firmly persuaded that the law which created this
corporation, in many of its provisions, is not warranted by the
constitution, and that the existence of such a powerful moneyed
monopoly, is dangerous to the liberties of the people, and to
the purity of our political institutions.
"The manifestations of public opinion, instead of being
favorable to a renewal, have been decidedly to the contrary.
And I have always regarded the result of the last election
of the President of the United States, as the declaration of
a majority of the people that the charter ought not to be
renewed. It is not necessary to state here, what is now a
matter of history. The question of the renewal of the charter
was introduced into the election by the corporation itself. Its
voluntary application to Congress for the renewal of its charter
four years before it expired, and upon the eve of the election
of President, was understood on all sides as bringing forward
that question for incidental decision, at the then approaching
election. It was accordingly argued on both sides, before the
tribunal of the people, and their verdict pronounced against the
bank, by the election of the candidate who was known to have
been always inflexibly opposed to it.
"The monthly statement of the bank, of the 2d September last,
before referred to, shows that the notes of the bank and its
branches, then in circulation, amounted to $18,413,287 07,
and that its discounts amounted to the sum of $62,653,359 59.
The immense circulation above stated, pervading every part of
the United States, and most commonly used in the business of
commerce between distant places, must all be withdrawn from
circulation when the charter expires. If any of the notes then
remain in the hands of individuals, remote from the branches
at which they are payable, their immediate depreciation will
subject the holders to certain loss. Those payable in the
principal commercial cities would, perhaps, retain nearly their
nominal value; but this would not be the case with the notes of
the interior branches, remote from the great marts of trade.
And the statements of the bank will show that a great part of
its circulation is composed of notes of this description. The
bank would seem to have taken pains to introduce into common use
such a description of paper as it could depreciate, or raise to
its par value, as best suited its own views; and it is of the
first importance to the interests of the public that these notes
should all be taken out of circulation, before they depreciate
in the hands of the individuals who hold them; and they ought
to be withdrawn gradually, and their places supplied, as they
retire, by the currency which will become the substitute for
them. How long will it require, for the ordinary operations
of commerce, and the reduction of discounts by the bank, to
withdraw the amount of circulation before mentioned, without
giving a shock to the currency, or producing a distressing
pressure on the community? I am convinced that the time which
remained for the charter to run, after the 1st of October (the
day on which the first order for removal took effect), was not
more than was proper to accomplish the object with safety to the
community.
"There is, however, another view of the subject, which in my
opinion, made it impossible further to postpone the removal.
About the 1st of December, 1832, it had been ascertained that
the present Chief Magistrate was re-elected, that his decision
against the bank had thus been sanctioned by the people. At
that time the discounts of the bank amounted to $61,571,625 66.
Although the issue which the bank took so much pains to frame
had now been tried, and the decision pronounced against it,
yet no steps were taken to prepare for its approaching end. On
the contrary, it proceeded to enlarge its discounts, and, on
the 2d of August, 1833, they amounted to $64,160,349 14, being
an increase of more than two and a half millions in the eight
months immediately following the decision against them. And so
far from preparing to arrange its affairs with a view to wind
up its business, it seemed from this course of conduct, to be
the design of the bank to put itself in such an attitude, that,
at the close of its charter, the country would be compelled
to submit to its renewal, or to bear all the consequences of
a currency suddenly deranged, and also a severe pressure for
the immense outstanding claims which would then be due to the
corporation. While the bank was thus proceeding to enlarge
its discounts, an agent was appointed by the Secretary of the
Treasury to inquire upon what terms the State banks would
undertake to perform the services to the government which have
heretofore been rendered by the Bank of the United States; and
also to ascertain their condition in four of the principal
commercial cities, for the purpose of enabling the department to
judge whether they would be safe and convenient depositories for
the public money. It was deemed necessary that suitable fiscal
agents should be prepared in due season, and it was proper
that time should be allowed them to make arrangements with
one another throughout the country, in order that they might
perform their duties in concert, and in a manner that would be
convenient and acceptable to the public. It was essential that
a change so important in its character, and so extensive in its
operation upon the financial concerns of the country, should not
be introduced without timely preparation.
"The United States, by the charter, reserved the right of
appointing five directors of the bank. It was intended by this
means not only to provide guardians for the interests of the
public in the general administration of its affairs, but also
to have faithful officers, whose situation would enable them to
become intimately acquainted with all the transactions of the
institution, and whose duty it would be to apprize the proper
authorities of any misconduct on the part of the corporation
likely to affect the public interest. The fourth fundamental
article of the constitution of the corporation declares that
not less than seven directors shall constitute a board for
the transaction of business. At these meetings of the board,
the directors on the part of the United States had of course
a right to be present; and, consequently, if the business of
the corporation had been transacted in the manner which the
law requires, there was abundant security that nothing could
be done, injuriously affecting the interests of the people,
without being immediately communicated to the public servants,
who were authorized to apply the remedy. And if the corporation
has so arranged its concerns as to conceal from the public
directors some of its most important operations, and has thereby
destroyed the safeguards which were designed to secure the
interests of the United States, it would seem to be very clear
that it has forfeited its claim to confidence, and is no longer
worthy of trust.
"Instead of a board constituted of at least seven directors,
according to the charter, at which those appointed by the United
States have a right to be present, many of the most important
money transactions of the bank have been, and still are, placed
under the control of a committee, denominated the exchange
committee, of which no one of the public directors has been
allowed to be a member since the commencement of the present
year. This committee is not even elected by the board, and
the public directors have no voice in their appointment. They
are chosen by thy president of the bank, and the business of
the institution, which ought to be decided on by the board of
directors, is, in many instances, transacted by this committee;
and no one had a right to be present at their proceedings but
the president, and those whom he shall please to name as members
of this committee. Thus, loans are made, unknown at the time
to a majority of the board, and paper discounted which might
probably be rejected at a regular meeting of the directors. The
most important operations of the bank are sometimes resolved
on and executed by this committee; and its measures are, it
appears, designedly, and by regular system, so arranged, as to
conceal from the officers of the government transactions in
which the public interests are deeply involved. And this fact
alone furnishes evidence too strong to be resisted, that the
concealment of certain important operations of the corporation
from the officers of the government is one of the objects which
is intended to be accomplished by means of this committee. The
plain words of the charter are violated, in order to deprive the
people of the United States of one of the principal securities
which the law had provided to guard their interests, and to
render more safe the public money intrusted to the care of the
bank. Would any individual of ordinary discretion continue his
money in the hands of an agent who violated his instructions
for the purpose of hiding from him the manner in which he
was conducting the business confided to his charge? Would
he continue his property in his hands, when he had not only
ascertained that concealment had been practised towards him,
but when the agent avowed his determination to continue in the
same course, and to withhold from him, as far as he could, all
knowledge of the manner in which he was employing his funds? If
an individual would not be expected to continue his confidence
under such circumstances, upon what principle could a different
line of conduct be required from the officers of the United
States, charged with the care of the public interests? The
public money is surely entitled to the same care and protection
as that of an individual; and if the latter would be bound,
in justice to himself, to withdraw his money from the hands
of an agent thus regardless of his duty, the same principle
requires that the money of the United States should, under the
like circumstances, be withdrawn from the hands of their fiscal
agent."
Having shown ample reasons for ceasing to make the public deposits
in the Bank of the United States, and that it was done, the
Secretary proceeds to the next division of his subject, naturally
resulting from his authority to remove, though not expressed in
the charter; and that was, to show where he had ordered them to be
placed.
"The propriety of removing the deposits being thus evident, and
it being consequently my duty to select the places to which
they were to be removed, it became necessary that arrangements
should be immediately made with the new depositories of the
public money, which would not only render it safe, but would at
the same time secure to the government, and to the community
at large, the conveniencies and facilities that were intended
to be obtained by incorporating the Bank of the United States.
Measures were accordingly taken for that purpose, and copies of
the contracts which have been made with the selected banks, and
of the letters of instructions to them from this department,
are herewith submitted. The contracts with the banks in the
interior are not precisely the same with those in the Atlantic
cities. The difference between them arises from the nature
of the business transacted by the banks in these different
places. The State banks selected are all institutions of high
character and undoubted strength, and are under the management
and control of persons of unquestioned probity and intelligence.
And, in order to insure the safety of the public money, each
of them is required, and has agreed, to give security whenever
the amount of the deposit shall exceed the half of the amount
of the capital actually paid in; and this department has
reserved to itself the right to demand security whenever it
may think it advisable, although this amount on deposit may
not be equal to the sum above stated. The banks selected have
also severally engaged to transmit money to any point at which
it may be required by the direction of this department for
the public service, and to perform all the services to the
government which were heretofore rendered by the Bank of the
United States. And, by agreements among themselves to honor each
other's notes and drafts, they are providing a general currency
at least as sound as that of the Bank of the United States,
and will afford facilities to commerce and in the business
of domestic exchange, quite equal to any which the community
heretofore enjoyed. There has not been yet sufficient time to
perfect these arrangements, but enough has already been done
to show that, even on the score of expediency, a Bank of the
United States is not necessary, either for the fiscal operations
of the government, or the public convenience; and that every
object which the charter to the present bank was designed to
attain, may be as effectually accomplished by the State banks.
And, if this can be done, nothing that is useful will be lost
or endangered by the change, while much that is desirable will
be gained by it. For no one of these corporations will possess
that absolute and almost unlimited dominion over the property
of the citizens of the United States which the present bank
holds, and which enables it at any moment, at its own pleasure,
to bring distress upon any portion of the community whenever it
may deem it useful to its interest to make its power felt. The
influence of each of the State banks is necessarily limited to
its own immediate neighborhood, and they will be kept in check
by the other local banks. They will not, therefore, be tempted
by the consciousness of power to aspire to political influence,
nor likely to interfere in the elections of the public servants.
They will, moreover, be managed by persons who reside in the
midst of the people who are to be immediately affected by their
measures; and they cannot be insensible or indifferent to the
opinions and peculiar interests of those by whom they are daily
surrounded, and with whom they are constantly associated.
These circumstances always furnish strong safeguards against
an oppressive exercise of power, and forcibly recommend the
employment of State banks in preference to a Bank of the United
States, with its numerous and distant branches.
"In the selection, therefore, of the State banks as the fiscal
agents of the government, no disadvantages appear to have been
incurred on the score of safety or convenience, or the general
interests of the country, while much that is valuable will be
gained by the change. I am, however, well aware of the vast
power of the Bank of the United States, and of its ability to
bring distress and suffering on the country. This is one of
the evils of chartering a bank with such an amount of capital,
with the right of shooting its branches into every part of the
Union, so as to extend its influence to every neighborhood.
The immense loan of more than twenty-eight millions of dollars
suddenly poured out, chiefly in the Western States, in 1831,
and the first four months in 1832, sufficiently attests that
the bank is sensible of the power which its money gives it,
and has placed itself in an attitude to make the people of
the United States feel the weight of its resentment, if they
presume to disappoint the wishes of the corporation. By a severe
curtailment it has already made it proper to withdraw a portion
of the money it held on deposit, and transfer it to the custody
of the new fiscal agents, in order to shield the community from
the injustice of the Bank of the United States. But I have not
supposed that the course of the government ought to be regulated
by the fear of the power of the bank. If such a motive could
be allowed to influence the legislation of Congress, or the
action of the executive departments of the government, there is
an end to the sovereignty of the people; and the liberties of
the country are at once surrendered at the feet of a moneyed
corporation. They may now demand the possession of the public
money, or the renewal of the charter; and if these objects
are yielded to them from apprehensions of their power, or
from the suffering which rapid curtailments on their part are
inflicting on the community, what may they not next require?
Will submission render such a corporation more forbearing in its
course? What law may it not hereafter demand, that it will not,
if it pleases, be able to enforce by the same means?"
Thus the keeping of the public moneys went to the local banks, the
system of an independent treasury being not then established; and
the notes of these banks necessarily required their notes to be
temporarily used in the federal payments, the gold currency not
being at that time revived. Upon these local banks the federal
government was thrown--_first_, for the safe keeping of its public
moneys; _secondly_, to supply the place of the nineteen millions
of bank notes which the national had in circulation; _thirdly_, to
relieve the community from the pressure which the Bank of the United
States had already commenced upon it, and which, it was known, was
to be pushed to the ultimate point of oppression. But a difficulty
was experienced in obtaining these local banks, which would be
incredible without understanding the cause. Instead of a competition
among them to obtain the deposits, there was holding off, and an
absolute refusal on the part of many. Local banks were shy of
receiving them--shy of receiving the greatest possible apparent
benefit to themselves--shy of receiving the aliment upon which they
lived and grew! and why this so great apparent contradiction? It
was the fear of the Bank of the United States! and of that capacity
to destroy them to which Mr. Biddle had testified in his answers to
the Senate's Finance Committee; and which capacity was now known to
be joined to the will; for the bank placed in the same category all
who should be concerned in the removal--both the government that
ordered it, and the local banks which received what it lost. But
a competent number were found; and this first attempt to prevent
a removal, by preventing a reception of the deposits elsewhere,
entirely failed.
CHAPTER XCV.
NOMINATION OF GOVERNMENT DIRECTORS, AND THEIR REJECTION.
By the charter of the bank, the government was entitled to five
directors, to be nominated annually by the President, and confirmed
by the Senate. At the commencement of the session of 1833-'34,
the President nominated the five, four of them being the same who
had served during the current year, and who had made the report
on which the order for the removal of the deposits was chiefly
founded. This drew upon them the resentment of the bank, and caused
them to receive a large share of reproach and condemnation in the
report which the committee of the bank drew up, and which the
board of directors adopted and published. When these nominations
came into the Senate it was soon perceived that there was to be
opposition to these four; and for the purpose of testing the truth
of the objections, Mr. Kane, of Illinois, submitted the following
resolution:
"_Resolved_, That the nominations of H. D. Gilpin, John T.
Sullivan, Peter Wager, and Hugh McEldery, be recommitted to the
Committee on Finance, with instructions to inquire into their
several qualifications and fitness for the stations to which
they have been nominated; also into the truth of all charges
preferred by them against the board of directors of the Bank
of the United States, and into the conduct of each of the said
nominees during the time he may have acted as director of the
said bank; and that the said nominees have notice of the times
and places of meetings of said committee, and have leave to
attend the same."
Which was immediately rejected by the following vote:
"YEAS.--Messrs. Benton, Brown, Forsyth, Grundy, Hendricks,
Hill, Kane, King of Alabama, Linn, McKean, Moor, Morris,
Rives, Robinson, Shepley, Tallmadge, Tipton, White, Wilkins,
Wright.--20.
"NAYS.--Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Black, Calhoun, Chambers, Clay,
Clayton, Ewing, Frelinghuysen, Kent, King of Georgia, Knight,
Mangum, Naudain, Poindexter, Porter, Prentiss, Robbins, Silsbee,
Smith, Southard, Sprague, Swift, Tomlinson, Tyler, Waggaman,
Webster.--27."
And this resolution being rejected, requiring a two-fold
examination--one into the character and qualifications of the
nominees, the other into the truth of their representations against
the bank, it was deemed proper to submit another, limited to an
inquiry into the character and fitness of the nominees; which was
rejected by the same vote. The nominations were then voted upon
separately, and each of the four was rejected by the same vote which
applied to the first one, to wit, Mr. Gilpin: and which was as
follows:
"YEAS.--Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Forsyth, Grundy,
Hendricks, Hill, Kane, King of Alabama, Linn, McKean, Moore,
Morris, Robinson, Shepley, Tallmadge, Tipton, White, Wilkins,
Wright.--20.
"NAYS.--Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Calhoun, Chambers, Clay, Ewing,
Frelinghuysen, Kent, Knight, Mangum, Naudain, Poindexter,
Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Silsbee, Smith, Sprague,
Swift, Tomlinson, Tyler, Waggaman, Webster.--24."
These rejections being communicated to the President, he immediately
felt that it presented a new case for his energy and decision of
conduct. The whole of the rejected gentlemen had been confirmed
the year before--had all acted as directors for the current
year--and there was no complaint against them except from the Bank
of the United States; and that limited to their conduct in giving
information of transactions in the bank to President Jackson at his
written request. Their characters and fitness were above question.
That was admitted by the Senate, both by its previous confirmation
for the same places, and its present refusal to inquire into those
points. The information which they had given to the President had
been copied from the books of the bank, and the transactions which
they communicated had been objected to by them at the time as
illegal and improper; and its truth, unimpeachable in itself, was
unimpeached by the Senate in their refusal to inquire into their
conduct while directors. It was evident then that they had been
rejected for the report which they made to the President; and this
brought up the question, whether it was right to punish them for
that act? and whether the bank should have the virtual nomination
of the government directors by causing those to be rejected which
the government nominated? and permitting none to serve but those
whose conduct should be subordinate to the views and policy of the
bank? These were questions, first, for the Senate, and then for the
country; and the President determined to bring it before both in a
formal message of re-nomination. He accordingly sent back the names
of the four rejected nominations in a message which contained, among
others, these passages:
"I disclaim all pretension of right on the part of the President
officially to inquire into, or call in question, the reasons
of the Senate for rejecting any nomination whatsoever. As the
President is not responsible to them for the reasons which
induce him to make a nomination, so they are not responsible to
him for the reasons which induce them to reject it. In these
respects, each is independent of the other and both responsible
to their respective constituents. Nevertheless, the attitude
in which certain vital interests of the country are placed by
the rejection of the gentlemen now re-nominated require of me,
frankly, to communicate my views of the consequences which
must necessarily follow this act of the Senate, if it be not
reconsidered.
"The characters and standing of these gentlemen are well known
to the community, and eminently qualify them for the offices
to which I propose to appoint them. Their confirmation by the
Senate at its last session to the same offices is proof that
such was the opinion of them entertained by the Senate at that
time; and unless some thing has occurred since to change it,
this act may now be referred to as evidence that their talents
and pursuits justified their selection.
"The refusal, however, to confirm their nominations to the
same offices, shows that there is something in the conduct of
these gentlemen during the last year which, in the opinion of
the Senate, disqualifies them; and as no charge has been made
against them as men or citizens, nothing which impeaches the
fair private character they possessed when the Senate gave
them their sanction at its last session, and as it moreover
appears from the journal of the Senate recently transmitted for
my inspection, that it was deemed unnecessary to inquire into
their qualifications or character, it is to be inferred that the
change in the opinion of the Senate has arisen from the official
conduct of these gentlemen. The only circumstances in their
official conduct which have been deemed of sufficient importance
to attract public attention are the two reports made by them
to the executive department of the government, the one bearing
date the 22d day of April, and the other the 19th day of August
last; both of which reports were communicated to the Senate by
the Secretary of the Treasury with his reasons for removing the
deposits.
"The truth of the facts stated in these reports, is not, I
presume, questioned by any one. The high character and standing
of the citizens by whom they were made prevent any doubt upon
the subject. Indeed the statements have not been denied by the
president of the bank, and the other directors. On the contrary,
they have insisted that they were authorized to use the money of
the bank in the manner stated in the two reports, and have not
denied that the charges there made against the corporation are
substantially true.
"It must be taken, therefore, as admitted that the statements
of the public directors, in the reports above mentioned, are
correct: and they disclose the most alarming abuses on the part
of the corporation, and the most strenuous exertions on their
part to put an end to them. They prove that enormous sums were
secretly lavished in a manner, and for purposes that cannot be
justified; and that the whole of the immense capital of the
bank has been virtually placed at the disposal of a single
individual, to be used, if he thinks proper, to corrupt the
press, and to control the proceedings of the government by
exercising an undue influence over elections.
"The reports were made in obedience to my official directions;
and I herewith transmit copies of my letter calling for
information of the proceedings of the bank. Were they bound to
disregard the call? Was it their duty to remain silent while
abuses of the most injurious and dangerous character were daily
practised? Were they bound to conceal from the constituted
authorities a course of measures destructive to the best
interests of the country, and intended, gradually and secretly,
to subvert the foundations of our government, and to transfer
its powers from the hands of the people to a great moneyed
corporation? Was it their duty to sit in silence at the board,
and witness all these abuses without an attempt to correct them;
or, in case of failure there, not to appeal to higher authority?
The eighth fundamental rule authorizes any one of the directors,
whether elected or appointed, who may have been absent when an
excess of debt was created, or who may have dissented from the
act, to exonerate himself from personal responsibility by giving
notice of the fact to the President of the United States; thus
recognizing the propriety of communicating to that officer the
proceedings of the board in such cases. But, independently of
any argument to be derived from the principle recognized in the
rule referred to, I cannot doubt for a moment that it is the
right and the duty of every director at the board to attempt
to correct all illegal proceedings, and in case of failure,
to disclose them; and that every one of them, whether elected
by the stockholders or appointed by the government, who had
knowledge of the facts, and concealed them, would be justly
amenable to the severest censure.
"But, in the case of the public directors, it was their peculiar
and official duty to make the disclosures; and the call upon
them for information could not have been disregarded without a
flagrant breach of their trust. The directors appointed by the
United States cannot be regarded in the light of the ordinary
directors of a bank appointed by the stockholders, and charged
with the care of their pecuniary interests in the corporation.
They have higher and more important duties. They are public
officers. They are placed at the board not merely to represent
the stock held by the United States, but to observe the conduct
of the corporation, and to watch over the public interests.
It was foreseen that this great moneyed monopoly might be so
managed as to endanger the interests of the country; and it
was therefore deemed necessary, as a measure of precaution, to
place at the board watchful sentinels, who should observe its
conduct, and stand ready to report to the proper officers of the
government every act of the board which might affect injuriously
the interests of the people.
"It was, perhaps, scarcely necessary to present to the Senate
these views of the powers of the Executive, and of the duties
of the five directors appointed by the United States. But the
bank is believed to be now striving to obtain for itself the
government of the country, and is seeking, by new and strained
constructions, to wrest from the hands of the constituted
authorities the salutary control reserved by the charter. And as
misrepresentation is one of its most usual weapons of attack, I
have deemed it my duty to put before the Senate, in a manner not
to be misunderstood, the principles on which I have acted.
"Entertaining, as I do, a solemn conviction of the truth of
these principles, I must adhere to them, and act upon them, with
constancy and firmness.
"Aware, as I now am, of the dangerous machinations of the bank,
it is more than ever my duty to be vigilant in guarding the
rights of the people from the impending danger. And I should
feel that I ought to forfeit the confidence with which my
countrymen have honored me, if I did not require regular and
full reports of every thing in the proceedings of the bank
calculated to affect injuriously the public interests, from
the public directors, and if the directors should fail to give
the information called for, it would be my imperious duty to
exercise the power conferred on me by the law of removing them
from office, and of appointing others who would discharge their
duties with more fidelity to the public. I can never suffer any
one to hold office under me, who would connive at corruption,
or who should fail to give the alarm when he saw the enemies
of liberty endeavoring to sap the foundations of our free
institutions, and to subject the free people of the United
States to the dominion of a great moneyed corporation.
"Any directors of the bank, therefore, who might be appointed
by the government, would be required to report to the Executive
as fully as the late directors have done, and more frequently,
because the danger is more imminent; and it would be my duty to
require of them a full detail of every part of the proceedings
of the corporation, or any of its officers, in order that I
might be enabled to decide whether I should exercise the power
of ordering a _scire facias_, which is reserved to the President
by the charter, or adopt such other lawful measures as the
interests of the country might require. It is too obvious to be
doubted, that the misconduct of the corporation would never have
been brought to light by the aid of a public proceeding at the
board of directors.
"The board, when called on by the government directors, refused
to institute an inquiry or require an account, and the mode
adopted by the latter was the only one by which the object
could be attained. It would be absurd to admit the right of the
government directors to give information, and at the same time
deny the means of obtaining it. It would be but another mode
of enabling the bank to conceal its proceedings, and practice
with impunity its corruptions. In the mode of obtaining the
information, therefore, and in their efforts to put an end to
the abuses disclosed, as well as in reporting them, the conduct
of the late directors was judicious and praiseworthy, and the
honesty, firmness, and intelligence, which they have displayed,
entitle them, in my opinion, to the gratitude of the country.
"If the views of the Senate be such as I have supposed, the
difficulty of sending to the Senate any other names than those
of the late directors will be at once apparent. I cannot consent
to place before the Senate the name of any one who is not
prepared, with firmness and honesty, to discharge the duties of
a public director in the manner they were fulfilled by those
whom the Senate have refused to confirm. If, for performing a
duty lawfully required of them by the Executive, they are to be
punished by the subsequent rejection of the Senate, it would not
only be useless but cruel to place men of character and honor in
that situation, if even such men could be found to accept it. If
they failed to give the required information, or to take proper
measures to obtain it, they would be removed by the Executive.
If they gave the information, and took proper measures to obtain
it, they would, upon the next nomination, be rejected by the
Senate. It would be unjust in me to place any other citizens
in the predicament in which this unlooked for decision of the
Senate has placed the estimable and honorable men who were
directors during the last year.
"If I am not in error in relation to the principles upon which
these gentlemen have been rejected, the necessary consequence
will be that the bank will hereafter be without government
directors and the people of the United States must be deprived
of their chief means of protection against its abuses; for,
whatever conflicting opinions may exist as to the right of the
directors appointed in January, 1833, to hold over until new
appointments shall be made, it is very obvious that, whilst
their rejection by the Senate remains in force, they cannot,
with propriety, attempt to exercise such a power. In the
present state of things, therefore, the corporation will be
enabled effectually to accomplish the object it has been so
long endeavoring to attain. Its exchange committees, and its
delegated powers to its president, may hereafter be dispensed
with, without incurring the danger of exposing its proceedings
to the public view. The sentinels which the law had placed at
its board can no longer appear there.
"Justice to myself, and to the faithful officers by whom the
public has been so well and so honorably served, without
compensation or reward, during the last year, has required of
me this full and frank exposition of my motives for nominating
them again after their rejection by the Senate. I repeat, that
I do not question the right of the Senate to confirm or reject
at their pleasure; and if there had been any reason to suppose
that the rejection, in this case, had not been produced by the
causes to which I have attributed it, or of my views of their
duties, and the present importance of their rigid performance,
were other than they are, I should have cheerfully acquiesced,
and attempted to find others who would accept the unenviable
trust. But I cannot consent to appoint directors of the bank to
be the subservient instruments, or silent spectators, of its
abuses and corruptions; nor can I ask honorable men to undertake
the thankless duty, with the certain prospect of being rebuked
by the Senate for its faithful performance, in pursuance of the
lawful directions of the Executive."
This message brought up the question, virtually, Which was the
nominating power, in the case of the government directors of the
bank? was it the President and Senate? or the bank and the Senate?
for it was evident that the four now nominated were rejected
to gratify the bank, and for reasons that would apply to every
director that would discharge his duties in the way these four had
done--namely, as government directors, representing its stock,
guarding its interest, and acting for the government in all cases
which concerned the welfare of an institution whose notes were a
national currency, whose coffers were the depository of the public
moneys, and in which it had a direct interest of seven millions
of dollars in its stock. It brought up this question: and if
negatived, virtually decided that the nominating power should be
in the bank; and that the government directors should no more give
such information to the President as these four had given. And
this question it was determined to try, and that definitively, in
the persons of these four nominated directors, with the declared
determination to nominate no others if they were rejected; and
so leave the government without representation in the bank. This
message of re-nomination was referred to the Senate's Committee of
Finance, of which Mr. Tyler was chairman, and who made a report
adverse to the re-nominations, and in favor of again rejecting
the nominees. The points made in the report were, _first_, the
absolute right of the Senate to reject nominations; _secondly_,
their privilege to give no reasons for their rejections (which
the President had not asked); and, _thirdly_, against the general
impolicy of making re-nominations, while admitting both the right
and the practice in extraordinary occasions. Some extracts will show
its character: thus:
"The President disclaims, indeed, in terms, all right to inquire
into the reasons of the Senate for rejecting any nomination;
and yet the message immediately undertakes to infer, from facts
and circumstances, what those reasons, which influenced the
Senate in this case, must have been; and goes on to argue, much
at large, against the validity of such supposed reasons. The
committee are of opinion that, if, as the President admits, he
cannot inquire into the reasons of the Senate for refusing its
assent to nominations, it is still more clear that these reasons
cannot, with propriety, be assumed, and made subjects of comment.
"In cases in which nominations are rejected for reasons
affecting the character of the persons nominated, the committee
think that no inference is to be drawn except what the vote
shows; that is to say, that the Senate withholds its advice
and consent from the nominations. And the Senate, not being
bound to give reasons for its votes in these cases, it is not
bound, nor would it be proper for it, as the committee think,
to give any answer to remarks founded on the presumption of
what such reasons must have been in the present case. They feel
themselves, therefore, compelled to forego any response whatever
to the message of the President, in this particular, as well
by the reasons before assigned, as out of respect to that high
officer.
"The President acts upon his own views of public policy, in
making nominations to the Senate; and the Senate does no more,
when it confirms or rejects such nominations.
"For either of these co-ordinate departments to enter into the
consideration of the motives of the other, would not, and could
not, fail, in the end, to break up all harmonious intercourse
between them. This your committee would deplore as highly
injurious to the best interests of the country. The President,
doubtless, asks himself, in the case of every nomination for
office, whether the person be fit for the office; whether he
be actuated by correct views and motives; and whether he be
likely to be influenced by those considerations which should
alone govern him in the discharge of his duties--is he honest,
capable, and faithful? Being satisfied in these particulars,
the President submits his name to the Senate, where the same
inquiries arise, and its decision should be presumed to be
dictated by the same high considerations as those which govern
the President in originating the nomination.
"For these reasons, the committee have altogether refrained from
entering into any discussion of the legal duties and obligations
of directors of the bank, appointed by the President and Senate,
which forms the main topic of the message.
"The committee would not feel that it had fully acquitted itself
of its obligations, if it did not avail itself of this occasion
to call the attention of the Senate to the general subject of
renomination.
"The committee do not deny that a right of renomination
exists; but they are of opinion that, in very clear and strong
cases only should the Senate reverse decisions which it has
deliberately formed, and officially communicated to the
President.
"The committee perceive, with regret, an intimation in the
message that the President may not see fit to send to the Senate
the names of any other persons to be directors of the bank,
except those whose nominations have been already rejected.
While the Senate will exercise its own rights according to its
own views of its duty, it will leave to other officers of the
government to decide for themselves on the manner they will
perform their duties. The committee know no reasons why these
offices should not be filled; or why, in this case, no further
nomination should be made, after the Senate has exercised its
unquestionable right of rejecting particular persons who have
been nominated, any more than in other cases. The Senate will be
ready at all times to receive and consider any such nominations
as the President may present to it.
"The committee recommend that the Senate do not advise and
consent to the appointment of the persons thus renominated."
While these proceedings were going on in the Senate, the four
rejected gentlemen were paying some attention to their own case;
and, in a "memorial" addressed to the Senate and to the House of
Representatives, answered the charges against them in the Directors'
Report, and vindicated their own conduct in giving the information
which the President requested--reasserted the truth of that
information; and gave further details upon the manner in which they
had been systematically excluded from a participation in conducting
the main business of the bank, and even from a knowledge of what was
done. They said:
"Selected by the President and Senate as government directors
of the Bank of the United States, we have endeavored, during
the present year, faithfully to discharge the duties of that
responsible trust. Appointed without solicitation, deriving from
the office no emolument, we have been guided in our conduct by
no views but a determination to uphold, so far as was in our
power, those principles which we believe actuated the people
of the United States in establishing a national bank, and in
providing by its charter that they should be represented at
the board of directors. We have regarded that institution, not
merely as a source of profit to individuals, but as an organ of
the government, established by the nation for its own benefit.
We have regarded ourselves, not as mere agents of those whose
funds have been subscribed towards the capital of the bank, but
as officers appointed on behalf of the American people. We have
endeavored to govern all our conduct as faithful representatives
of them. We have been deterred from this by no preconcerted
system to deprive us of our rights, by no impeachment of our
motives, by no false views of policy, by no course of management
which might be supposed to promote the interests of those
concerned in the institution, at the danger or sacrifice of
the general good. We have left the other directors to govern
themselves as they may think best for the interests of those by
whom they were chosen. For ourselves, we have been determined,
that where any differences have arisen, involving on the one
hand that open and correct course which is beneficial to the
whole community, and, on the other, what are supposed to be
the interests of the bank, our efforts should be steadily
directed to uphold the former, our remonstrances against the
latter should be resolute and constant; and, when they proved
unavailing, our appeal should be made to those who were more
immediately intrusted with the protection of the public welfare.
"In pursuing this course we have been met by an organized system
of opposition, on the part of the majority. Our efforts have
been thwarted, our motives and actions have been misrepresented,
our rights have been denied, and the limits of our duties have
been gratuitously pointed out to us, by those who have sought
to curtail them to meet their own policy, not that which we
believe led to the creation of the offices we hold. Asserting
that injury has been done to them by the late measure of the
Secretary of the Treasury, in removing the public deposits, an
elaborate statement has been prepared and widely circulated;
and taking that as their basis, it has been resolved by the
majority to present a memorial to the Senate and House of
Representatives. We have not, and do not interfere in the
controversy which exists between the majority of the board
and the executive department of the government; but unjustly
assailed as we have been in the statement to which we have
referred, we respectfully claim the same right of submitting
our conduct to the same tribunal, and asking of the assembled
representatives of the American people that impartial hearing,
and that fair protection, which all their officers and all
citizens have a right to demand. We shall endeavor to present
the view we have taken of the relation in which we are placed,
as well towards the institution in question as towards the
government and people of the United States, to prove that from
the moment we took our seats among the directors of the bank,
we have been the objects of a systematic opposition; our rights
trampled upon, our just interference prevented, and our offices
rendered utterly useless, for all the purposes required by the
charter; and to show that the statements by the majority of the
board, in the document to which we refer, convey an account of
their proceedings and conduct altogether illusory and incorrect."
The four gentlemen then state their opinions of their rights, and
their duties, as government directors--that they were devised as
instruments for the attainment of public objects--that they were
public directors, not elected by stockholders, but appointed by
the President and Senate--that their duties were not merely to
represent a moneyed interest and promote the largest dividend
for stockholders, but also to guard all the public and political
interest of the government in an institution so largely sharing
its support and so deeply interested in its safe and honorable
management. And in support of this opinion of their duties they
quoted the authority of Gen. Hamilton, founder of the first bank
of the United States; and that of Mr. Alexander Dallas, founder of
the second and present bank; showing that each of them, and at the
time of establishing the two banks respectively, considered the
government directors as public officers, bound to watch over the
operations of the bank, to oppose all malpractices, and to report
them to the government whenever they occurred. And they thus quoted
the opinions of those two gentlemen:
"In the celebrated report of Alexander Hamilton, in 1790, that
eminent statesman and financier, although then impressed with a
persuasion that the government of the country might well leave
the management of a national bank to 'the keen, steady, and, as
it were, magnetic sense of their own interest,' existing among
the private stockholders, yet holds the following remarkable
and pregnant language: 'If the paper of a bank is permitted
to insinuate itself into all the revenues and receipts of
a country; if it is even to be tolerated as the substitute
for gold and silver, in all the transactions of business;
it becomes, in either view, a national concern of the first
magnitude. As such, the ordinary rules of prudence require
that the government should possess the means of ascertaining,
whenever it thinks fit, that so delicate a trust is executed
with fidelity and care. A right of this nature is not only
desirable, as it respects the government, but it ought to be
equally so to all those concerned in the institution, as an
additional title to public and private confidence, and as a
thing which can only be formidable to practices that imply
mismanagement.'
"In the letter addressed by Alexander James Dallas, the author
of the existing bank, to the chairman of the committee on
a national currency, in 1815, the sentiments of that truly
distinguished and patriotic statesman are explicitly conveyed
upon this very point. 'Nor can it be doubted,' he remarks,
'that the department of the government which is invested with
the power of appointment to all the important offices of
the State, is a proper department to exercise the power of
appointment in relation to a national trust of incalculable
magnitude. The national bank ought not to be regarded simply
as a commercial bank. It will not operate on the funds of the
stockholders alone, but much more on the funds of the nation.
Its conduct, good or bad, will not affect the corporate credit
and resources alone, but much more the credit and resources
of the government. In fine, it is not an institution created
for the purposes of commerce and profit alone, but much more
for the purposes of national policy, as an auxiliary in the
exercise of some of the highest powers of the government.
Under such circumstances, the public interests cannot be too
cautiously guarded, and the guards proposed can never be
injurious to the commercial interests of the institution. The
right to inspect the general accounts of the bank, may be
employed to detect the evils of a mal-administration, but an
interior agency in the direction of its affairs will best serve
to prevent them.' This last sentence, extracted from the able
document of Secretary Dallas, developes at a glance what had
been the experience of the American government and people, in
the period which elapsed between the time of Alexander Hamilton
and that immediately preceding the formation of the present
bank. Hamilton conceived that 'a right to inspect the general
accounts of the bank,' would enable government 'to detect the
evils of a mal-administration,' and their detection he thought
sufficient. He was mistaken: at least so thought Congress and
their constituents, in 1815. Hence the inflexible spirit which
prevailed at the organization of a new bank, in establishing
'an interior agency in the direction of its affairs,' by the
appointment of public officers, through whom the evils of a
mal-administration might be carefully watched and prevented."
The four gentlemen also showed, in their memorial, that when the
bill for the charter of the present bank was under consideration in
the Senate, a motion was made to strike out the clause authorizing
the appointment of the government directors; and that that motion
was resisted, and successfully, upon the ground that they were to
be the guardians of the public interests, and to secure a just
and honorable administration of the affairs of the bank; that
they were not mere bank directors, but government officers, bound
to watch over the rights and interests of the government, and to
secure a safe and honest management of an institution which bore
the name of the United States--was created by it--and in which the
United States had so much at stake in its stock, in its deposits,
in its circulation, and in the safety of the community which put
their faith in it. Having vindicated the official quality of
their characters, and shown their duty as well as their right to
inform the government of all mal-practices, they entered upon an
examination of the information actually given, showing the truth of
all that was communicated, and declaring it to be susceptible of
proof, by the inspection of the books of the institution, and by an
examination of its directors and clerks.
"We confidently assert that there is in it no statement or
charge that can be invalidated; that every one is substantiated
by the books and records of the bank; that no real error has
been pointed out in this elaborate attack upon us by the
majority. It is by suppressing facts well known to them, by
misrepresenting what we say, by drawing unjust and unfair
inferences from particular sentences, by selecting insulated
phrases, and by exhibiting partial statements; by making
unfounded insinuations, and by unworthily impeaching our
motives, that they endeavor to controvert that which they are
unable to refute. When the expense account shall be truly and
fully exhibited to any tribunal, if it shall be found that the
charges we have stated do not exist; when the minutes of the
board shall be laid open, if it shall be found the resolutions
we have quoted are not recorded; we shall acknowledge that we
have been guilty of injustice and of error, but not till then.
"We have thus endeavored to present to the assembled
representatives of the American people, a view of the course
which, for nearly a year, the majority in a large moneyed
institution, established by them for their benefit, have thought
proper to pursue towards those who have been placed there, to
guard their interests and to watch and control their conduct. We
have briefly stated the systematic series of actions by which
they have endeavored to deprive them of every right that was
conferred on them by the charter, and to assume to themselves a
secret, irresponsible, and unlimited power. We have shown that,
in endeavoring to vindicate or to save themselves, they have
resorted to accusations against us, which they are unable to
sustain, and left unanswered charges which, were they not true,
it would be easy to repel. We have been urged to this from no
desire to enter into the lists with an adversary sustained by
all the resources which boundless wealth affords. We have been
driven to it by the nature and manner of the attack made upon
us, in the document on which the intended memorial to Congress
is founded."
But all their representations were in vain. Their nominations
were immediately rejected, a second time, and the seal of secrecy
preserved inviolate upon the reasons of the rejection. The
"proceedings" of the Senate were allowed to be published; that is to
say, the acts of the Senate, as a body, such as its motions, votes,
reports, &c., but nothing of what was said pending the nominations.
A motion was made by Mr. Wright to authorize the publication of the
debates, which was voted down; and so differently from what was
done in the case of Mr. Van Buren. In that case, the debates on the
nomination were published; the reasons for the rejection were shown;
and the public were enabled to judge of their validity. In this case
no publication of debates was allowed; the report presented by Mr.
Tyler gave no hint of the reasons for the rejection; and the act
remained where that report put it--on the absolute right to reject,
without the exhibition of any reason.
And thus the nomination of the government directors was rejected by
the United States Senate, not for the declared, but for the known
reason of reporting the misconduct of the bank to the President,
and especially as it related to the appointment and the conduct of
the exchange committee. A few years afterwards a committee of the
stockholders, called the "Committee of Investigation," made a report
upon the conduct and condition of the bank, in which this exchange
committee is thus spoken of: "The mode in which the committee of
exchange transacted their business, shows that there really existed
no check whatever upon the officers, and that the funds of the bank
were almost entirely at their disposition. That committee met daily,
and were attended by the cashier, and at times, by the president.
They exercised the power of making the loans and settlements, to
full as great an extent as the board itself. They kept no minutes
of their proceedings--no book in which the loans made, and business
done, were entered; but their decisions and directions were given
verbally to the officers, to be by them carried into execution. The
established course of business seems to have been, for the first
teller to pay on presentation at the counter, all checks, notes,
or due bills having indorsed the order, or the initials, of one of
the cashiers, and to place these as vouchers in his drawer, for
so much cash, where they remained, until just before the regular
periodical counting of the cash by the standing committee of the
board on the state of the bank. These vouchers were then taken out,
and entered as 'bills receivable,' in a small memorandum-book, under
the charge of one of the clerks. These bills were not discounted,
but bore interest semi-annually, and were secured by a pledge of
stock, or some other kind of property. It is evidently impossible
under such circumstances, to ascertain or be assured, in regard
to any particular loan or settlement, that it was authorized by a
majority of the exchange committee. It can be said, however, with
entire certainty, that the very large business transacted in this
way does not appear upon the face of the discount books--was never
submitted to the examination of the members of the board at its
regular meetings, nor is any where entered on the minutes as having
been reported to that body for their information or approbation."
CHAPTER XCVI.
SECRETARY'S REPORT ON THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS.
In the first days of the session Mr. Clay called the attention
of the Senate to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury,
communicating the fact that he had ordered the public deposits to
cease to be made in the Bank of the United States, and giving his
reasons for that act, and said:
"When Congress, at the time of the passage of the charter of the
bank, made it necessary that these reasons should be submitted,
they must have had some purpose in their mind. It must have
been intended that Congress should look into these reasons,
determine as to their validity; and approve or disapprove them,
as might be thought proper. The reasons had now been submitted,
and it was the duty of Congress to decide whether or not they
were sufficient to justify the act. If there was a subject
which, more than any other, seemed to require the prompt action
of Congress, it certainly was that which had reference to the
custody and care of the public treasury. The Senate, therefore,
could not, at too early a period, enter on the question--what
was the actual condition of the treasury?
"It was not his purpose to go into a discussion, but he had
risen to state that it appeared to him to be his duty as a
senator, and he hoped that other senators took similar views
of their duty, to look into this subject, and to see what was
to be done. As the report of the Secretary of the Treasury
had declared the reasons which had led to the removal of the
public deposits, and as the Senate had to judge whether, on
investigation of these reasons, the act was a wise one or not,
he considered that it would not be right to refer the subject to
any committee, but that the Senate should at once act on it, not
taking it up in the form of a report of a committee, but going
into an examination of the reasons as they had been submitted."
Mr. Benton saw two objections to proceeding as Mr. Clay
proposed--one, as to the form of his proposition--the other, as
to the place in which it was made. The report of the Secretary,
charging acts of misconduct as a cause of removal, would require
an investigation into their truth. The House of Representatives
being the grand inquest of the nation, and properly chargeable
with all inquiries into abuses, would be the proper place for the
consideration of the Secretary's report--though he admitted that
the Senate could also make the inquiry if it pleased; but should do
it in the proper way, namely, by inquiring into the truth of the
allegations against the bank. He said:
"He requested the Senate to bear in mind that the Secretary
had announced, among other reasons which he had assigned for
the removal of the deposits, that it had been caused by the
misconduct of the bank, and he had gone into a variety of
specifications, charging the bank with interfering with the
liberties of the people in their most vital elements--the
liberty of the press, and the purity of elections. The Secretary
had also charged the bank with dishonoring its own paper on
several occasions, and that it became necessary to compel it
to receive paper of its own branches. Here, then, were grave
charges of misconduct, and he wished to know whether, in the
face of such charges, this Congress was to go at once, without
the previous examination of a committee, into action upon the
subject?
"He desired to know whether the Senate were now about to
proceed to the consideration of this report as it stood, and,
without receiving any evidence of the charges, or taking any
course to establish their truth, to give back the money to this
institution? He thought it would be only becoming in the bank
itself to ask for a committee of scrutiny into its conduct,
and that the subject ought to be taken up by the House of
Representatives, which, on account of its numbers, its character
as the popular branch, and the fact that all money bills
originated there, was the most proper tribunal for the hearing
of this case. He did not mean to deny that the Senate had the
power to go into the examination. But to fix a day now for the
decision of so important a case, he considered as premature.
Were the whole of the charges to be blown out of the paper by
the breath of the Senate? Were they to decide on the question,
each senator sitting there as witness and juror in the case?
He did not wish to stand there in the character of a witness,
unless he was to be examined on oath either at the bar of the
Senate, or before a committee of that body, where the evidence
would be taken down. He wished to know the manner in which the
examination was to be conducted; for he regarded this motion as
an admission of the truth of every charge which had been made in
the report, and as a flight from investigation."
Mr. Clay then submitted two resolutions in relation to the subject,
the second of which after debate, was referred to the committee on
finance. They were in these words:
"1st. That, by dismissing the late Secretary of the Treasury,
because he would not, contrary to his sense of his own duty,
remove the money of the United States in deposit with the Bank
of the United States and its branches, in conformity with the
President's opinion, and by appointing his successor to effect
such removal, which has been done, the President has assumed the
exercise of a power over the Treasury of the United States, not
granted to him by the constitution and laws, and dangerous to
the liberties of the people.
"2d. That the reasons assigned by the Secretary of the Treasury
for the removal of the money of the United States deposited in
the Bank of the United States and its branches, communicated to
Congress on the 3d day of December, 1833, are unsatisfactory and
insufficient."
The order for the reference to the finance committee was made in
the Senate at four o'clock in the afternoon of one day; and the
report upon it was made at noon the next day; a very elaborate
argumentative paper, the reading of which by its reporter (Mr.
Webster) consumed one hour and a quarter of time. It recommended
the adoption of the resolution; and 6000 copies of the report were
ordered to be printed. Mr. Forsyth, of Georgia, complimented the
committee on their activity in getting out a report of such length
and labor, in so short a time, and in the time usually given to the
refreshment of dinner and sleep. He said:
"Certainly great credit was due to the committee on finance for
the zeal, ability, and industry with which the report had been
brought out. He thought the reference was made yesterday at four
o'clock; and the committee could hardly have had time to agree
on and write out so long a report in the short space of time
intervening since then. It was possible that the subject might
have been discussed and well understood in the committee before,
and that the chairman had time to embody the sentiments of the
various members of the committee previous to the reference. If
such was the case, it reminded him of what had once happened in
one of the courts of justice of the State of Georgia. A grave
question of constitutional law was presented before that court,
was argued for days with great ability, and when the argument
was concluded, the judge drew from his coat pocket a written
opinion, which he read, and ordered to be recorded as the
opinion of the court. It appeared, therefore, that unless the
senator from Massachusetts carried the opinion of the committee
in his coat pocket, he could not have presented his report with
the unexampled dispatch that had been witnessed."
Mr. Webster, evidently nettled at the sarcastic compliment of Mr.
Forsyth, replied to him in a way to show his irritated feelings, but
without showing how he came to do so much work in so short a time.
He said:
"Had the gentleman come to the Senate this morning in his
usual good humor, he would have been easily satisfied on
that point. He will recollect that the subject now under
discussion was deemed, by every body, to be peculiarly fitted
for the consideration of the committee on finance; and that,
three weeks ago, I had intimated my intention of moving for
such a reference. I had, however, delayed the motion, from
considerations of courtesy to other gentlemen, on all sides.
But the general subject of the removal of the deposits, had
been referred to the committee on finance, by reference of
that part of the President's message; and various memorials,
in relation to it, had also been referred. The subject has
undergone an ample discussion in committee. I had been more
than once instructed by the committee to move for the reference
of the Secretary's letter, but the motion was postponed,
from time to time, for the reasons I have before given. Had
the gentleman from Georgia been in the Senate yesterday, he
would have known that this particular mode of proceeding was
adopted, as was then well understood, for the sole purpose of
facilitating the business of the Senate, and of giving the
committee an opportunity to express an opinion, the result of
their consideration. If the gentleman had heard what had passed
yesterday, when the reference was made, he would not have
expressed surprise."
The fact was the report had been drawn by the counsel for the
bank, and differed in no way in substance, and but little in form,
from the report which the bank committee had made on the paper,
"purporting to have been signed by Andrew Jackson, and read to what
was called a cabinet." But the substance of the resolution (No.
2, of Mr. Clay's), gave rise to more serious objections than the
marvellous activity of the committee in reporting upon it with the
elaboration and rapidity with which they had done. It was an empty
and inoperative expression of opinion, that the Secretary's reasons
were "unsatisfactory and insufficient;" without any proposition
to do any thing in consequence of that dissatisfaction and
insufficiency; and, consequently, of no legislative avail, and of
no import except to bring the opinion of senators, thus imposingly
pronounced, against the act of the Secretary. The resolve was not
practical--was not legislative--was not in conformity to any mode
of doing business--and led to no action;--neither to a restoration
of the deposits nor to a condemnation of their keeping by the State
banks. Certainly the charter, in ordering the Secretary to report,
and to report at the first practicable moment, both the fact of a
removal, and the reasons for it, was to enable Congress to act--to
do something--to legislate upon the subject--to judge the validity
of the reasons--and to order a restoration if they were found to
be untrue or insufficient; or to condemn the new place of deposit,
if it was deemed insecure or improper. All this was too obvious to
escape the attention of the democratic members who inveighed against
the futility and irrelevance of the resolve, unfit for a legislative
body, and only suitable for a town meeting; and answering no purpose
as a senatorial resolve but that of political effect against public
men. On this point Mr. Forsyth said:
"The subject had then been taken out of the hands of the Senate,
and sent to the committee on finance; and for what purpose was
it sent thither? Did any one doubt what would be the opinion of
the committee on finance? Would such a movement have been made,
had it not been intended thereby to give strength to the course
of the opposition? He was not in the Senate when the reference
was yesterday made, but he had supposed that it was made for
the purpose of some report in a legislative form, but it has
come back with an argument, and a recommendation of the adoption
of the resolution of the senator from Kentucky; and when the
resolutions were adopted, would they not still be sent back to
that committee for examination? Why had not the committee, who
seemed to know so well what would be the opinion of the Senate,
imbodied that opinion in a legislative form?"
To the same effect spoke many members, and among others, Mr. Silas
Wright, of New-York, who said:
"He took occasion to say, that with regard to the reference
made yesterday, he was not so unfortunate as his friend from
Georgia, to be absent at the time, and he then, while the motion
was pending, expressed his opinion that a reference at four
o'clock in the afternoon, to be returned with a report at twelve
the next day, would materially change the aspect of the case
before the Senate. He was also of opinion, that the natural
effect of sending this proposition to the committee on finance
would be, to have it returned with a recommendation for some
legislative action. In this, however, he had been disappointed,
the proposition had been brought back to the Senate in the same
form as sent to the committee, with the exception of the very
able argument read that morning."
Mr. Webster felt himself called upon to answer these objections,
and did so in a way to intimate that the committee were not "green"
enough,--that is to say, were too wise--to propose any legislative
action on the part of Congress in relation to this removal. He said:
"There is another thing, sir, to which the gentleman has
objected. He would have preferred that some legislative
recommendation should have accompanied the report--that some
law, or joint resolution, should have been recommended. Sir, do
we not see what the gentleman probably desires? If not, we must
be green politicians. It was not my intention, at this stage
of the business, to propose any law, or joint resolution. I do
not, at present, know the opinions of the committee on this
subject. On this question, at least, to use the gentleman's
expression, I do not carry their opinions in my coat pocket. The
question, when it arrives, will be a very grave one--one of deep
and solemn import--and when the proper time for its discussion
arrives, the gentleman from Georgia will have an opportunity to
examine it. The first thing is, to ascertain the judgment of the
Senate, on the Secretary's reasons for his act."
The meaning of Mr. Webster in this reply--this intimation that
the finance committee had got out of the sap, and were no longer
"green"--was a declaration that any legislative measure they
might have recommended, would have been rejected in the House
of Representatives, and so lost its efficacy as a senatorial
opinion; and to avoid that rejection, and save the effect of the
Senate's opinion, it must be a single and not a joint resolution;
and so confined to the Senate alone. The reply of Mr. Webster was
certainly candid, but unparliamentary, and at war with all ideas
of legislation, thus to refuse to propose a legislative enactment
because it would be negatived in the other branch of the national
legislature. Finally, the resolution was adopted, and by a vote of
28 to 18; thus:
"YEAS.--Messrs. Bibb, Black, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Ewing,
Frelinghuysen, Hendricks, Kent, King of Georgia, Knight, Leigh,
Mangum, Naudain, Poindexter, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins,
Silsbee, Smith, Southard, Sprague, Swift, Tomlinson, Tyler,
Waggaman, Webster.
"NAYS.--Messrs. Benton, Brown, Forsyth, Grundy, Hill, Kane, King
of Alabama, Linn, McKean, Moore, Robinson, Shepley, Tallmadge,
Tipton, White, Wilkins, Wright."
The futility of this resolve was made manifest soon after its
passage. It was nugatory, and remained naked. It required nothing
to be done, and nothing was done under it. It became ridiculous.
And eventually, and near the end of the session, Mr. Clay proposed
it over again, with another resolve attached, directing the return
of the deposits to the Bank of the United States; and making it
joint, so as to require the consent of both houses, and thus lead to
legislative action. In submitting his resolution in this new form
he took occasion to allude to their fate in the other branch of the
legislature, where rejection was certain, and to intimate censure
upon the President for not conforming to the opinion of the Senate
in its resolves; as if the adverse opinion of the House (from its
recent election, its superior numbers, and its particular charge of
the revenue), was not more than a counterpoise to the opinion of the
Senate. In this sense, he stood up, and said:
"Whatever might be the fate of these resolutions at the other
end of the capitol, or in another building, that consideration
ought to have no influence on the course of this body. The
Senate owed it to its own character, and to the country, to
proceed in the discharge of its duties, and to leave it to
others, whether at the other end of the capitol or in another
building, to perform their own obligations to the country,
according to their own sense of their duty, and their own
convictions of responsibility. To them it ought to be left to
determine what was their duty, and to discharge that duty as
they might think best. For himself, he should be ashamed to
return to his constituents without having made every lawful
effort in his power to cause the restoration of the public
deposits to the United States Bank. While a chance yet remained
of effecting the restoration of the reign of the constitution
and the laws, he felt that he should not have discharged this
duty if he failed to make every effort to accomplish that
desirable object.
"The Senate, after passing the resolution which they had already
passed, and waiting two months to see whether the Executive
would conform his course to the views expressed by this branch
of the legislature; after waiting all this time, and perceiving
that the error, as the Senate had declared it to be, was still
persevered in, and seeing the wide and rapid sweep of ruin over
every section of the country, there was still one measure left
which might arrest the evil, and that was in the offering of
these resolutions--to present them to this body; and, if they
passed here, to send them to the other House; and, should they
pass them, to present to the President the plain question, if he
will return to the constitutional track; or, in opposition to
the expressed will of the legislature, retain the control over
the millions of public money which are already deposited in the
local banks, and which are still coming in there."
Mr. Benton replied to Mr. Clay, showing the propriety of these
resolutions if offered at the commencement of the session--their
inutility now, so near its end; and the indelicacy in the Senate, in
throwing itself between the bank and the House of Representatives,
at a moment when the bank directors were standing out in contempt
against the House, refusing to be examined by its committee, and
a motion actually depending to punish them for this contempt.
For this was then the actual condition of the corporation; and,
for the Senate to pass a resolution to restore the deposits in
these circumstances, was to take the part of the bank against the
House--to justify its contumacy--and to express an opinion in favor
of its re-charter; as all admitted that restoration of the deposits
was wrong unless a re-charter was granted. Mr. B. said:
"He deemed the present moment to be the most objectionable time
that could have been selected for proposing to restore the
public deposits to the United States Bank. Such a proposition
might have been a proper proceeding at the commencement of the
session. A joint resolution, at that time, would have been the
proper mode; it could have been followed by action; and, if
constitutionally passed, would have compelled the restoration
of these deposits. But the course was different. A separate
resolution was brought in, and passed the Senate; and there it
stopped. It was a nugatory resolution, leading to no action.
It was such a one as a State legislature, or a public meeting,
might adopt, because they had no power to legislate on the
subject. But the Senate had the power of legislation; and, six
months ago, when the separate resolution was brought in, the
Senate, if it intended to act legislatively on the subject at
all, ought to have proceeded by joint resolution, or by bill, at
that time. But it thought otherwise. The separate resolution was
adopted; after adoption, no instruction was given to a committee
to bring in a bill; nothing was done to give legislative effect
to the decision of the Senate; and now, at the end of six
months, the first attempt is made to move in our legislative
capacity, and to pass a joint resolution--equivalent to a
statute--to compel the restoration of these deposits. This is
the state of the proceeding; and, Mr. B. must be permitted to
say, and to give his reasons for saying, that the time selected
for this first step, in our legislative capacity, in a case so
long depending, is most inappropriate and objectionable. Mr. B.
would not dwell upon the palpable objections to this proceeding,
which must strike every mind. The advanced stage of the
session--the propositions to adjourn--the quantity of business
on hand--the little probability that the House and the President
would concur with the Senate, or that two thirds of the two
Houses could be brought to pass the resolution, if the President
declined to give it his approbation. These palpable objections
must strike every mind and make it appear to be a useless
consumption of time for the Senate to pass the resolution.
"Virtually, it included a proposition to re-charter the bank;
for the most confidential friends of that institution admitted
that it was improper to restore the deposits, unless the bank
charter was to be continued. The proposition to restore them,
virtually included the proposition to re-charter; and that was
a proposition which, after having been openly made on this
floor, and leave asked to bring in a bill to that effect, had
been abandoned, under the clear conviction that the measure
could not pass. Passing from these palpable objections, Mr. B.
proceeded to state another reason, of a different kind, and
which he held to be imperative of the course which the Senate
should now pursue: he alluded to the state of the questions at
this moment depending between the Bank of the United States and
the House of Representatives, and the nature of which exacted
from the Senate the observance of a strict neutrality, and an
absolute non-interference between those two bodies. The House
of Representatives had ordered an inquiry into the affairs and
conduct of the bank. The points of inquiry indicated misconduct
of the gravest import, and had been ordered by the largest
majority, not less than three or four to one. That inquiry
was not yet finished; it was still depending; the committee
appointed to conduct it remains organized, and has only reported
in part. That report is before the Senate and the public; and
shows that the directors of the Bank of the United States have
resisted the authority of the House--have made an issue of power
between itself and the House--for the trial of which issue a
resolution is now depending in the House, and is made the order
of the day for Tuesday next.
"Here, then, are two questions depending between the House and
the bank; the first, an inquiry into the misconduct of the
bank; the second, a proposition to compel the bank to submit
to the authority of the House. Was it right for the Senate to
interpose between those bodies, while these questions were
depending? Was it right to interfere on the part of the bank?
Was it right for the Senate to leap into the arena, throw itself
between the contending parties, take sides with the bank, and
virtually declare to the American people that there was no
cause for inquiry into the conduct of the bank, and no ground of
censure for resisting the authority of the House? Such would,
doubtless, be the effect of the conduct of the Senate, if it
should entertain the proposition which is now submitted to it.
That proposition is one of honor and confidence to the bank. It
proceeds upon the assumption that the bank is right, and the
House is wrong, in the questions now depending between them;
that the bank has done nothing to merit inquiry, or to deserve
censure; and that the public moneys ought to be restored to her
keeping, without waiting the end of the investigation which
the House has ordered, or the decision of the resolution which
affirms that the bank has resisted the authority of the House,
and committed a contempt against it. This is the full and fair
interpretation--the clear and speaking effect--of the measure
now proposed to the Senate. Is it right to treat the House thus?
Will the Senate, virtually, intelligibly, and practically,
acquit the bank, when the bank will not acquit itself?--will
not suffer its innocence to be tested by the recorded voice
of its own books, and the living voice of its own directors?
These directors have refused to testify; they have refused to
be sworn; they have refused to touch the book; because, being
directors and corporators, and therefore parties, they cannot
be required to give evidence against themselves. And this
refusal, the public is gravely told, is made upon the advice of
eminent counsel. What counsel? The counsel of the law, or of
fear? Certainly, no lawyer--not even a junior apprentice to the
law--could give such advice. The right to stand mute, does not
extend to the privilege of refusing to be sworn. The right does
not attach until after the oath is taken, and is then limited
to the specific question, the answer to which might inculpate
the witness, and which he may refuse to answer, because he will
say, upon his oath, that the answer will criminate himself. But
these bank directors refuse to be sworn at all. They refuse to
touch the book; and, in that refusal, commit a flagrant contempt
against the House of Representatives, and do an act for which
any citizen would be sent to jail by any justice of the peace,
in America. And is the Senate to justify the directors for
this contempt? to get between them and the House? to adopt a
resolution beforehand--before the day fixed for the decision of
the contempt, which shall throw the weight of the Senate into
the scale of the directors against the House, and virtually
declare that they are right in refusing to be sworn?"
The resolutions were, nevertheless, adopted, and by the fixed
majority of twenty-eight to eighteen, and sent to the House of
Representatives for concurrence, where they met the fate which all
knew they were to receive. The House did not even take them up for
consideration, but continued the course which it had began at the
commencement of the session; and which was in exact conformity to
the legislative course, and exactly contrary to the course of the
Senate. The report of the Secretary of the Treasury, the memorial of
the bank, and that of the government directors, were all referred
to the Committee of Ways and Means; and by that committee a report
was made, by their chairman, Mr. Polk, sustaining the action of the
Secretary, and concluding with the four following resolutions:
"1. _Resolved_, That the Bank of the United States ought not to
be re-chartered.
"2. _Resolved_, That the public deposits ought not to be
restored to the Bank of the United States.
"3. _Resolved_, That the State banks ought to be continued
as the places of deposit of the public money, and that it
is expedient for Congress to make further provision by law,
prescribing the mode of selection, the securities to be taken,
and the manner and terms on which they are to be employed.
"4. _Resolved_, That, for the purpose of ascertaining, as far
as practicable, the cause of the commercial embarrassment and
distress complained of by numerous citizens of the United
States, in sundry memorials which have been presented to
Congress at the present session, and of inquiring whether the
charter of the Bank of the United States has been violated;
and, also, what corruptions and abuses have existed in its
management; whether it has used its corporate power or money
to control the press, to interfere in politics, or influence
elections; and whether it has had any agency, through its
management or money, in producing the existing pressure; a
select committee be appointed to inspect the books and examine
into the proceedings of the said bank, who shall report whether
the provisions of the charter have been violated or not; and,
also, what abuses, corruptions, or malpractices have existed
in the management of said bank; and that the said committee be
authorized to send for persons and papers, and to summon and
examine witnesses, on oath, and to examine into the affairs of
the said bank and branches; and they are further authorized
to visit the principal bank, or any of its branches, for the
purpose of inspecting the books, correspondence, accounts, and
other papers connected with its management or business; and that
the said committee be required to report the result of such
investigation, together with the evidence they may take, at as
early a day as practicable."
These resolutions were long and vehemently debated, and eventually,
each and every one, adopted by decided, and some by a great
majority. The first one, being that upon the question of the
recharter, was carried by a majority of more than fifty votes--134
to 82; showing an immense difference to the prejudice of the bank
since the veto session of 1832. The names of the voters on this
great question, so long debated in every form in the halls of
Congress, the chambers of the State legislatures, and in the forum
of the people, deserve to be commemorated--and are as follows:
"YEAS.--Messrs. John Adams, William Allen, Anthony, Archer,
Beale, Bean, Beardsley, Beaumont, John Bell, John Blair, Bockee,
Boon, Bouldin, Brown, Bunch, Bynum, Cambreleng, Campbell,
Carmichael, Carr, Casey, Chaney, Chinn, Claiborne, Samuel Clark,
Clay, Clayton, Clowney, Coffee, Connor, Cramer, W. R. Davis,
Davenport, Day, Dickerson, Dickinson, Dunlap, Felder, Forester,
Foster, W. K. Fuller, Fulton, Galbraith, Gholson, Gillet,
Gilmer, Gordon, Grayson, Griffin, Jos. Hall, T. H. Hall, Halsey,
Hamer, Hannegan, Jos. M. Harper, Harrison, Hathaway, Hawkins,
Hawes, Heath, Henderson, Howell, Hubbard, Abel Huntington, Inge,
Jarvis, Richard M. Johnson, Noadiah Johnson, Cave Johnson,
Seaborn Jones, Benjamin Jones, Kavanagh, Kinnard, Lane, Lansing,
Laporte, Lawrence, Lay, Luke Lea, Thomas Lee, Leavitt, Loyall,
Lucas, Lyon, Lytle, Abijah Mann, Joel K. Mann, Mardis, John Y.
Mason, Moses Mason, McIntire, McKay, McKinley, McLene McVean,
Miller, Henry Mitchell, Robert Mitchell, Muhlenberg, Murphy,
Osgood, Page, Parks, Parker, Patterson, D. J. Pearce, Peyton,
Franklin Pierce, Pierson, Pinckney, Plummer, Polk, Rencher,
Schenck, Schley, Shinn, Smith, Speight, Standifer, Stoddert,
Sutherland, William Taylor, Wm. P. Taylor, Francis Thomas,
Thomson, Turner, Turrill, Vanderpoel, Wagener, Ward, Wardwell,
Wayne, Webster, Whallon.--134.
"NAYS.--Messrs. John Quincy Adams, John J. Allen, Heman Allen,
Chilton Allan, Ashley, Banks, Barber, Barnitz, Barringer,
Baylies Beaty, James M. Bell, Binney, Briggs, Bull, Burges,
Cage, Chambers, Chilton, Choate, William Clark, Corwin, Coulter,
Crane, Crockett, Darlington, Amos Davis, Deberry, Deming, Denny,
Dennis, Dickson, Duncan, Ellsworth, Evans, Edward Everett,
Horace Everett, Fillmore, Foot, Philo C. Fuller, Graham,
Grennel, Hiland Hall, Hard, Hardin, James Harper, Hazeltine,
Jabez W. Huntington, Jackson, William C. Johnson, Lincoln,
Martindale, Marshall, McCarty, McComas, McDuffie, McKennan,
Mercer, Milligan, Moore, Pope, Potts, Reed, William B. Shepherd,
Aug. H. Shepperd, William Slade, Charles Slade, Sloane, Spangler
Philemon Thomas, Tompkins, Tweedy, Vance, Vinton, Watmough,
Edward D. White, Frederick Whittlesey, Elisha Whittlesey, Wilde,
Williams, Wilson, Young.--82."
The second and third resolutions were carried by good majorities,
and the fourth overwhelm overwhelmingly--175 to 42. Mr. Polk
immediately moved the appointment of the committee, and that
it consist of seven members. It was appointed accordingly, and
consisted of Messrs. Francis Thomas of Maryland, chairman; Everett
of Massachusetts; Muhlenberg of Pennsylvania; John Y. Mason of
Virginia; Ellsworth of Connecticut; Mann of New-York; and Lytle of
Ohio. The proceedings of this committee, and the reception it met
with from the bank, will be the subject of a future and separate
chapter. Under the third resolution the Committee of Ways and Means
soon brought in a bill in conformity to its provisions, which was
passed by a majority of 22, that is to say, by 112 votes against
90. And thus all the conduct of the President in relation to the
bank, received the full sanction of the popular representation;
and presented the singular spectacle of full support in one House,
and that one specially charged with the subject, while meeting
condemnation in the other.
CHAPTER XCVII.
CALL ON THE PRESIDENT FOR A COPY OF THE "PAPER READ TO THE CABINET."
In the first days of the session Mr. Clay submitted a resolution,
calling on the President to inform the Senate whether the "paper,"
published as alleged by his authority, and purporting to have been
read to the cabinet in relation to the removal of the deposits, "be
genuine or not;" and if it be "genuine," requesting him to cause a
copy of it to be laid before the Senate. Mr. Forsyth considered this
an unusual call, and wished to know for what purpose it was made. He
presumed no one had any doubt of the authenticity of the published
copy. He certainly had not. Mr. Clay justified his call on the
ground that the "paper" had been published--had become public--and
was a thing of general notoriety. If otherwise, and it had remained
a confidential communication to his cabinet, he certainly should not
ask for it; but not answering as to the use he proposed to make of
it, Mr. Forsyth returned to that point, and said he could imagine
that one branch of the legislature under certain circumstances might
have a right to call for it; but the Senate was not that branch.
If the paper was to be the ground of a criminal charge against the
President, and upon which he is to be brought to trial, it should
come from the House of Representatives, with the charges on which
he was to be tried. Mr. Clay rejoined, that as to the uses which
were to be made of this "paper" nothing seemed to run in the head of
the Senator from Georgia but an impeachment. This seemed to be the
only idea he could connect with the call. But there were many other
purposes for which it might be used, and he had never intended to
make it the ground of impeachment. It might show who was the real
author of the removal of the deposits--whether the President, or the
Secretary of the Treasury? and whether this latter might not have
been a mere automaton. Mr. Benton said there was no parliamentary
use that could be made of it, and no such use had been, or could
be specified. Only two uses can be made of a paper that may
be rightfully called for--one for legislation; the other for
impeachment; and not even in the latter case when self-crimination
was intended. No legislative use is intimated for this one; and the
criminal use is disavowed, and is obliged to be, as the Senate is
the tribunal to try, not the inquest to originate impeachments. But
this paper cannot be rightfully called for. It is a communication to
a cabinet; and communications to the cabinet are the same whether
in writing, or in a speech. It is all parol. Could the copy of a
speech made to the cabinet be called for? Could an account of the
President's conversation with his cabinet be called for? Certainly
not! and there is no difference between the written and the spoken
communication--between the set speech and a conversation--between a
thing made public, or kept secret. The President may refuse to give
the copy; and certainly will consult his rights and his self-respect
by so refusing. As for the contents of the paper, he has given them
to the country, and courts the judgment of the country upon it. He
avows his act--gives his reasons--and leaves it to all to judge.
He is not a man of concealments, or of irresponsibility. He gave
the paper to the public instantly, and authentically, with his name
fully signed to it; and any one can say what they please of it. If
it is wanted for an invective, or philippic, there it is! ready for
use, and seeking no shelter for want of authenticity. It is given
to the world, and is expected to stand the test of all examination.
Mr. Forsyth asked the yeas and nays on Mr. Clay's call; they were
ordered; and the resolution passed by 23 to 18. The next day the
President replied to it, and to the effect that was generally
foreseen. He declared the Executive to be a co-ordinate branch of
the government, and denied the right of the Senate to call upon him
for any copies of his communications to his cabinet--either written
or spoken. Feeling his responsibility to the American people, he
said he should be always ready to explain to them his conduct;
knowing the constitutional rights of the Senate, he should never
withhold from it any information in his power to give, and necessary
to the discharge of its duties. This was the end of the call; and
such an end was the full proof that it ought not to have been
made. No act could be predicated upon it--no action taken on its
communication--none upon the refusal, either of censure or coercion.
The President stood upon his rights; and the Senate could not, and
did not, say that he was wrong. The call was a wrong step, and gave
the President an easy and a graceful victory.
CHAPTER XCVIII.
MISTAKES OF PUBLIC MEN:--GREAT COMBINATION AGAINST GENERAL
JACKSON:--COMMENCEMENT OF THE PANIC.
In the year 1783, Mr. Fox, the great parliamentary debater, was in
the zenith of his power and popularity, and the victorious leader
in the House of Commons. He gave offence to the King, and was
dismissed from the ministry, and immediately formed a coalition
with Lord North; and commenced a violent opposition to the acts of
the government. Patriotism, love of liberty, hatred of misrule and
oppression, were the avowed objects of his attacks; but every one
saw (to adopt the language of history), that the real difficulty was
his own exclusion from office; and that his coalition with his old
enemy and all these violent assaults, were only to force himself
back into power: and this being seen, his efforts became unavailing,
and distasteful to the public; and he lost his power and influence
with the people, and sunk his friends with him. More than one
hundred and sixty of his supporters in the House of Commons, lost
their places at the ensuing election, and were sportively called
"Fox's Martyrs;" and when they had a procession in London, wearing
the tails of foxes in their hats, and some one wondered where so
many tails of that animal had come from, Mr. Pitt slyly said a
great many foxes had been lately taken: one, upon an average, in
every borough. Mr. Fox, young at that time, lived to recover from
this prostration; but his mistake was one of those of which history
is full and the lesson of which is in vain read to succeeding
generations. Public men continue to attack their adversaries in
power, and oppose their measures, while having private griefs of
their own to redress, and personal ends of their own to accomplish;
and the instinctive sagacity of the people always sees the sinister
motive, and condemns the conduct founded upon it.
Mr. Clay, Mr. Calhoun, and Mr. Webster were now all united against
General Jackson, with all their friends, and the Bank of the United
States. The two former had their private griefs: Mr. Clay in the
results of the election, and Mr. Calhoun in the quarrel growing out
of the discovery of his conduct in Mr. Monroe's cabinet, and it
would have been difficult so to have conducted their opposition,
and attack, as to have avoided the imputation of a personal
motive. But they so conducted it as to authorize and suggest that
imputation. Their movements all took a personal and vindictive,
instead of a legislative and remedial, nature. Mr. Taney's reasons
for removing the deposits were declared to be "unsatisfactory and
insufficient"--being words of reproach, and no remedy; nor was the
remedy of restoration proposed until driven into it. The resolution,
in relation to Gen. Jackson, was still more objectionable. The
Senate had nothing to do with him personally, yet a resolve was
proposed, against him entirely personal, charging him with violating
the laws and the constitution; and proposing no remedy for this
imputed violation, nor for the act of which it was the subject. It
was purely and simply a personal censure--a personal condemnation
that was proposed; and, to aggravate the proposition, it came from
the suggestion of the bank directors' memorial to Congress.
The combination was formidable. The bank itself was a great power,
and was able to carry distress into all the business departments
of the country; the political array against the President was
unprecedented in point of number, and great in point of ability.
Besides the three eminent chiefs, there were, in the Senate:
Messrs. Bibb of Kentucky; Ezekiel Chambers of Maryland; Clayton of
Delaware; Ewing of Ohio; Frelinghuysen of New Jersey; Watkins Leigh
of Virginia; Mangum of North Carolina; Poindexter of Mississippi;
Alexander Porter of Louisiana; William C. Preston of South
Carolina; Southard of New Jersey; Tyler of Virginia. In the House
of Representatives, besides the ex-President, Mr. Adams, and the
eminent jurist from Pennsylvania, Mr. Horace Binney, there was a
long catalogue of able speakers: Messrs. Archer of Virginia; Bell of
Tennessee; Burgess of Rhode Island; Rufus Choate of Massachusetts;
Corwin of Ohio; Warren R. Davis of South Carolina; John Davis of
Massachusetts; Edward Everett of Massachusetts; Millard Fillmore
of New-York, afterwards President; Robert P. Letcher of Kentucky;
Benjamin Hardin of Kentucky; McDuffie of South Carolina; Peyton of
Tennessee; Vance of Ohio; Wilde of Georgia; Wise of Virginia: in
all, above thirty able speakers, many of whom spoke many times;
besides many others of good ability, but without extensive national
reputations. The business of the combination was divided--distress
and panic the object--and the parts distributed, and separately
cast to produce the effect. The bank was to make the distress--a
thing easy for it to do, from its own moneyed power, and its power
over other moneyed institutions and money dealers; also to get up
distress meetings and memorials, and to lead the public press: the
politicians were to make the panic, by the alarms which they created
for the safety of the laws, of the constitution, the public liberty,
and the public money: and most zealously did each division of the
combination perform its part, and for the long period of three
full months. The decision of the resolution condemning General
Jackson, on which all this machinery of distress and panic was hung,
required no part of that time. There was the same majority to vote
it the first day as the last; but the time was wanted to get up the
alarm and the distress; and the vote, when taken, was not from any
exhaustion of the means of terrifying and agonizing the country,
but for the purpose of having the sentence of condemnation ready
for the Virginia elections--ready for spreading over Virginia at
the approach of the April elections. The end proposed to themselves
by the combined parties, was, for the bank, a recharter and the
restoration of the deposits; for the politicians, an ascent to power
upon the overthrow of Jackson.
The friends of General Jackson saw the advantages which were
presented to them in the unhallowed combination between the moneyed
and a political power--in the personal and vindictive character
which they gave to the proceedings--the private griefs of the
leading assailants--the unworthy objects to be attained--and
the cruel means to be used for their attainment. These friends
were also numerous, zealous, able, determined; and animated by
the consciousness that they were on the side of their country.
They were, in the Senate:--Messrs. Forsyth of Georgia; Grundy of
Tennessee; Hill of New Hampshire; Kane of Illinois; King of Alabama;
Rives of Virginia; Nathaniel Tallmadge of New York; Hugh L. White of
Tennessee; Wilkins of Pennsylvania; Silas Wright of New-York; and
the author of this THIRTY YEARS' VIEW. In the House, were:--Messrs.
Beardsley of New-York; Cambreleng of New-York; Clay of Alabama;
Gillett of New-York; Hubbard of New Hampshire; McKay of North
Carolina; Polk of Tennessee; Francis Thomas of Maryland; Vanderpoel
of New-York; and Wayne of Georgia.
Mr. Clay opened the debate in a prepared speech, commencing in the
style which the rhetoricians call _ex abruptu_--being the style of
opening which the occasion required--that of rousing and alarming
the passions. It will be found (its essential parts) in the next
chapter.
CHAPTER XCIX.
MR. CLAY'S SPEECH AGAINST PRESIDENT JACKSON ON THE REMOVAL OF THE
DEPOSITS--EXTRACTS.
"Mr. Clay addressed the Senate as follows: We are, said he,
in the midst of a revolution, hitherto bloodless, but rapidly
tending towards a total change of the pure republican character
of the government, and to the concentration of all power in the
hands of one man. The powers of Congress are paralyzed, except
when exerted in conformity with his will, by frequent and an
extraordinary exercise of the executive veto, not anticipated
by the founders of the constitution, and not practised by any
of the predecessors of the present Chief Magistrate. And, to
cramp them still more, a new expedient is springing into use, of
withholding altogether bills which have received the sanction of
both Houses of Congress, thereby cutting off all opportunity of
passing them, even if, after their return, the members should
be unanimous in their favor. The constitutional participation
of the Senate in the appointing power is virtually abolished,
by the constant use of the power of removal from office without
any known cause, and by the appointment of the same individual
to the same office, after his rejection by the Senate. How often
have we, senators, felt that the check of the Senate, instead
of being, as the constitution intended, a salutary control, was
an idle ceremony? How often, when acting on the case of the
nominated successor, have we felt the injustice of the removal?
How often have we said to each other, well, what can we do? the
office cannot remain vacant without prejudice to the public
interests; and, if we reject the proposed substitute, we cannot
restore the displaced, and perhaps some more unworthy man may be
nominated.
"The judiciary has not been exempted from the prevailing rage
for innovation. Decisions of the tribunals, deliberately
pronounced, have been contemptuously disregarded, and the
sanctity of numerous treaties openly violated. Our Indian
relations, coeval with the existence of the government, and
recognized and established by numerous laws and treaties, have
been subverted; the rights of the helpless and unfortunate
aborigines trampled in the dust, and they brought under
subjection to unknown laws, in which they have no voice,
promulgated in an unknown language. The most extensive and most
valuable public domain that ever fell to the lot of one nation
is threatened with a total sacrifice. The general currency of
the country, the life-blood of all its business, is in the most
imminent danger of universal disorder and confusion. The power
of internal improvement lies crushed beneath the veto. The
system of protection of American industry was snatched from
impending destruction at the last session; but we are now coolly
told by the Secretary of the Treasury, without a blush, 'that
it is understood to be _conceded on all hands_ that a tariff
for protection merely is to be finally abandoned.' By the 3d
of March, 1837, if the progress of innovation continue, there
will be scarcely a vestige remaining of the government and its
policy as they existed prior to the 3d of March, 1829. In a term
of years, a little more than equal to that which was required
to establish our liberties, the government will have been
transformed into an elective monarchy--the worst of all forms of
government.
"Such is a melancholy but faithful picture of the present
condition of our public affairs. It is not sketched or exhibited
to excite, here or elsewhere, irritated feeling; I have no such
purpose. I would, on the contrary, implore the Senate and the
people to discard all passion and prejudice, and to look calmly
but resolutely upon the actual state of the constitution and
the country. Although I bring into the Senate the same unabated
spirit, and the same firm determination, which have ever guided
me in the support of civil liberty, and the defence of our
constitution, I contemplate the prospect before us with feelings
of deep humiliation and profound mortification.
"It is not among the least unfortunate symptoms of the times,
that a large proportion of the good and enlightened men of
the Union, of all parties, are yielding to sentiments of
despondency. There is, unhappily, a feeling of distrust and
insecurity pervading the community. Many of our best citizens
entertain serious apprehensions that our Union and our
institutions are destined to a speedy overthrow. Sir, I trust
that the hopes and confidence of the country will revive. There
is much occasion for manly independence and patriotic vigor, but
none for despair. Thank God, we are yet free; and, if we put
on the chains which are forging for us, it will be because we
deserve to wear them. We should never despair of the republic.
If our ancestors had been capable of surrendering themselves
to such ignoble sentiments, our independence and our liberties
would never have been achieved. The winter of 1776-'77, was
one of the gloomiest periods of our revolution; but on this
day, fifty-seven years ago, the father of his country achieved
a glorious victory, which diffused joy, and gladness, and
animation throughout the States. Let us cherish the hope that,
since he has gone from among us, Providence, in the dispensation
of his mercies, has near at hand, in reserve for us, though yet
unseen by us, some sure and happy deliverance from all impending
dangers.
"When we assembled here last year, we were full of dreadful
forebodings. On the one hand, we were menaced with a civil war,
which, lighting up in a single State, might spread its flames
throughout one of the largest sections of the Union. On the
other, a cherished system of policy, essential to the successful
prosecution of the industry of our countrymen, was exposed to
imminent danger of destruction. Means were happily applied by
Congress to avert both calamities, the country was reconciled,
and our Union once more became a band of friends and brothers.
And I shall be greatly disappointed, if we do not find those who
were denounced as being unfriendly to the continuance of our
confederacy, among the foremost to fly to its preservation, and
to resist all executive encroachments.
"Mr. President, when Congress adjourned at the termination of
the last session, there was one remnant of its powers--that
over the purse--left untouched. The two most important powers
of civil government are those of the sword and purse; the
first, with some restrictions, is confided by the constitution
to the Executive, and the last to the legislative department.
If they are separate, and exercised by different responsible
departments, civil liberty is safe; but if they are united in
the hands of the same individual, it is gone. That clear-sighted
and revolutionary orator and patriot, Patrick Henry, justly
said, in the Virginia convention, in reply to one of his
opponents, 'Let him candidly tell me where and when did freedom
exist, when the sword and purse were given up from the people?
Unless a miracle in human affairs interposed, no nation ever
retained its liberty after the loss of the sword and the purse.
Can you prove, by any argumentative deduction, that it is
possible to be safe without one of them? If you give them up,
you are gone.'
"Up to the period of the termination of the last session of
Congress, the exclusive constitutional power of Congress over
the treasury of the United States had never been contested.
Among its earliest acts was one to establish the treasury
department, which provided for the appointment of a treasurer,
who was required to give bond and security, in a very large
amount, 'to receive and keep the moneys of the United States,
and disburse the same upon warrants drawn by the Secretary of
the Treasury, countersigned by the Comptroller, recorded by the
Register, and not otherwise.' Prior to the establishment of the
present Bank of the United States, no treasury or place had
been provided or designated by law for the safe keeping of the
public moneys, but the treasurer was left to his own discretion
and responsibility. When the existing bank was established, it
was provided that the public moneys should be deposited with
it, and, consequently, that bank became the treasury of the
United States; for, whatever place is designated by law for the
keeping of the public money of the United States, under the
care of the treasurer of the United States, is, for the time
being, the treasury. Its safety was drawn in question by the
Chief Magistrate, and an agent was appointed a little more
than a year ago to investigate its ability. He reported to the
Executive that it was perfectly safe. His apprehensions of its
solidity were communicated by the President to Congress, and
a committee was appointed to examine the subject; they, also,
reported in favor of its security. And, finally, among the last
acts of the House of Representatives, prior to the close of the
last session, was the adoption of a resolution, manifesting its
entire confidence in the ability and solidity of the bank.
"After all these testimonies to the perfect safety of the
public moneys in the place appointed by Congress, who could
have supposed that the place would have been changed? Who
could have imagined that, within sixty days of the meeting of
Congress, and, as it were, in utter contempt of its authority,
the change should have been ordered? Who would have dreamed that
the treasurer should have thrown away the single key to the
treasury, over which Congress held ample control, and accepted,
in lieu of it, some dozens of keys, over which neither Congress
nor he has any adequate control? Yet, sir, all this has been
done; and it is now our solemn duty to inquire, 1st. By whose
authority it has been ordered; and, 2d. Whether the order has
been given in conformity with the constitution and laws of the
United States.
"I agree, sir, and I am very happy whenever I can agree with the
President, as to the immense importance of these questions. He
says, in the paper which I hold in my hand, that he looks upon
the pending question as involving higher considerations than the
'mere transfer of a sum of money from one bank to another. Its
decision may affect the character of our government for ages to
come.' And, with him. I view it as 'of transcendent importance,
both in the principles and the consequences it involves.' It
is a question of all time, for posterity as well as for us--of
constitutional government or monarchy--of liberty or slavery.
As I regard it, I hold the bank as nothing, as perfectly
insignificant, faithful as it has been in the performance of all
its duties. I hold a sound currency as nothing, essential as it
is to the prosperity of every branch of business, and to all
conditions of society, and efficient as the agency of the bank
has been in providing the country with a currency as sound as
ever existed, and unsurpassed by any in Christendom. I consider
even the public faith, sacred and inviolable as it ever should
be, as comparatively nothing. All these questions are merged
in the greater and mightier question of the constitutional
distribution of the powers of the government, as affected by
the recent executive innovation. The real inquiry is, shall all
the barriers which have been erected by the caution and wisdom
of our ancestors, for the preservation of civil liberty, be
prostrated and trodden under foot, and the sword and the purse
be at once united in the hands of one man? Shall the power of
Congress over the treasury of the United States, hitherto never
contested, be wrested from its possession, and be henceforward
wielded by the Chief Magistrate? Entertaining these views of
the magnitude of the question before us, I shall not, at least
to-day, examine the reasons which the President has assigned for
his act. If he has no power to perform it, no reasons, however
cogent, can justify the deed. None can sanctify an illegal or
unconstitutional act.
"The question is, by virtue of whose will, power, dictation,
was the removal of the deposits effected? By whose authority
and determination were they transferred from the Bank of the
United States, where they were required by the law to be placed,
and put in banks which the law had never designated? And I
tell gentlemen opposed to me, that I am not to be answered by
the exhibition of a formal order bearing the signature of R.
B. Taney, or any one else. I want to know, not the amanuensis
or clerk who prepared or signed the official form, but the
authority or the individual who dictated or commanded it; not
the hangman who executes the culprit, but the tribunal which
pronounced the sentence. I want to know that power in the
government, that original and controlling authority, which
required and commanded the removal of the deposits. And, I
repeat the question, is there a senator, or intelligent man in
the whole country, who entertains a solitary doubt?
"Hear what the President himself says in his manifesto read to
his cabinet: 'The President deems it his duty to communicate
in this manner to his cabinet the final conclusions of his own
mind, and the reasons on which they are founded.' And, at the
conclusion of this paper, what does he say? 'The President
again repeats that he begs his cabinet to consider the proposed
measure as his own, in the support of which he shall require
no one of them to make a sacrifice of opinion or principle.
Its responsibility has been assumed, after the most mature
deliberation and reflection, as necessary to preserve the morals
of the people, the freedom of the press, and the purity of the
elective franchise, without which all will unite in saying that
the blood and treasure expended by our forefathers, in the
establishment of our happy system of government, will have been
vain and fruitless. Under these convictions, he feels that a
measure so important to the American people cannot be commenced
too soon; and he therefore names the 1st day of October next
as a period proper for the change of the deposits, or sooner,
provided the necessary arrangements with the State banks can be
made.' Sir, is there a senator here who will now tell me that
the removal was not the measure and the act of the President?
"Thus is it evident that the President, neither by the act
creating the treasury department, nor by the bank charter,
has any power over the public treasury. Has he any by
the constitution? None, none. We have already seen that
the constitution positively forbids any money from being
drawn from the treasury but in virtue of a previous act of
appropriation. But the President himself says that 'upon him
has been devolved, by the constitution, and the suffrages of
the American people, the duty of superintending the operation
of the executive departments of the government, and seeing that
the laws are faithfully executed.' If there existed any such
double source of executive power, it has been seen that the
treasury department is not an executive department; but that,
in all that concerns the public treasury, the Secretary is the
agent or representative of Congress, acting in obedience to
their will, and maintaining a direct intercourse with them. By
what authority does the President derive power from the mere
result of an election? In another part of this same cabinet
paper he refers to the suffrages of the people as a source of
power independent of a system in which power has been most
carefully separated, and distributed between three separate
and independent departments. We have been told a thousand
times, and all experience assures us, that such a division is
indispensable to the existence and preservation of freedom. We
have established and designated offices, and appointed officers
in each of those departments, to execute the duties respectively
allotted to them. The President, it is true, presides over the
whole; specific duties are often assigned by particular laws
to him alone, or to other officers under his superintendence.
His parental eye is presumed to survey the whole extent of the
system in all its movements; but has he power to come into
Congress, and to say such laws only shall you pass; to go
into the courts, and prescribe the decisions which they may
pronounce; or even to enter the offices of administration,
and, where duties are specifically confided to those officers,
to substitute his will to their duty? Or, has he a right,
when those functionaries, deliberating upon their own solemn
obligations to the people, have moved forward in their assigned
spheres, to arrest their lawful progress, because they have
dared to act contrary to his pleasure? No, sir; no, sir. His is
a high and glorious station, but it is one of observation and
superintendence. It is to see that obstructions in the forward
movement of government, unlawfully interposed, shall be abated
by legitimate and competent means.
"Such are the powers on which the President relies to justify
his seizure of the treasury of the United States. I have
examined them, one by one, and they all fail, utterly fail,
to bear out the act. We are brought irresistibly to the
conclusions, 1st, That the invasion of the public treasury
has been perpetrated by the removal of one Secretary of the
Treasury, who would not violate his conscientious obligations,
and by the appointment of another, who stood ready to subscribe
his name to the orders of the President; and, 2dly, That the
President has no color of authority in the constitution or laws
for the act which he has thus caused to be performed.
"And now let us glance at some of the tremendous consequences
which may ensue from this high-handed measure. If the President
may, in a case in which the law has assigned a specific duty
exclusively to a designated officer, command it to be executed,
contrary to his own judgment, under the penalty of an expulsion
from office, and, upon his refusal, may appoint some obsequious
tool to perform the required act, where is the limit to his
authority? Has he not the same right to interfere in every
other case, and remove from office all that he can remove, who
hesitate or refuse to do his bidding contrary to their own
solemn convictions of their duty? There is no resisting this
inevitable conclusion. Well, then, how stands the matter of the
public treasury? It has been seen that the issue of warrants
upon the treasury is guarded by four independent and hitherto
responsible checks, each controlling every other, and all bound
by the law, but all holding their offices, according to the
existing practice of the government, at the pleasure of the
President. The Secretary signs, the Comptroller countersigns,
the Register records, and the Treasurer pays the warrant. We
have seen that the President has gone to the first and highest
link in the chain, and coerced a conformity to his will. What is
to prevent, whenever he desires to draw money from the public
treasury, his applying the same penalty of expulsion, under
which Mr. Duane suffered, to every link of the chain, from the
Secretary of the Treasury down, and thus to obtain whatever he
demands? What is to prevent a more compendious accomplishment
of his object, by the agency of transfer drafts, drawn on the
sole authority of the Secretary, and placing the money at once
wherever, or in whatsoever hands, the President pleases?
"What security have the people against the lawless conduct of
any President? Where is the boundary to the tremendous power
which he has assumed? Sir, every barrier around the public
treasury is broken down and annihilated. From the moment that
the President pronounced the words, 'This measure is my own;
I take upon myself the responsibility of it,' every safeguard
around the treasury was prostrated, and henceforward it might as
well be at the Hermitage. The measure adopted by the President
is without precedent. I beg pardon--there is one; but we must go
down for it to the commencement of the Christian era. It will
be recollected by those who are conversant with Roman history,
that, after Pompey was compelled to retire to Brundusium, Cæsar,
who had been anxious to give him battle, returned to Rome,
'having reduced Italy,' says the venerable biographer, 'in sixty
days--[the exact period between the day of the removal of the
deposits and that of the commencement of the present session of
Congress, without the usual allowance of any days of grace]--in
sixty days, without bloodshed.' The biographer proceeds:
"'Finding the city in a more settled condition than he expected,
and many senators there, he addressed them in a mild and
gracious manner [as the President addressed his late Secretary
of the Treasury], and desired them to send deputies to Pompey
with an offer of honorable terms of peace,' &c. As Metellus, the
tribune, opposed his taking money out of the public treasury,
and cited some laws against it--[such, Sir, I suppose, as I have
endeavored to cite on this occasion]--Cæsar said 'Arms and laws
do not flourish together. If you are not pleased at what I am
about, you have only to withdraw. [Leave the office, Mr. Duane!]
War, indeed, will not tolerate much liberty of speech. When I
say this, I am renouncing my own right; for you, and all those
whom I have found exciting a spirit of faction against me, are
at my disposal.' Having said this, he approached the doors of
the treasury, and, as the keys were not produced, he sent for
workmen to break them open. Metellus again opposed him, and
gained credit with some for his firmness; but Cæsar, with an
elevated voice, threatened to put him to death if he gave him
any further trouble. 'And you know very well, young man,' said
he, 'that this is harder for me to say than to do.' Metellus,
terrified by the menace, retired; and Cæsar was afterwards
easily and readily supplied with every thing necessary for that
war.
"Mr. President (said Mr. C.) the people of the United States are
indebted to the President for the boldness of this movement; and
as one, among the humblest of them, I profess my obligations
to him. He has told the Senate, in his message refusing an
official copy of his cabinet paper, that it has been published
for the information of the people. As a part of the people, the
Senate, if not in their official character, have a right to its
use. In that extraordinary paper he has proclaimed that the
measure is _his_ own and that _he_ has _taken_ upon himself the
responsibility of it. In plain English, he has proclaimed an
open, palpable and daring usurpation!
"For more than fifteen years, Mr. President, I have been
struggling to avoid the present state of things. I thought
I perceived, in some proceedings, during the conduct of the
Seminole war, a spirit of defiance to the constitution and to
all law. With what sincerity and truth--with what earnestness
and devotion to civil liberty, I have struggled, the Searcher
of all human hearts best knows. With what fortune, the bleeding
constitution of my country now fatally attests.
"I have, nevertheless, persevered; and, under every
discouragement, during the short time that I expect to remain
in the public councils, I will persevere. And if a bountiful
Providence would allow an unworthy sinner to approach the
throne of grace, I would beseech Him, as the greatest favor
He could grant to me here below, to spare me until I live to
behold the people, rising in their majesty, with a peaceful and
constitutional exercise of their power, to expel the Goths from
Rome; to rescue the public treasury from pillage, to preserve
the constitution of the United States; to uphold the Union
against the danger of the concentration and consolidation of
_all_ power in the hands of the Executive; and to sustain the
liberties of the people of this country against the imminent
perils to which they now stand exposed.
"And now, Mr. President, what, under all these circumstances,
is it our duty to do? Is there a senator who can hesitate to
affirm, in the language of the resolutions, that the President
has assumed a dangerous power over the treasury of the United
States, not granted to him by the constitution and the laws; and
that the reasons assigned for the act by the Secretary of the
Treasury are insufficient and unsatisfactory?
"The eyes and the hopes of the American people are anxiously
turned to Congress. They feel that they have been deceived and
insulted; their confidence abused; their interests betrayed;
and their liberties in danger. They see a rapid and alarming
concentration of all power in one man's hands. They see that,
by the exercise of the positive authority of the Executive,
and his negative power exerted over Congress, the will of one
man alone prevails, and governs the republic. The question
is no longer what laws will Congress pass, but what will
the Executive not veto? The President, and not Congress, is
addressed for legislative action. We have seen a corporation,
charged with the execution of a great national work, dismiss
an experienced, faithful, and zealous president, afterwards
testify to his ability by a voluntary resolution, and reward
his extraordinary services by a large gratuity, and appoint
in his place an executive favorite, totally inexperienced and
incompetent, to propitiate the President. We behold the usual
incidents of approaching tyranny. The land is filled with spies
and informers, and detraction and denunciation are the orders of
the day. People, especially official incumbents in this place,
no longer dare speak in the fearless tones of manly freemen, but
in the cautious whispers of trembling slaves. The premonitory
symptoms of despotism are upon us; and if Congress do not apply
an instantaneous and effective remedy, the fatal collapse will
soon come on, and we shall die--ignobly die--base, mean, and
abject slaves; the scorn and contempt of mankind; unpitied,
unwept, unmourned!"
CHAPTER C.
MR. BENTON'S SPEECH IN REPLY TO MR. CLAY--EXTRACTS.
Mr. Clay had spoken on three successive days, being the last days of
the year 1833. Mr. Benton followed him,--and seeing the advantage
which was presented in the character of the resolve, and that of
the speech in support of it, all bearing the impress of a criminal
proceeding, without other result than to procure a sentence of
condemnation against the President for violating the laws and the
constitution, endangering the public liberty and establishing a
tyranny,--he took up the proceeding in that sense; and immediately
turned all the charges against the resolution itself and its mover,
as a usurpation of the rights of the House of Representatives in
originating an impeachment, and a violation of law and constitution
in trying it _ex parte_; and said:
"The first of these resolutions contained impeachable matter,
and was in fact, though not in form, a direct impeachment of the
President of the United States. He recited the constitutional
provision, that the President might be impeached--1st, for
treason; 2d, for bribery; 3d, for high crimes; 4th, for
misdemeanors; and said that the first resolution charged both a
high crime and a misdemeanor upon the President; a high crime,
in violating the laws and constitution, to obtain a power over
the public treasure, to the danger of the liberties of the
people; and a misdemeanor, in dismissing the late Secretary
of the Treasury from office. Mr. B. said that the terms of
the resolution were sufficiently explicit to define a high
crime, within the meaning of the constitution, without having
recourse to the arguments and declarations used by the mover in
illustration of his meaning; but, if any doubt remained on that
head, it would be removed by the whole tenor of the argument,
and especially that part of it which compared the President's
conduct to that of Cæsar, in seizing the public treasure, to aid
him in putting an end to the liberties of his country; and every
senator, in voting upon it, would vote as directly upon the
guilt or innocence of the President, as if he was responding to
the question of guilty or not guilty, in the concluding sentence
of a formal impeachment.
"We are, then, said Mr. B., trying an impeachment! But how?
The constitution gives to the House of Representatives the
sole power to originate impeachments; yet we originate this
impeachment ourselves. The constitution gives the accused a
right to be present; but he is not here. It requires the Senate
to be sworn as judges; but we are not so sworn. It requires the
Chief Justice of the United States to preside when the President
is tried; but the Chief Justice is not presiding. It gives the
House of Representatives a right to be present, and to manage
the prosecution; but neither the House nor its managers are
here. It requires the forms of criminal justice to be strictly
observed; yet all these forms are neglected and violated. It is
a proceeding in which the First Magistrate of the republic is to
be tried without being heard, and in which his accusers are to
act as his judges!
"Mr. B. called upon the Senate to consider well what they did
before they proceeded further in the consideration of this
resolution. He called upon them to consider what was due to the
House of Representatives, whose privilege was invaded, and who
had a right to send a message to the Senate, complaining of the
proceeding, and demanding its abandonment. He conjured them to
consider what was due to the President, who was thus to be tried
in his absence for a most enormous crime; what was due to the
Senate itself, in thus combining the incompatible characters
of accusers and judges, and which would itself be judged by
Europe and America. He dwelt particularly on the figure which
the Senate would make in going on with the consideration of
this resolution. It accused the President of violating the
constitution; and itself committed twenty violations of the
same constitution in making the accusation! It accused him of
violating a single law, and itself violated all the laws of
criminal justice in prosecuting him for it. It charged him
with designs dangerous to the liberties of the citizens, and
immediately trampled upon the rights of all citizens, in the
person of their Chief Magistrate.
"Mr. B. descanted upon the extraordinary organization of the
Senate, and drew an argument from it in favor of the reserve
and decorum of their proceedings. The Senate were lawgivers,
and ought to respect the laws already made; they were the
constitutional advisers of the President, and should observe,
as nearly as possible, the civil relations which the office
of adviser presumes; they might be his judges, and should be
the last in the world to stir up an accusation against him, to
prejudge his guilt, or to attack his character with defamatory
language. Decorum, the becoming ornament of every functionary,
should be the distinguishing trait of an American senator,
who combines, in his own office, the united dignities of the
executive, the legislative, and the judicial character. In his
judicial capacity especially, he should sacrifice to decorum
and propriety; and shun, as he would the contagious touch of
sin and pestilence, the slightest approach to the character
of prosecutor. He referred to British parliamentary law to
show that the Lords could not join in an accusation, because
they were to try it; but here the Senate was sole accuser,
and had nothing from the House of Representatives to join; but
made the accusation out and out, and tried it themselves. He
said the accusation was a double one--for a high crime and a
misdemeanor--and the latter a more flagrant proceeding than the
former; for it assumed to know for what cause the President had
dismissed his late Secretary, and undertook to try the President
for a thing which was not triable or impeachable.
"From the foundation of the government, it had been settled
that the President's right to dismiss his secretaries resulted
from his constitutional obligation to see that the laws were
faithfully executed. Many Presidents had dismissed secretaries,
and this was the first time that the Senate had ever undertaken
to found an impeachment upon it, or had assumed to know the
reasons for which it was done.
"Mr. B. said that two other impeachments seemed to be going on,
at the same time, against two other officers, the Secretary of
the Treasury and the Treasurer; so that the Senate was brimful
of criminal business. The Treasurer and the Secretary of the
Treasury were both civil officers, and were both liable to
impeachment for misdemeanors in office; and great misdemeanors
were charged upon them. They were, in fact, upon trial, without
the formality of a resolution; and, if hereafter impeached by
the House of Representatives, the Senate, if they believed what
they heard, would be ready to pronounce judgment and remove them
from office, without delay or further examination.
"Mr. B. then addressed himself to the Vice-President (Mr. Van
Buren), upon the novelty of the scene which was going on before
him, and the great change which had taken place since he had
served in the Senate. He commended the peculiar delicacy and
decorum of the Vice-President himself, who, in six years'
service, in high party times, and in a decided opposition,
never uttered a word, either in open or secret session, which
could have wounded the feelings of a political adversary, if
he had been present and heard it. He extolled the decorum of
the opposition to President Adams' administration. If there
was one brilliant exception, the error was redeemed by classic
wit, and the heroic readiness with which a noble heart bared
its bosom to the bullets of those who felt aggrieved. Still
addressing himself to the Vice-President, Mr. B. said that if
he should receive some hits in the place where he sat, without
the right to reply, he must find consolation in the case of his
most illustrious predecessor, the great apostle of American
liberty (Mr. Jefferson), who often told his friends of the
manner in which he had been cut at when presiding over the
Senate, and personally annoyed by the inferior--no, young and
inconsiderate--members of the federal party.
"Mr. B. returned to the point in debate. The President, he
repeated, was on trial for a high crime, in seizing the public
treasure in violation of the laws and the constitution. Was
the charge true? Does the act which he has done deserve the
definition which has been put upon it? He had made up his own
mind that the public deposits ought to be removed from the
Bank of the United States. He communicated that opinion to the
Secretary of the Treasury; the Secretary refused to remove them;
the President removed him, and appointed a Secretary who gave
the order which he thought the occasion required. All this he
did in virtue of his constitutional obligation to see the laws
faithfully executed; and in obedience to the same sense of duty
which would lead him to dismiss a Secretary of War, or of the
Navy, who would refuse to give an order for troops to march,
or a fleet to sail. True, it is made the duty of the Secretary
of the Treasury to direct the removal of the deposits; but the
constitution makes it the duty of the President to see that the
Secretary performs his duty; and the constitution is as much
above law as the President is above the Secretary.
"The President is on trial for a misdemeanor--for dismissing his
Secretary without sufficient cause. To this accusation there
are ready answers: first, that the President may dismiss his
Secretaries without cause; secondly, that the Senate has no
cognizance of the case; thirdly, that the Senate cannot assume
to know for what cause the Secretary in question was dismissed.
"The Secretary of the Treasury is on trial. In order to get at
the President, it was found necessary to get at a gentleman
who had no voice on this floor. It had been found necessary to
assail the Secretary of the Treasury in a manner heretofore
unexampled in the history of the Senate. His religion, his
politics, his veracity, his understanding, his Missouri
restriction vote, had all been arraigned. Mr. B. said he would
leave his religion to the constitution of the United States,
Catholic as he was, and although 'the Presbyterian might cut
off his head the first time he went to mass;' for he could see
no other point to the anecdote of Cromwell and the capitulating
Catholics, to whom he granted the free exercise of their
religion, only he would cut off their heads if they went to
mass. His understanding he would leave to himself. The head
which could throw the paper which was taken for a stone on this
floor, but which was, in fact, a double-headed chain-shot fired
from a forty-eight pounder, carrying sails, masts, rigging,
all before it, was a head that could take care of itself. His
veracity would be adjourned to the trial which was to take
place for misquoting a letter of Secretary Crawford, and he
had no doubt would end as the charge did for suppressing a
letter which was printed _in extenso_ among our documents, and
withholding the name and compensation of an agent; when that
name and the fact of no compensation was lying on the table.
The Secretary of the Treasury was arraigned for some incidental
vote on the Missouri restriction, when he was a member of the
Maryland legislature. Mr. B. did not know what that vote was;
but he did know that a certain gentleman, who lately stood in
the relation of _sergeant_ to another gentleman, in a certain
high election, was the leader of the forces which deforced
Missouri of her place in the Union for the entire session which
he first attended (not served) in the Congress of the United
States. His politics could not be severely tried in the time
of the alien and sedition law, when he was scarce of age; but
were well tried during the late war, when he sided with his
country, and received the constant denunciations of that great
organ of federalism, the Federal Republican newspaper. For the
rest, Mr. B. admitted that the Secretary had voted for the
elder Adams to be President of the United States, but denied
the right of certain persons to make that an objection to him.
Mr. B. dismissed these personal charges, for the present, and
would adjourn their consideration until his (Mr. Taney's) trial
came on, for which the senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay), stood
pledged; and after the trial was over, he had no doubt but
that the Secretary of the Treasury, although a Catholic and a
federalist, would be found to maintain his station in the first
rank of American gentlemen and American patriots.
"Mr. B. took up the serious charges against the Secretary:
that of being the mere instrument of the President in removing
the deposits, and violating the constitution and laws of the
land. How far he was this mere instrument, making up his mind,
in three days, to do what others would not do at all, might
be judged by every person who would refer to the opposition
papers for the division in the cabinet about the removal of
the deposits; and which constantly classed Mr. Taney, then the
Attorney General, on the side of removal. This classification
was correct, and notorious, and ought to exempt an honorable
man, if any thing could exempt him, from the imputation of being
a mere instrument in a great transaction of which he was a prime
counsellor. The fact is, he had long since, in his character of
legal adviser to the President, advised the removal of these
deposits; and when suddenly and unexpectedly called upon to take
the office which would make it his duty to act upon his own
advice, he accepted it from the single sense of honor and duty;
and that he might not seem to desert the President in flinching
from the performance of what he had recommended. His personal
honor was clean; his personal conduct magnanimous; his official
deeds would abide the test of law and truth.
"Mr. B. said he would make short work of long accusations,
and demolish, in three minutes, what had been concocting for
three months, and delivering for three days in the Senate. He
would call the attention of the Senate to certain clauses of
law, and certain treasury instructions which had been left out
of view, but which were decisive of the accusation against
the Secretary. The first was the clause in the bank charter,
which invested the Secretary with the power of transferring
the public funds from place to place. It was the 15th section
of the charter: he would read it. It enacted that whenever
required by the Secretary of the Treasury, the bank should give
the necessary facilities for transferring the public funds
from place to place, within the United States, or territories
thereof; and for distributing the same in payment of the public
creditors, &c.
"Here is authority to the Secretary to transfer the public
moneys from place to place, limited only by the bounds of the
United States and its territories; and this clause of three
lines of law puts to flight all the nonsense about the United
States Bank being the treasury, and the Treasurer being the
keeper of the public moneys, with which some politicians and
newspaper writers have been worrying their brains for the last
three months. In virtue of this clause, the Secretary of the
Treasury gave certain transfer drafts to the amount of two
millions and a quarter; and his legal right to give the draft
was just as clear, under this clause of the bank charter, as his
right to remove the deposits was under another clause of it. The
transfer is made by draft; a payment out of the treasury is made
upon a warrant; and the difference between a transfer draft and
a treasury warrant was a thing necessary to be known by every
man who aspired to the office of illuminating a nation, or of
conducting a criminal prosecution, or even of understanding what
he is talking about. They have no relation to each other. The
warrant takes the money out of the treasury: the draft transfers
it from point to point, for the purpose of making payment: and
all this attack upon the Secretary of the Treasury is simply
upon the blunder of mistaking the draft for the warrant.
"The senator from Kentucky calls upon the people to rise, and
drive the Goths from the capital. Who are those Goths? They
are General Jackson and the democratic party,--he just elected
President over the senator himself, and the party just been
made the majority in the House--all by the vote of the people.
It is their act that has put these Goths in possession of the
capital to the discomfiture of the senator and his friends; and
he ought to be quite sure that he felt no resentment at an event
so disastrous to his hopes, when he has indulged himself with so
much license in vituperating those whom the country has put over
him.
"The senator from Kentucky says the eyes and the hopes of the
country are now turned upon Congress. Yes, Congress is his
word, and I hold him to it. And what do they see? They see one
House of Congress--the one to which the constitution gives the
care of the purse, and the origination of impeachments, and
which is fresh from the popular elections: they see that body
with a majority of above fifty in favor of the President and
the Secretary of the Treasury, and approving the act which
the senator condemns. They see that popular approbation in
looking at one branch of Congress, and the one charged by the
constitution with the inquisition into federal grievances. In
the other branch they see a body far removed from the people,
neglecting its proper duties, seizing upon those of another
branch, converting itself into a grand inquest, and trying
offences which itself prefers; and in a spirit which bespeaks
a zeal quickened by the sting of personal mortification. He
says the country feels itself deceived and betrayed--insulted
and wronged--its liberties endangered--and the treasury robbed:
the representatives of the people in the other House, say the
reverse of all this--that the President has saved the country
from the corrupt dominion of a great corrupting bank, by taking
away from her the public money which she was using in bribing
the press, subsidizing members, purchasing the venal, and
installing herself in supreme political power.
"The senator wishes to know what we are to do? What is
our duty to do? I answer, to keep ourselves within our
constitutional duties--to leave this impeachment to the House of
Representatives--leave it to the House to which it belongs, and
to those who have no private griefs to avenge--and to judges,
each of whom should retire from the bench, if he happened to
feel in his heart the spirit of a prosecutor instead of a judge.
The Senate now tries General Jackson; it is subject to trial
itself--to be tried by the people, and to have its sentence
reversed."
The corner-stone of Mr. Clay's whole argument was, that the Bank of
the United States was the treasury of the United States. This was
his fundamental position, and utterly unfounded, and shown to be so
by the fourteenth article of what was called the constitution of
the bank. It was the article which provided for the establishment
of branches of the mother institution, and all of which except the
branch at Washington city, were to be employed, or not employed,
as the directors pleased, as depositories of the public money; and
consequently were not made so by any law of Congress. The article
said:
"The directors of said corporation shall establish a competent
office of discount and deposit in the District of Columbia,
whenever any law of the United States shall require such an
establishment; also one such office of discount and deposit
in any State in which two thousand shares shall have been
subscribed, or may be held, whenever, upon application of the
legislature of such State, Congress may, by law, require the
same: Provided, The directors aforesaid shall not be bound
to establish such office before the whole of the capital of
the bank shall have been paid up. And it shall be lawful for
the directors of the said corporation to establish offices of
discount and deposit wheresoever they shall think fit, within
the United States or the territories thereof, to such persons,
and under such regulations, as they shall deem proper, not
being contrary to law, or the constitution of the bank. Or,
instead of establishing such offices, it shall be lawful for the
directors of the said corporation, from time to time, to employ
any other bank or banks, to be first approved by the Secretary
of the Treasury, at any place or places that they may deem
safe and proper, to manage and transact the business proposed
as aforesaid, other than for the purposes of discount, to be
managed and transacted by such officers, under such agreements,
and subject to such regulations, as they shall deem just and
proper.
"Mr. B. went on to remark upon this article, that it placed
the establishment of but one branch in the reach or power of
Congress, and that one was in the District of Columbia--in
a district of ten miles square--leaving the vast extent of
twenty-four States, and three Territories, to obtain branches
for themselves upon contingencies not dependent upon the will
or power of Congress; or requiring her necessities, or even her
convenience, to be taken into the account. A law of Congress
could obtain a branch in this district; but with respect to
every State, the establishment of the branch depended, first,
upon the mere will and pleasure of the bank; and, secondly, upon
the double contingency of a subscription, and a legislative
act, within the State. If then, the mother bank does not think
fit, for its own advantage, to establish a branch; or, if the
people of a State do not acquire 2,000 shares of the stock of
the bank, and the legislature, therefore, demand it, no branch
will be established in any State, or any Territory of the Union.
Congress can only require a branch, in any State, after two
contingencies have happened in the State; neither of them having
the slightest reference to the necessities, or even convenience,
of the federal government.
"Here, then, said Mr. B., is the Treasury established for the
United States! A Treasury which is to have an existence but
at the will of the bank, or the will of a State legislature,
and a few of its citizens, enough to own 2,000 shares of stock
worth $100 a share! A Treasury which Congress has no hand in
establishing, and cannot preserve after it is established; for
the mother bank, after establishing her branches, may shut
them up, or withdraw them. Such a thing has already happened.
Branches in the West have been, some shut up, some withdrawn;
and, in these cases, the Treasury was broken up, according to
the new-fangled conception of a national Treasury. No! said
Mr. B., the Federal bank is no more the Treasury of the United
States than the State banks are. One is just as much the
Treasury as the other; and made so by this very 14th fundamental
article of the constitution of the bank. Look at it! Look at
the alternative! Where branches are not established, the State
banks are to be employed!
"The Bank of the United States is to select the State bank; the
Secretary of the Treasury is to approve the selection; and if
he does so the State bank so selected, and so approved becomes
the keeper of the public moneys; it becomes the depository of
the public moneys; it transfers them; it pays them out; it does
every thing except make discounts for the mother bank and issue
notes; it does everything which the federal government wants
done; and that is nothing but what a bank of deposit can do. The
government makes no choice between State banks and branch banks.
They are all one to her. They stand equal in her eyes; they
stand equal in the charter of the bank itself; and the horror
that has now broken out against the State banks is a thing of
recent conception--a very modern impulsion; which is rebuked and
condemned by the very authority to which it traces its source.
Mr. B. said, the State banks were just as much made the federal
treasury by the bank charter, as the United States Bank itself
was: and that was sufficient to annihilate the argument which
now sets up the federal bank for the federal treasury. But the
fact was, that neither was made the Treasury; and it would be
absurd to entertain such an idea for an instant; for the federal
bank may surrender her charter, and cease to exist--it can do
so at any moment it pleases--the State banks may expire upon
their limitation; they may surrender; they may be dissolved in
many ways, and so cease to exist; and then there would be no
Treasury! What an idea, that the existence of the Treasury of
this great republic is to depend, not upon itself, but upon
corporations, which may cease to exist, on any day, by their own
will, or their own crimes."
The debates on this subject brought out the conclusion that
the treasury of the United States had a legal, not a material
existence--that the Treasurer having no buildings, and keepers, to
hold the public moneys, resorted (when the treasury department was
first established), to the collectors of the revenue, leaving the
money in their hands until drawn out for the public service--which
was never long, as the revenues were then barely adequate to meet
the daily expenses of the government; afterwards to the first Bank
of the United States--then to local banks; again to the second bank;
and now again to local banks. In all these cases the keepers of
the public moneys were nothing but keepers, being the mere agents
of the Secretary of the treasury in holding the moneys which he
had no means of holding himself. From these discussions came the
train of ideas which led to the establishment of the independent
treasury--that is to say, to the creation of officers, and the
erection of buildings, to hold the public moneys.
CHAPTER CI.
CONDEMNATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON--MR. CALHOUN'S SPEECH--EXTRACTS.
It was foreseen at the time of the coalition between Mr. Calhoun
and Mr. Clay, in which they came together--a conjunction of the two
political poles--on the subject of the tariff, and laid it away for
a term to include two presidential elections--that the effect would
be (even if it was not the design), to bring them together upon
all other subjects against General Jackson. This expectation was
not disappointed. Early in the debate on Mr. Clay's condemnatory
resolution, Mr. Calhoun took the floor in its support; and did Mr.
Clay the honor to adopt his leading ideas of a revolution, and of
a robbery of the treasury. He not only agreed that we were in the
middle of a revolution, but also asserted, by way of consolation to
those who loved it, that revolutions never go backwards--an aphorism
destined, in this case, to be deceived by the event. In the pleasing
anticipation of this aid from Mr. Calhoun and his friends, Mr.
Clay had complacently intimated the expectation of this aid in his
opening speech; and in that intimation there was no mistake. Mr.
Calhoun responded to it thus:
"The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Clay] anticipates with
confidence that the small party, who were denounced at the
last session as traitors and disunionists, will be found, on
this trying occasion, standing in the front rank, and manfully
resisting the advance of despotic power. I (said Mr. C.)
heard the anticipation with pleasure, not on account of the
compliment which it implied, but the evidence which it affords
that the cloud which has been so industriously thrown, over
the character and motive of that small but patriotic party
begins to be dissipated. The Senator hazarded nothing in the
prediction. That party is the determined, the fixed, and sworn
enemy to usurpation, come from what quarter and under what form
it may--whether from the executive upon the other departments
of this government, or from this government on the sovereignty
and rights of the States. The resolution and fortitude with
which it maintained its position at the last session, under so
many difficulties and dangers, in defence of the States against
the encroachments of the general government, furnished evidence
not to be mistaken, that that party, in the present momentous
struggle, would be found arrayed in defence of the rights of
Congress against the encroachments of the President. And let
me tell the Senator from Kentucky (said Mr. C.) that, if the
present struggle against executive usurpation be successful, it
will be owing to the success with which we, the nullifiers--I
am not afraid of the word--maintained the rights of the States
against the encroachment of the general government at the last
session."
This assurance of aid was no sooner given than complied with. Mr.
Calhoun, and all his friends came immediately to the support of the
resolution, and even exceeded their author in their zeal against
the President and his Secretary. Notwithstanding the private grief
which Mr. Calhoun had against General Jackson in the affair of
the "correspondence" and the "exposition"--the contents of which
latter were well known though not published--and notwithstanding
every person was obliged to remember that grief while Mr. Calhoun
was assailing the General, and alleging patriotism for the motive,
and therefore expected that it should have imposed a reserve upon
him; yet, on the contrary he was most personally bitter, and used
language which would be incredible, if not found, as it is, in his
revised reports of his speeches. Thus, in enforcing Mr. Clay's idea
of a robbery of the treasury after the manner of Julius Cæsar, he
said:
"The senator from Kentucky, in connection with this part of
his argument, read a striking passage from one of the most
pleasing and instructive writers in any language [Plutarch],
the description of Cæsar forcing himself, sword in hand, into
the treasury of the Roman commonwealth. We are at the same
stage of our political revolution, and the analogy between the
two cases is complete, varied only by the character of the
actors and the circumstances of the times. That was a case of
an intrepid and bold warrior, as an open plunderer, seizing
forcibly the treasury of the country, which, in that republic,
as well as ours, was confined to the custody of the legislative
department of the government. The actors in our case are of a
different character--artful, cunning, and corrupt politicians,
and not fearless warriors. They have entered the treasury, not
sword in hand, as public plunderers, but, with the false keys
of sophistry, as pilferers, under the silence of midnight. The
motive and the object are the same, varied in like manner by
circumstances and character. 'With money I will get men, and
with men money,' was the maxim of the Roman plunderer. With
money we will get partisans, with partisans votes, and with
votes money, is the maxim of our public pilferers. With men and
money Cæsar struck down Roman liberty, at the fatal battle of
Pharsalia, never to rise again; from which disastrous hour all
the powers of the Roman republic were consolidated in the person
of Cæsar, and perpetuated in his line. With money and corrupt
partisans a great effort is now making to choke and stifle the
voice of American liberty, through all its natural organs;
by corrupting the press; by overawing the other departments;
and, finally, by setting up a new and polluted organ, composed
of office-holders and corrupt partisans, under the name of
a national convention, which, counterfeiting the voice of
the people, will, if not resisted, in their name dictate the
succession; when the deed will be done, the revolution be
completed, and all the powers of our republic, in like manner,
be consolidated in the President, and perpetuated by his
dictation."
On the subject of the revolution, "bloodless as yet," in the middle
of which we were engaged, and which was not to go backwards, Mr.
Calhoun said:
"Viewing the question in its true light, as a struggle on the
part of the Executive to seize on the power of Congress, and to
unite in the President the power of the sword and the purse,
the senator from Kentucky [Mr. Clay] said truly, and, let me
add, philosophically, that we are in the midst of a revolution.
Yes, the very existence of free governments rests on the proper
distribution and organization of power; and, to destroy this
distribution, and thereby concentrate power in any one of the
departments, is to effect a revolution. But while I agree with
the senator that we are in the midst of a revolution, I cannot
agree with him as to the time at which it commenced, or the
point to which it has progressed. Looking to the distribution
of the powers of the general government, into the legislative,
executive, and judicial departments, and confining his views
to the encroachment of the executive upon the legislative, he
dates the commencement of the revolution but sixty days previous
to the meeting of the present Congress. I (said Mr. C.) take a
wider range, and date it from an earlier period. Besides the
distribution among the departments of the general government,
there belongs to our system another, and a far more important
division or distribution of power--that between the States and
the general government, the reserved and delegated rights, the
maintenance of which is still more essential to the preservation
of our institutions. Taking this wide view of our political
system, the revolution, in the midst of which we are, began,
not as supposed by the senator from Kentucky, shortly before
the commencement of the present session, but many years ago,
with the commencement of the restrictive system, and terminated
its first stage with the passage of the force bill of the last
session, which absorbed all the rights and sovereignty of
the States, and consolidated them in this government. Whilst
this process was going on, of absorbing the reserved powers
of the States, on the part of the general government, another
commenced, of concentrating in the executive the powers of
the other two--the legislative and judicial departments of
the government; which constitutes the second stage of the
revolution, in which we have advanced almost to the termination."
Mr. Calhoun brought out in this debate the assertion, in which
he persevered afterwards until it produced the quarrel in the
Senate between himself and Mr. Clay, that it was entirely owing to
the military and nullifying attitude of South Carolina that the
"compromise" act was passed, and that Mr. Clay himself would have
been prostrated in the attempt to compromise. He thus, boldly put
forward that pretension:
"To the interposition of the State of South Carolina we are
indebted for the adjustment of the tariff question; without
it, all the influence of the senator from Kentucky over the
manufacturing interest, great as it deservedly is, would have
been wholly incompetent, if he had even thought proper to exert
it, to adjust the question. The attempt would have prostrated
him, and those who acted with him, and not the system. It
was the separate action of the State that gave him the place
to stand upon, created the necessity for the adjustment, and
disposed the minds of all to compromise."
The necessity of his own position, and the indispensability of
Mr. Calhoun's support, restrained Mr. Clay, and kept him quiet
under this cutting taunt; but he took ample satisfaction for it
some years later, when the triumph of General Jackson in the
"expunging resolution," and the decline of their own prospects for
the Presidency, dissolved their coalition, and remitted them to
their long previous antagonistic feelings. But there was another
point in which Mr. Calhoun intelligibly indicated what was fully
believed at the time, namely, that the basis of the coalition which
ostensibly had for its object the reduction of the tariff, was
in reality a political coalition to act against General Jackson,
and to the success of which it was essential that their own great
bone of contention was to be laid aside, and kept out of the
way, while the coalition was in force. It was to enable them to
unite their forces against the "encroachments and corruptions of
the Executive" that the tariff was then laid away; and although
the removal of the deposits was not then foreseen, as the first
occasion for this conjunction, yet there could have been no failure
of finding occasions enough for the same purpose when the will was
so strong--as subsequent events so fully proved. General Jackson
could do but little during the remainder of his Presidency which
was not found to be "unconstitutional, illegal, corrupt, usurping,
and dangerous to the liberties of the people;" and as such, subject
to the combined attack of Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun and their
respective friends. All this was as good as told, and with an air of
self-satisfaction at the foresight of it, in these paragraphs of Mr.
Calhoun's speech:
"Now, I put the solemn question to all who hear me: if the
tariff had not then been adjusted--if it was now an open
question--what hope of successful resistance against the
usurpations of the Executive, on the part of this or any other
branch of the government, could be entertained? Let it not be
said that this is the result of accident--of an unforeseen
contingency. It was clearly perceived, and openly stated,
that no successful resistance could be made to the corruption
and encroachments of the Executive, while the tariff question
remained open, while it separated the North from the South,
and wasted the energy of the honest and patriotic portions of
the community against each other, the joint effort of which
is indispensably necessary to expel those from authority who
are converting the entire powers of government into a corrupt
electioneering machine; and that, without separate State
interposition, the adjustment was impossible. The truth of this
position rests not upon the accidental state of things, but on
a profound principle growing out of the nature of government,
and party struggles in a free State. History and reflection
teach us, that when great interests come into conflict, and the
passions and the prejudices of men are aroused, such struggles
can never be composed by the influence of any individuals,
however great; and if there be not somewhere in the system some
high constitutional power to arrest their progress, and compel
the parties to adjust the difference, they go on till the State
falls by corruption or violence.
"I will (said Mr. C.) venture to add to these remarks another,
in connection with the point under consideration, not less
true. We are not only indebted to the cause which I have stated
for our present strength in this body against the present
usurpation of the Executive, but if the adjustment of the tariff
had stood alone, as it ought to have done, without the odious
bill which accompanied it--if those who led in the compromise
had joined the State-rights party in their resistance to that
unconstitutional measure, and thrown the responsibility on its
real authors, the administration, their party would have been
so prostrated throughout the entire South, and their power,
in consequence, so reduced, that they would not have dared to
attempt the present measure; or, if they had, they would have
been broken and defeated."
Mr. Calhoun took high ground of contempt and scorn against the
Secretary's reasons for removing the deposits, so far as founded in
the misconduct of the bank directors--declaring that he would not
condescend to notice them--repulsing them as intrusive--and shutting
his eyes upon these accusations, although heinous in their nature,
then fully proved; and since discovered to be far more criminal than
then suspected, and such as to subject their authors, a few years
afterwards, to indictments in the Court of General Sessions, for
the county of Philadelphia, for a "conspiracy to cheat and defraud
the stockholders;"--indictments on which they were saved from jury
trials by being "_habeas corpus'd_" out of the custody of the
sheriff of the county, who had arrested them on bench warrants. Mr.
Calhoun thus repulsed all notice of these accusations:
"The Secretary has brought forward many and grievous charges
against the bank. I will not condescend to notice them. It is
the conduct of the Secretary, and not that of the bank, which
is immediately under examination; and he has no right to drag
the conduct of the bank into the issue, beyond its operations
in regard to the deposits. To that extent I am prepared to
examine his allegations against it; but beyond that he has no
right--no, not the least--to arraign the conduct of the bank;
and I, for one, will not, by noticing his charges beyond that
point, sanction his authority to call its conduct in question.
But let the point in issue be determined, and I, as far as my
voice extends, will give to those who desire it the means of the
freest and most unlimited inquiry into its conduct."
But, while supporting Mr. Clay generally in his movement against the
President, Mr. Calhoun disagreed with him in the essential averment
in his resolve, that his removal of Mr. Duane because he would not,
and the appointment of Mr. Taney because he would, remove them was a
usurpation of power. Mr. Calhoun held it to be only an "abuse;" and
upon that point he procured a modification of his resolve from Mr.
Clay, notwithstanding the earnestness of his speech on the charge
of usurpation. And he thus stated his objection:
"But, while I thus severely condemn the conduct of the President
in removing the former Secretary and appointing the present, I
must say, that in my opinion it is a case of the abuse, and not
of the usurpation of power. I cannot doubt that the President
has, under the constitution, the right of removal from office;
nor can I doubt that the power of removal, wherever it exists,
does, from necessity, involve the power of general supervision;
nor can I doubt that it might be constitutionally exercised in
reference to the deposits. Reverse the present case; suppose the
late Secretary, instead of being against, had been in favor of
the removal; and that the President, instead of being for, had
been against it, deeming the removal not only inexpedient, but,
under circumstances illegal; would any man doubt that, under
such circumstances, he had a right to remove his Secretary,
if it were the only means of preventing the removal of the
deposits? Nay, would it not be his indispensable duty to have
removed him? and, had he not, would not he have been universally
and justly held responsible?"
In all the vituperation of the Secretary, as being the servile
instrument of the President's will, the members who indulged in
that species of attack were acting against public and recorded
testimony. Mr. Taney was complying with his own sense of public duty
when he ordered the removal. He had been attorney-general of the
United States when the deposit-removal question arose, and in all
the stages of that question had been in favor of the removal; so
that his conduct was the result of his own judgment and conscience;
and the only interference of the President was to place him in a
situation where he would carry out his convictions of duty. Mr.
Calhoun, in this speech, absolved himself from all connection with
the bank, or dependence upon it, or favors from it. Though its chief
author, he would have none of its accommodations: and said:
"I am no partisan of the bank; I am connected with it in no
way, by moneyed or political ties. I might say, with truth,
that the bank owes as much to me as to any other individual
in the country; and I might even add that, had it not been
for my efforts, it would not have been chartered. Standing in
this relation to the institution, a high sense of delicacy, a
regard to independence and character, has restrained me from any
connection with the institution whatever, except some trifling
accommodations, in the way of ordinary business, which were not
of the slightest importance either to the bank or myself."
Certainly there was no necessity for Mr. Calhoun to make this
disclaimer. His character for pecuniary integrity placed him above
the suspicion of a venal motive. His errors came from a different
source--from the one that Cæsar thought excusable when empire was
to be attained. Mr. Clay also took the opportunity to disclaim any
present connection with, or past favors from the bank; and,
"Begged permission to trespass a few moments longer on the
Senate, to make a statement concerning himself personally. He
had heard that one high in office had allowed himself to assert
that a dishonorable connection had subsisted between him (Mr.
C), and the Bank of the United States. When the present charter
was granted, he voted for it; and, having done so, he did not
feel himself at liberty to subscribe, and he did not subscribe,
for a single share in the stock of the bank, although he
confidently anticipated a great rise in the value of the stock.
A few years afterwards, during the presidency of Mr. Jones, is
was thought, by some of his friends at Philadelphia, expedient
to make him (Mr. C), a director of the Bank of the United
States; and he was made a director without any consultation with
him. For that purpose five shares were purchased for him, by a
friend, for which he (Mr. C), afterwards paid. When he ceased to
be a director, a short time subsequently, he disposed of those
shares. He does not now own, and has not for many years been the
proprietor of, a single share.
"When Mr. Cheves was appointed president of the bank, its
affairs in the States of Kentucky and Ohio were in great
disorder; and his (Mr. C.'s), professional services were
engaged during several years for the bank in those States. He
brought a vast number of suits, and transacted a great amount
of professional business for the bank. Among other suits was
that for the recovery of the one hundred thousand dollars,
seized under the authority of a law of Ohio, which he carried
through the inferior and supreme courts. He was paid by the
bank the usual compensation for these services, and no more.
And he ventured to assert that no professional fees were ever
more honestly and fairly earned. He had not, however, been
the counsel for the bank for upwards of eight years past. He
does not owe the bank, or any one of its branches, a solitary
cent. About twelve or fifteen years ago, owing to the failure
of a highly estimable (now deceased), friend, a large amount
of debt had been, as his indorser, thrown upon him (Mr. C),
and it was principally due to the Bank of the United States.
He (Mr C.) established for himself a rigid economy, a sinking
fund, and worked hard, and paid off the debt long since,
without receiving from the bank the slightest favor. Whilst
others around him were discharging their debts in property, at
high valuations, he periodically renewed his note, paying the
discount, until it was wholly extinguished."
But it was not every member who could thus absolve himself from
bank connection, favor, or dependence. The list of congressional
borrowers, or retainers, was large--not less than fifty of the
former at a time, and a score of the latter; and even after the
failure of the bank and the assignment of its effects, and after
all possible liquidations had been effected by taking property at
"high valuation," allowing largely for "professional services," and
liberal resorts to the "profit and loss" account, there remained
many to be sued by the assignees to whom their notes were passed;
and some of such early date as to be met by a plea of the statute
of limitations in bar of the stale demand. Mr. Calhoun concluded
with a "lift to the panic" in a reference to the "fearful crisis"
in which we were involved--the dangers ahead to the liberties of
the country--the perils of our institutions--and a hint at his
permanent remedy--his panacea for all the diseases of the body
politic--dissolution of the Union. He ended thus:
"We have (said Mr. C), arrived at a fearful crisis; things
cannot long remain as they are. It behooves all who love their
country, who have affection for their offspring, or who have
any stake in our institutions, to pause and reflect. Confidence
is daily withdrawing from the general government. Alienation
is hourly going on. These will necessarily create a state of
things inimical to the existence of our institutions, and, if
not speedily arrested, convulsions must follow, and then comes
dissolution or despotism; when a thick cloud will be thrown over
the cause of liberty and the future prospects of our country."
CHAPTER CII.
PUBLIC DISTRESS.
From the moment of the removal of the deposits, it was seen that
the plan of the Bank of the United States was to force their
return, and with it a renewal of its charter, by operating on the
business of the country and the alarms of the people. For this
purpose, loans and accommodations were to cease at the mother bank
and all its branches, and in all the local banks over which the
national bank had control; and at the same time that discounts were
stopped, curtailments were made; and all business men called on for
the payment of all they owed, at the same time that all the usual
sources of supply were stopped. This pressure was made to fall
upon the business community, especially upon large establishments
employing a great many operatives; so as to throw as many laboring
people as possible out of employment. At the same time, politicians
engaged in making panic, had what amounts they pleased, an instance
of a loan of $100,000 to a single one of these agitators, being
detected; and a loan of $1,100,000 to a broker, employed in making
distress, and in relieving it in favored cases at a usury of two and
a half per centum per month. In this manner, the business community
was oppressed, and in all parts of the Union at the same time: the
organization of the national bank, with branches in every State,
and its control over local banks, being sufficient to enable it
to have its policy carried into effect in all places, and at the
same moment. The first step in this policy was to get up distress
meetings--a thing easily done--and then to have these meetings
properly officered and conducted. Men who had voted for Jackson, but
now renounced him, were procured for president, vice-presidents,
secretaries, and orators; distress orations were delivered; and,
after sufficient exercise in that way, a memorial and a set of
resolves, prepared for the occasion, were presented and adopted.
After adoption, the old way of sending by the mail was discarded,
and a deputation selected to proceed to Washington and make delivery
of their lugubrious document. These memorials generally came in
duplicate, to be presented, in both Houses at once, by a senator
from the State and the representative from the district. These,
on presenting the petition, delivered a distress harangue on its
contents, often supported by two or three adjunct speakers, although
there was a rule to forbid any thing being said on such occasions,
except to make a brief statement of the contents. Now they were read
in violation of the rule, and spoke upon in violation of the rule,
and printed never to be read again, and referred to a committee,
never more to be seen by it; and bound up in volumes to encumber the
shelves of the public documents. Every morning, for three months,
the presentation of these memorials, with speeches to enforce them,
was the occupation of each House: all the memorials bearing the
impress of the same mint, and the orations generally cast after
the same pattern. These harangues generally gave, in the first
place, some topographical or historical notice of the county or
town from which it came--sometimes with a hint of its revolutionary
services--then a description of the felicity which it enjoyed while
the bank had the deposits; then the ruin which came upon it, at
their loss; winding up usually with a great quantity of indignation
against the man whose illegal and cruel conduct had occasioned such
destruction upon their business. The meetings were sometimes held
by young men; sometimes by old men; sometimes by the laboring,
sometimes by the mercantile class; sometimes miscellaneous, and
irrespective of party; and usually sprinkled over with a smart
number of former Jackson-men, who had abjured him on account of
this conduct to the bank. Some passages will be given from a few of
these speeches, as specimens of the whole; the quantity of which
contributed to swell the publication of the debates of that Congress
to four large volumes of more than one thousand pages each. Thus,
Mr. Tyler of Virginia, in presenting a memorial from Culpeper
county, and hinting at the military character of the county, said:
"The county of Culpeper, as he had before observed, had been
distinguished for its whiggism from the commencement of the
Revolution; and, if it had not been the first to hoist the
revolutionary banner, at the tap of the drum, they were second
to but one county, and that was the good county of Hanover,
which had expressed the same opinion with them on this
all-important subject. He presented the memorial of these sons
of the whigs of the Revolution, and asked that it might be read,
referred to the appropriate committee, and printed."
Mr. Robbins of Rhode Island, in presenting memorials from the towns
of Smithfield and Cumberland in that State:
"A small river runs through these towns, called Blackstone
River; a narrow stream, of no great volume of water, but
perennial and unfailing, and possessing great power from the
frequency and greatness of its falls. Prior to 1791, this
power had always run to waste, except here and there a saw
mill or a grist mill, to supply the exigencies of a sparse
neighborhood, and one inconsiderable forge. Since that period,
from time to time, and from place to place, that power, instead
of running to waste, has been applied to the use of propelling
machinery, till the valley of that small river has become the
Manchester of America. That power is so unlimited, that scarcely
any limitation can be fixed to its capability of progressive
increase in its application. That valley, in these towns,
already has in it over thirty different establishments; it has
in it two millions of fixed capital in those establishments;
it has expended in it annually, in the wages of manual labor,
five hundred thousand dollars; it has in it one hundred thousand
spindles in operation. I should say it had--for one half of
these spindles are already suspended, and the other half soon
must be suspended, if the present state of things continues. On
the bank of that river, the first cotton spindle was established
in America. The invention of Arkwright, in 1791, escaped from
the jealous prohibitions of England, and planted itself there.
It was brought over by a Mr. Slater, who had been a laboring
manufacturer in England, but who was not a machinist. He brought
it over, not in models, but in his own mind, and fortunately he
was blessed with a mind capacious of such things, and which by
its fair fruits, has made him a man of immense fortune, and one
of the greatest benefactors to his adopted country. There he
made the first essays that laid the foundation of that system
which has spread so far and wide in this country, and risen to
such a height that it makes a demand annually for two hundred
and fifty thousand bales of cotton--about one fourth of all
the cotton crop of all our cotton-growing States; makes for
those States, for their staple, the best market in the world,
except that of England: it was rapidly becoming to them the
best market in the world, not excepting that of England; still
better, it was rapidly becoming for them a market to weigh down
and preponderate in the scale against all the other markets of
the world taken together. Now, all those prospects are blasted
by one breath of the Executive administration of this country.
Now every thing in that valley, every thing in possession, every
thing in prospect, is tottering to its fall. One half of those
one hundred thousand spindles are, as I before stated, already
stopped; the other half are still continued, but at a loss to
the owners, and purely from charity to the laborers; but this
charity has its limit; and regard to their own safety will
soon constrain them to stop the other half. Five months ago,
had one travelled through that valley and witnessed the scenes
then displayed there--their numerous and dense population, all
industrious, and thriving, and contented--had heard the busy
hum of industry in their hours of labor--the notes of joy in
their hours of relaxation--had seen the plenty of their tables,
the comforts of their firesides--had, in a word, seen in every
countenance the content of every heart; and if that same person
should travel through the same valley hereafter, and should find
it then deserted, and desolate, and silent as the valley of
death, and covered over with the solitary and mouldering ruins
of those numerous establishments, he would say, 'Surely the hand
of the ruthless destroyer has been here!' Now, if the present
state of things is to be continued, as surely as blood follows
the knife that has been plunged to the heart, and death ensues,
so surely that change there is to take place; and he who ought
to have been their guardian angel, will have been that ruthless
destroyer."
And thus Mr. Webster, in presenting a memorial from Franklin county,
in the State of Pennsylvania:
"The county of Franklin was one of the most respectable and
wealthy in the great State of Pennsylvania. It was situated
in a rich limestone Valley, and, in its main character, was
agricultural. He had the pleasure, last year, to pass through
it, and see it for the first time, when its rich fields of wheat
and rye were ripening, and, certainly, he little thought then,
that he should, at this time have to present to the Senate
such undeniable proofs of their actual, severe and pressing
distress. As he had said, the inhabitants of Franklin county
were principally agriculturists, and, of these, the majority
were the tillers of their own land. They were interested, also,
in manufactures to a great extent; they had ten or twelve
forges, and upwards of four thousand persons engaged in the
manufacture of iron, dependent for their daily bread on the
product of their own labor. The hands employed in this business
were a peculiar race--miners, colliers, &c.--and, if other
employment was to be afforded them, they would find themselves
unsuited for it. These manufactories had been depressed, from
causes so well explained, and so well understood, that nobody
could now doubt them. They were precisely in the situation of
the cotton factories he had adverted to some days ago. There
was no demand for their products. The consignee did not receive
them--he did not hope to dispose of them, and would not give
his paper for them. It was well known that, when a manufactured
article was sent to the cities, the manufacturer expected to
obtain an advance on them, which he got cashed. This whole
operation having stopped, in consequence of the derangement
of the currency, the source of business was dried up. There
were other manufactories in that county that also felt the
pressure--paper factories and manufactories of straw paper,
which increased the gains of agriculture. These, too, have
been under the necessity of dismissing many of those employed
by them, which necessity brought this matter of Executive
interference home to every man's labor and property. He had
ascertained the prices of produce as now, and in November last,
in the State of Pennsylvania, and from these, it would be seen
that, in the interior region, on the threshing floors, they had
not escaped the evils which had affected the prices of corn and
rye at Chambersburg. They were hardly to be got rid of at any
price. The loss on wheat, the great product of the county, was
thirty cents. Clover seed, another great product, had fallen
from six dollars per bushel to four dollars. This downfall of
agricultural produce described the effect of the measure of the
Executive better than all the evidences that had been hitherto
offered. These memorialists, for themselves, were sick, sick
enough of the Executive experiment."
And thus Mr. Southard in presenting the memorial of four thousand
"young men" of the city of Philadelphia:
"With but very few of them am I personally acquainted--and
must rely, in what I say of them, upon what I know of those
few, and upon the information received from others, which I
regard as sure and safe. And on these, I venture to assure the
Senate, that no meeting of young men can be collected, in any
portion of our wide country, on any occasion, containing more
intelligence--more virtuous purpose--more manly and honorable
feeling--more decided and energetic character. What they say,
they think. What they resolve they will accomplish. Their
proceedings were ardent and animated--their resolutions are
drawn with spirit; but are such as, I think, may be properly
received and respected by the Senate. They relate to the conduct
of the Executive--to the present condition of the country--to
the councils which now direct its destinies. They admit that
older and more mature judgments may better understand the
science of government and its practical operations, but they act
upon a feeling just in itself, and valuable in its effects, that
they are fit to form and express opinions on public measures
and public principles, which shall be their own guide in their
present and future conduct; and they express a confident
reliance on the moral and physical vigor and untamable love of
freedom of the young men of the United States to save us from
despotism, open and avowed, or silent, insidious, and deceitful.
They were attracted, or rather urged, sir, to this meeting, and
to the expression of their feelings and opinions, by what they
saw around, and knew of the action of the Executive upon the
currency and prosperity of the country. They have just entered,
or are about entering, on the busy occupations of manhood, and
are suddenly surprised by a state of things around them, new to
their observation and experience. Calamity had been a stranger
in their pathway. They have grown up through their boyhood in
the enjoyments of present comfort, and the anticipations of
future prosperity--their seniors actively and successfully
engaged in the various occupations of the community, and the
whole circle of employments open before their own industry
and hopes--the institutions of their country beloved, and
their protecting influence covering the exertions of all for
their benefit and happiness. In this state they saw the public
prosperity, with which alone they were familiar, blasted, and
for the time destroyed. The whole scene, their whole country,
was changed; they witnessed fortunes falling, homesteads ruined,
merchants failing, artisans broken, mechanics impoverished, all
the employments on which they were about to enter, paralyzed;
labor denied to the needy, and reward to the industrious;
losses of millions of property and gloom settling where joy and
happiness before existed. They felt the sirocco pass by, and
desolate the plains where peace, and animation, and happiness
exulted."
And thus Mr. Clay in presenting a memorial from Lexington, Kentucky:
"If there was any spot in the Union, likely to be exempt from
the calamities that had afflicted the others, it would be the
region about Lexington and its immediate neighborhood. Nowhere,
to no other country, has Providence been more bountiful in its
gifts. A country so rich and fertile that it yielded in fair and
good seasons from sixty to seventy bushels of corn to the acre.
It was a most beautiful country--all the land in it, not in a
state of cultivation, was in parks (natural meadows), filled
with flocks and herds, fattening on its luxuriant grass. But
in what country, in what climate, the most favored by Heaven,
can happiness and prosperity exist against bad government,
against misrule, and against rash and ill-advised experiments?
On the mountain's top, in the mountain's cavern, in the remotest
borders of the country, every where, every interest has been
affected by the mistaken policy of the Executive. While he
admitted that the solicitude of his neighbors and friends was
excited in some degree by the embarrassments of the country,
yet they felt a deeper solicitude for the restoration of the
rightful authority of the constitution and the laws. It is
this which excites their apprehensions, and creates all their
alarm. He would not, at this time, enlarge further on the
subject of this memorial. He would only remark, that hemp,
the great staple of the part of the country from whence the
memorial came, had fallen twenty per cent. since he left home,
and that Indian corn, another of its greatest staples, the
most valuable of the fruits of the earth for the use of man,
which the farmer converted into most of the articles of his
consumption, furnishing him with food and raiment, had fallen
to a equal extent. There were in that county six thousand fat
bullocks now remaining unsold, when, long before this time last
year, there was scarcely one to be purchased. They were not
sold, because the butchers could not obtain from the banks the
usual facilities in the way of discounts; they could not obtain
funds in anticipation of their sales wherewith to purchase; and
now $100,000 worth of this species of property remains on hand,
which, if sold, would have been scattered through the country
by the graziers, producing all the advantages to be derived
from so large a circulation. Every farmer was too well aware of
these facts one moment to doubt them. We are, said Mr. C., not
a complaining people. We think not so much of distress. Give
us our laws--guarantee to us our constitution--and we will be
content with almost any form of government."
And Mr. Webster thus, in presenting a memorial from Lynn,
Massachusetts:
"Those members of the Senate, said Mr. W., who have travelled
from Boston to Salem, or to Nahant, will remember the town of
Lynn. It is a beautiful town, situated upon the sea, is highly
industrious, and has been hitherto prosperous and flourishing.
With a population of eight thousand souls, its great business is
the manufacture of shoes. Three thousand persons, men, women,
and children, are engaged in this manufacture. They make and
sell, ordinarily, two millions of pairs of shoes a year, for
which, at 75 cents a pair, they receive one million five hundred
thousand dollars. They consume half a million of dollars worth
of leather, of which they buy a large portion in Philadelphia
and Baltimore, and the rest in their own neighborhood. The
articles manufactured by them are sent to all parts of the
country, finding their way into every principal port, from
Eastport round to St. Louis. Now, sir, when I was last among the
people of this handsome town, all was prosperity and happiness.
Their business was not extravagantly profitable; they were not
growing rich over fast, but they were comfortable, all employed,
and all satisfied and contented. But, sir, with them, as with
others, a most serious change has taken place. They find their
usual employments suddenly arrested, from the same cause which
has smitten other parts of the country with like effects; and
they have sent forward a memorial, which I have now the honor
of laying before the Senate. This memorial, sir, is signed by
nine hundred of the legal voters of the town; and I understand
the largest number of votes known to have been given is one
thousand. Their memorial is short; it complains of the illegal
removal of the deposits, of the attack on the bank, and of the
effect of these measures on their business."
And thus Mr. Kent, of Maryland, in presenting petitions from
Washington county in that State:
"They depict in strong colors the daily increasing distress with
which they are surrounded. They deeply deplore it, without the
ability to relieve it, and they ascribe their condition to the
derangement of the currency, and a total want of confidence,
not only between man and man, but between banks situated even
in the same neighborhood--all proceeding, as they believe,
from the removal of the public deposits from the Bank of the
United States. Four mouths since, and the counties from whence
these memorials proceed, presented a population as contented
and prosperous as could be found in any section of the country.
But, sir, in that short period, the picture is reversed. Their
rich and productive lands, which last fall were sought after
with avidity at high prices, they inform us, have fallen 25 per
cent., and no purchasers are to be found even at that reduced
price. Wheat, the staple of that region of the country, was
never much lower, if as low. Flour is quoted in Alexandria at
$3 75, where a large portion of their crops seek a market.
These honest, industrious people cannot withstand the cruel
and ruinous consequences of this desperate and unnecessary
experiment. The country cannot bear it, and unless speedy relief
is afforded, the result of it will be as disastrous to those who
projected it, as to the country at large, who are afflicted with
it."
And thus Mr. Webster, presenting a petition from the master builders
of Philadelphia, sent on by a large deputation:
"I rise, sir, to perform a pleasing duty. It is to lay before
the Senate the proceedings of a meeting of the building
mechanics of the city and county of Philadelphia, convened for
the purpose of expressing their opinions on the present state of
the country, on the 24th of February. This meeting consisted of
three thousand persons, and was composed of carpenters, masons,
brickmakers, bricklayers, painters and glaziers, lime burners,
plasterers, lumber merchants and others, whose occupations
are connected with the building of houses. I am proud, sir,
that so respectable, so important, and so substantial a class
of mechanics, have intrusted me with the presentment of their
opinions and feelings respecting the present distress of the
country, to the Senate. I am happy if they have seen, in the
course pursued by me here, a policy favorable to the protection
of their interest, and the prosperity of their families. These
intelligent and sensible men, these highly useful citizens, have
witnessed the effect of the late measures of government upon
their own concerns; and the resolutions which I have now to
present, fully express their convictions on the subject. They
propose not to reason, but to testify; they speak what they do
know.
"Sir, listen to the statement; hear the facts. The committee
state, sir, that eight thousand persons are ordinarily employed
in building houses, in the city and county of Philadelphia;
a number which, with their families, would make quite a
considerable town. They further state, that the average number
of houses, which this body of mechanics has built, for the last
five years, is twelve hundred houses a year. The average cost
of these houses is computed at two thousand dollars each. Here
is a business, then, sir, of two millions four hundred thousand
dollars a year. Such has been the average of the last five
years. And what is it now? Sir, the committee state that the
business has fallen off seventy-five per cent. at least; that
is to say, that, at most, only one-quarter part of their usual
employment now remains. This is the season of the year in which
building contracts are made. It is now known what is to be the
business of the year. Many of these persons, who have heretofore
had, every year, contracts for several houses on hand, have this
year no contract at all. They have been obliged to dismiss their
hands, to turn them over to any scraps of employment they could
find, or to leave them in idleness, for want of any employment.
"Sir, the agitations of the country are not to be hushed by
authority. Opinions, from however high quarters, will not
quiet them. The condition of the nation calls for action, for
measures, for the prompt interposition of Congress; and until
Congress shall act, be it sooner or be it later, there will be
no content, no repose, no restoration of former prosperity.
Whoever supposes, sir, that he, or that any man, can quiet the
discontents, or hush the complaints of the people by merely
saying, "peace, be still!" mistakes, shockingly mistakes, the
real condition of things. It is an agitation of interests, not
of opinions; a severe pressure on men's property and their means
of living, not a barren contest about abstract sentiments. Even,
sir, the voice of party, often so sovereign, is not of power to
subdue discontents and stifle complaints. The people, sir, feel
great interests to be at stake, and they are rousing themselves
to protect those interests. They consider the question to be,
whether the government is made for the people, or the people for
the government. They hold the former of these two propositions,
and they mean to prove it.
"Mr. President, this measure of the Secretary has produced a
degree of evil that cannot be borne. Talk about it as we will,
it cannot be borne. A tottering state of credit, cramped means,
loss of property and loss of employment, doubts of the condition
of others, doubts of their own condition, constant fear of
failures and new explosions, an awful dread of the future--sir
when a consciousness of all these things accompanies a man, at
his breakfast, his dinner and his supper; when it attends him
through his hours, both of labor and rest; when it even disturbs
and haunts his dreams, and when he feels, too, that that which
is thus gnawing upon him is the pure result of foolish and
rash measures of government, depend upon it he will not bear
it. A deranged and disordered currency the ruin of occupation,
distress for present means the prostration of credit and
confidence, and all this without hope of improvement or change,
is a state of things which no intelligent people can long
endure."
Mr. Clay rose to second the motion of Mr Webster to refer and print
this memorial; and, after giving it as his opinion that the property
of the country had been reduced four hundred millions of dollars
in value, by the measures of the government, thus apostrophized
the Vice-President (Mr. Van Buren), charging him with a message of
prayer and supplication to President Jackson:
"But there is another quarter which possesses sufficient power
and influence to relieve the public distresses. In twenty-four
hours, the executive branch could adopt a measure which would
afford an efficacious and substantial remedy, and re-establish
confidence. And those who, in this chamber, support the
administration, could not render a better service than to
repair to the executive mansion, and, placing before the Chief
Magistrate the naked and undisguised truth, prevail upon him
to retrace his steps and abandon his fatal experiment. No one,
sir, can perform that duty with more propriety than yourself.
[The Vice-President.] You can, if you will, induce him to change
his course. To you, then, sir, in no unfriendly spirit, but
with feelings softened and subdued by the deep distress which
pervades every class of our countrymen, I make the appeal. By
your official and personal relations with the President, you
maintain with him an intercourse which I neither enjoy nor
covet. Go to him and tell him, without exaggeration, but in
the language of truth and sincerity, the actual condition of
his bleeding country. Tell him it is nearly ruined and undone
by the measures which he has been induced to put in operation.
Tell him that his experiment is operating on the nation like
the philosopher's experiment upon a convulsed animal, in an
exhausted receiver, and that it must expire, in agony, if he
does not pause, give it free and sound circulation, and suffer
the energies of the people to be revived and restored. Tell
him that, in a single city, more than sixty bankruptcies,
involving a loss of upwards of fifteen millions of dollars, have
occurred. Tell him of the alarming decline in the value of all
property, of the depreciation of all the products of industry,
of the stagnation in every branch of business, and of the close
of numerous manufacturing establishments, which, a few short
months ago, were in active and flourishing operation. Depict
to him, if you can find language to portray, the heart-rending
wretchedness of thousands of the working classes cast out of
employment. Tell him of the tears of helpless widows, no longer
able to earn their bread, and of unclad and unfed orphans who
have been driven, by his policy, out of the busy pursuits in
which but yesterday they were gaining an honest livelihood.
Say to him that if firmness be honorable, when guided by truth
and justice, it is intimately allied to another quality, of the
most pernicious tendency, in the prosecution of an erroneous
system. Tell him how much more true glory is to be won by
retracing false steps, than by blindly rushing on until his
country is overwhelmed in bankruptcy and ruin. Tell him of the
ardent attachment, the unbounded devotion, the enthusiastic
gratitude, towards him, so often signally manifested by the
American people, and that they deserve, at his hands, better
treatment. Tell him to guard himself against the possibility
of an odious comparison with that worst of the Roman emperors,
who, contemplating with indifference the conflagration of the
mistress of the world, regaled himself during the terrific
scene in the throng of his dancing courtiers. If you desire
to secure for yourself the reputation of a public benefactor,
describe to him truly the universal distress already produced,
and the certain ruin which must ensue from perseverance in his
measures. Tell him that he has been abused, deceived, betrayed,
by the wicked counsels of unprincipled men around him. Inform
him that all efforts in Congress to alleviate or terminate
the public distress are paralyzed and likely to prove totally
unavailing, from his influence upon a large portion of the
members, who are unwilling to withdraw their support, or to
take a course repugnant to his wishes and feelings. Tell him
that, in his bosom alone, under actual circumstances, does the
power abide to relieve the country; and that, unless he opens it
to conviction, and corrects the errors of his administration,
no human imagination can conceive, and no human tongue can
express the awful consequences which may follow. Entreat him to
pause, and to reflect that there is a point beyond which human
endurance cannot go; and let him not drive this brave, generous,
and patriotic people to madness and despair."
During the delivery of this apostrophe, the Vice-President
maintained the utmost decorum of countenance, looking respectfully,
and even innocently at the speaker, all the while, as if treasuring
up every word he said to be faithfully repeated to the President.
After it was over, and the Vice-President had called some senator
to the chair, he went up to Mr. Clay, and asked him for a pinch of
his fine maccoboy snuff (as he often did); and, having received
it, walked away. But a public meeting in Philadelphia took the
performance seriously to heart, and adopted this resolution, which
the indefatigable Hezekiah Niles "registered" for the information of
posterity:
"_Resolved_, That Martin Van Buren deserves, and will receive
the execrations of all good men, should he shrink from the
responsibility of conveying to Andrew Jackson the message sent
by the honorable Henry Clay, when the builders' memorial was
presented to the Senate. I charge you, said he, go the President
and tell him--tell him if he would save his country--if he
would save himself--tell him to stop short, and ponder well
his course--tell him to retrace his steps, before the injured
and insulted people, infuriated by his experiment upon their
happiness, rises in the majesty of power, and hurls the usurper
down from the seat he occupies, like Lucifer, never to rise
again."
Mr. Benton replied to these distress petitions, and distress
harangues, by showing that they were nothing but a reproduction,
with a change of names and dates, of the same kind of speeches and
petitions which were heard in the year 1811, when the charter of the
first national bank was expiring, and when General Jackson was not
President--when Mr. Taney was not Secretary of the Treasury--when
no deposits had been removed, and when there was no quarrel between
the bank and the government; and he read copiously from the Congress
debates of that day to justify what he said; and declared the two
scenes, so far as the distress was concerned, to be identical. After
reading from these petitions and speeches, he proceeded to say:
"All the machinery of alarm and distress was in as full activity
at that time as at present, and with the same identical
effects. Town meetings--memorials--resolutions--deputations
to Congress--alarming speeches in Congress. The price of all
property was shown to be depressed. Hemp sunk in Philadelphia
from $350 to $250 per ton; flour sunk from $11 a barrel to
$7 75; all real estate fell thirty per cent.; five hundred
houses were suspended in their erection; the rent of money
rose to one and a half per month on the best paper. Confidence
destroyed--manufactories stopped--workmen dismissed--and the
ruin of the country confidently predicted. This was the scene
then; and for what object? Purely and simply to obtain a
recharter of the bank--purely and simply to force a recharter
from the alarm and distress of the country; for there was no
removal of deposits then to be complained of, and to be made the
scape-goat of a studied and premeditated attempt to operate upon
Congress through the alarms of the people and the destruction of
their property. There was not even a curtailment of discounts
then. The whole scene was fictitious; but it was a case in
which fiction does the mischief of truth. A false alarm in
the money market produces all the effects of real danger; and
thus, as much distress was proclaimed in Congress in 1811--as
much distress was proved to exist, and really did exist--then
as now; without a single cause to be alleged then, which is
alleged now. But the power and organization of the bank made
the alarm then; its power and organization make it now; and
fictitious on both occasions; and men were ruined then, as now,
by the power of imaginary danger, which in the moneyed world,
has all the ruinous effects of real danger. No deposits were
removed then, and the reason was, as assigned by Mr. Gallatin to
Congress, that the government had borrowed more than the amount
of the deposits from the bank; and this loan would enable her
to protect her interest in every contingency. The open object
of the bank then was a recharter. The knights entered the lists
with their visors off--no war in disguise then for the renewal
of a charter under the tilting and jousting of a masquerade
scuffle for recovery of deposits."
This was a complete reply, to which no one could make any answer;
and the two distresses all proved the same thing, that a powerful
national bank could make distress when it pleased; and would always
please to do it when it had an object to gain by it--either in
forcing a recharter or in reaping a harvest of profit by making a
contraction of debts after having made an expansion of credits.
It will be difficult for people in after times to realize the degree
of excitement, of agitation and of commotion which was produced
by this organized attempt to make panic and distress. The great
cities especially were the scene of commotions but little short
of frenzy--public meetings of thousands, the most inflammatory
harangues, cannon firing, great feasts--and the members of Congress
who spoke against the President received when they travelled with
public honors, like conquering generals returning from victorious
battle fields--met by masses, saluted with acclamations, escorted
by processions, and their lodgings surrounded by thousands calling
for a view of their persons. The gaining of a municipal election in
the city of New-York put the climax upon this enthusiasm; and some
instances taken from the every day occurrences of the time may give
some faint idea of this extravagant exaltation. Thus:
"Mr. Webster, on his late journey to Boston, was received and
parted with at Philadelphia, New-York, Providence, &c., by
thousands of the people."
"Messrs. Poindexter, Preston and McDuffie visited Philadelphia
the beginning of this week, and received the most flattering
attention of the citizens--thousands having waited upon to honor
them; and they were dined, &c., with great enthusiasm."
"A very large public meeting was held at the Musical Fund
Hall, Philadelphia, on Monday afternoon last, to compliment
the 'whigs' of New-York on the late victory gained by them.
Though thousands were in the huge room, other thousands could
not get in! It was a complete 'jam.' John Sergeant was called
to the chair, and delivered an address of 'great power and
ability'--'one of the happiest efforts' of that distinguished
man. Mr. Preston of the Senate, and Mr. McDuffie of the House of
Representatives, were present. The first was loudly called for,
when Mr. Sergeant had concluded, and he addressed the meeting
at considerable length. Mr. McDuffie was then as loudly named,
and he also spoke with his usual ardency and power, in which
he paid a handsome compliment to Mr. Sergeant, who, though he
had differed in opinion with him, he regarded as a 'sterling
patriot,' &C. Each of these speeches were received with hearty
and continued marks of approbation, and often interrupted with
shouts of applause. The like, it is said, had never before
been witnessed in Philadelphia. The people were in the highest
possible state of enthusiasm."
"An immense multitude of people partook of a collation in
Castle Garden, New-York, on Tuesday afternoon, to celebrate
the victory gained in the 'three days.' The garden was dressed
with flags, and every thing prepared on a grand scale. Pipes
of wine and barrels of beer were present in abundance, with a
full supply of eatables. After partaking of refreshments (in
which a great deal of business was done in a short time, by
the thousands employed--for many mouths, like many hands, make
quick work!) the meeting was organized, by appointing Benjamin
Wells, carpenter, president, twelve vice-presidents, and four
secretaries, of whom there was one cartman, one sail maker,
one grocer, one watchmaker, one ship carpenter, one potter,
one mariner, one physician, one printer, one surveyor, four
merchants, &c. The president briefly, but strongly, addressed
the multitude, as did several other gentlemen. A committee of
congratulation from Philadelphia was presented to the people and
received with shouts. When the time for adjournment arrived,
the vast multitude, in a solid column, taking a considerable
circuit, proceeded to Greenwich-street, where Mr. Webster was
dining with a friend. Loudly called for, he came forward, and
was instantly surrounded by a dense mass of merchants and
cartmen, sailors and mechanics, professional men and laborers,
&c., seizing him by his hands. He was asked to say a few words
to the people, and did so. He exhorted them to perseverance in
support of the constitution, and, as a dead silence prevailed,
he was heard by thousands. He thanked them, and ended by hoping
that God would bless them all."
"Saturday Messrs. Webster, Preston and Binney were expected at
Baltimore; and, though raining hard, thousands assembled to meet
them. Sunday they arrived, and were met by a dense mass, and
speeches exacted. A reverend minister of the Gospel, in excuse
of such a gathering on the Sabbath, said that in revolutionary
times there were no Sabbaths. They were conducted to the hotel,
where 5,000 well-dressed citizens received them with enthusiasm."
"Mr. McDuffie reached Baltimore in the afternoon of Saturday
last, on his return to Washington, and was received by from
1,500 to 2,000 people, who were waiting on the wharf for the
purpose. He was escorted to the City Hotel, and, from the steps,
addressed the crowd (now increased to about 3,000 persons), in
as earnest a speech, perhaps, as he ever pronounced--and the
_manner_ of his delivery was not less forcible than the _matter_
of his remarks. Mr. McD. spoke for about half an hour; and,
while at one moment he produced a roar of laughter, in the next
he commanded the entire attention of the audience, or elicited
loud shouts of applause.
"The brief addresses of Messrs. Webster, Binney, McDuffie, and
Preston, to assembled multitudes in Baltimore, and the manner in
which they were received, show a new state of feelings and of
things in this city. When Mr. McDuffie said that ten days after
the entrance of soldiers into the Senate chamber, to send the
senators home, that 200,000 volunteers would be in Washington,
there was such a shout as we have seldom before heard."
"There was a mighty meeting of the people, and such a feast
as was never before prepared in the United States, held near
Philadelphia, on Tuesday last, as a rallying 'to support
the constitution,' and 'in honor of the late whig victory
at New-York,' a very large delegation from that city being
in attendance, bringing with them their frigate-rigged and
highly-finished boat, called the 'Constitution,' which had
been passed through the streets during the 'three days.' The
arrival of the steamboat with this delegation on board, and
the procession that was then formed, are described in glowing
terms. The whole number congregated was supposed not to be
less than fifty thousand, multitudes attending from adjacent
parts of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, &c. Many cattle
and other animals had been roasted whole, and there were 200
great rounds of beef, 400 hams, as many beeves' tongues, &c.
and 15,000 loaves of bread, with crackers and cheese, &c., and
equal supplies of wine, beer, and cider. This may give some idea
of the magnitude of the feast. John Sergeant presided, assisted
by a large number of vice-presidents, &c. Strong bands of
music played at intervals, and several salutes were fired from
the miniature frigate, which were returned by heavy artillery
provided for the purpose."
Notices, such as these, might be cited in any number; but those
given are enough to show to what a degree people can be excited,
when a great moneyed power, and a great political party, combine for
the purpose of exciting the passions through the public sufferings
and the public alarms. Immense amounts of money were expended in
these operations; and it was notorious that it chiefly came from the
great moneyed corporation in Philadelphia.
CHAPTER CIII.
SENATORIAL CONDEMNATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON: HIS PROTEST: NOTICE OF
THE EXPUNGING RESOLUTION.
Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun were the two leading spirits in the
condemnation of President Jackson. Mr. Webster did not speak in
favor of their resolution, but aided it incidentally in the delivery
of his distress speeches. The resolution was theirs, modified from
time to time by themselves, without any vote of the Senate, and by
virtue of the privilege which belongs to the mover of any motion
to change it as he pleases, until the Senate, by some action upon
it, makes it its own. It was altered repeatedly, and up to the last
moment; and after undergoing its final mutation, at the moment
when the yeas and nays were about to be called, it was passed by
the same majority that would have voted for it on the first day of
its introduction. The yeas were: Messrs. Bibb of Kentucky; Black
of Mississippi; Calhoun; Clay; Clayton of Delaware; Ewing of Ohio;
Frelinghuysen of New Jersey; Kent of Maryland; Knight of Rhode
Island; Leigh of Virginia; Mangum of North Carolina; Naudain of
Delaware; Poindexter of Mississippi; Porter of Louisiana; Prentiss
of Vermont; Preston of South Carolina; Robbins of Rhode Island;
Silsbee of Massachusetts; Nathan Smith of Connecticut; Southard
of New Jersey; Sprague of Maine; Swift of Vermont; Tomlinson of
Connecticut; Tyler of Virginia; Waggaman of Louisiana; Webster.--26.
The nays were: Messrs. Benton; Brown of North Carolina; Forsyth of
Georgia; Grundy of Tennessee; Hendricks of Indiana; Hill of New
Hampshire; Kane of Illinois; King of Alabama; King of Georgia;
Linn of Missouri; McKean of Pennsylvania; Moore of Alabama; Morris
of Ohio; Robinson of Illinois; Shepley of Maine; Tallmadge of New
York; Tipton of Indiana; Hugh L. White of Tennessee; Wilkins of
Pennsylvania; Silas Wright of New York.--20. And thus the resolution
was passed, and was nothing but an empty fulmination--a mere
personal censure--having no relation to any business or proceeding
in the Senate; and evidently intended for effect on the people. To
increase this effect, Mr. Clay proposed a resolve that the Secretary
should count the names of the signers to the memorials for and
against the act of the removal, and strike the balance between them,
which he computed at an hundred thousand: evidently intending to add
the effect of this popular voice to the weight of the senatorial
condemnation. The number turned out to be unexpectedly small,
considering the means by which they were collected.
When passed, the total irrelevance of the resolution to any right
or duty of the Senate was made manifest by the insignificance
that attended its decision. There was nothing to be done with
it, or upon it, or under it, or in relation to it. It went to no
committee, laid the foundation for no action, was not communicable
to the other House, or to the President; and remained an intrusive
fulmination on the Senate Journal: put there not for any legislative
purpose, but purely and simply for popular effect. Great reliance
was placed upon that effect. It was fully believed--notwithstanding
the experience of the Senate, in Mr. Van Buren's case--that a
senatorial condemnation would destroy whomsoever it struck--even
General Jackson. Vain calculation! and equally condemned by the
lessons of history, and by the impulsions of the human heart. Fair
play is the first feeling of the masses; a fair and impartial trial
is the law of the heart, as well as of the land; and no condemnation
is tolerated of any man by his enemies. All such are required to
retire from the box and the bench, on a real trial: much more to
refrain from a simulated one; and above all from instigating one.
Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Clay were both known to have their private
griefs against General Jackson and also to have been in vehement
opposition to each other, and that they had "compromised" their
own bone of contention to be able to act in conjunction against
him. The instinctive sagacity of the people saw all this; and their
innate sense of justice and decorum revolted at it; and at the end
of these proceedings, the results were in exact contradiction to
the calculation of their effect. General Jackson was more popular
than ever; the leaders in the movement against him were nationally
crippled; their friends, in many instances, were politically
destroyed in their States. It was a second edition of "Fox's
martyrs."
During all the progress of this proceeding--while a phalanx of
orators and speakers were daily fulminating against him--while many
hundred newspapers incessantly assailed him--while public meetings
were held in all parts, and men of all sorts, even beardless youths,
harangued against him as if he had been a Nero--while a stream of
committees was pouring upon him (as they were called), and whom
he soon refused to receive in that character; during the hundred
days that all this was going on, and to judge from the imposing
appearance which the crowds made that came to Washington to bring up
the "distress," and to give countenance to the Senate, and emphasis
to its proceedings, and to fill the daily gallery, applauding the
speakers against the President--saluting with noise and confusion
those who spoke on his side: during all this time, and when a
nation seemed to be in arms, and the earth in commotion against
him, he was tranquil and quiet, confident of eventual victory, and
firmly relying upon God and the people to set all right. I was
accustomed to see him often during that time, always in the night
(for I had no time to quit my seat during the day); and never saw
him appear more truly heroic and grand than at this time. He was
perfectly mild in his language, cheerful in his temper, firm in his
conviction; and confident in his reliance on the power in which
he put his trust. I have seen him in a great many situations of
peril, and even of desperation, both civil and military, and always
saw him firmly relying upon the success of the right through God
and the people; and never saw that confidence more firm and steady
than now. After giving him an account of the day's proceedings,
talking over the state of the contest, and ready to return to sleep
a little, and prepare much, for the combats of the next day, he
would usually say: "We shall whip them yet. The people will take
it up after a while." But he also had good defenders present, and
in both Houses, and men who did not confine themselves to the
defensive--did not limit themselves to returning blow for blow--but
assailed the assailants--boldly charging upon them their own illegal
conduct--exposing the rottenness of their ally, the bank--showing
its corruption in conciliating politicians, and its criminality in
distressing the people--and the unholiness of the combination which,
to attain political power and secure a bank charter, were seducing
the venal, terrifying the timid, disturbing the country, destroying
business and property, and falsely accusing the President of great
crimes and misdemeanors; because, faithful and fearless, he stood
sole obstacle to the success of the combined powers. Our labors were
great and incessant, for we had superior numbers, and great ability
to contend against. I spoke myself above thirty times; others as
often; all many times; and all strained to the utmost; for we felt,
that the cause of Jackson was that of the country--his defeat that
of the people--and the success of the combination, the delivering
up of the government to the domination of a moneyed power which
knew no mode of government but that of corruption and oppression.
We contended strenuously in both Houses; and as courageously in
the Senate against a fixed majority as if we had some chance for
success; but our exertions were not for the Senate, but for the
people--not to change senatorial votes, but to rouse the masses
throughout the land; and while borne down by a majority of ten in
the Senate, we looked with pride to the other end of the building;
and derived confidence from the contemplation of a majority of
fifty, fresh from the elections of the people, and strong in their
good cause. It was a scene for Mons. De Tocqueville to have looked
on to have learnt which way the difference lay between the men of
the direct vote of the people, and those of the indirect vote of the
General Assembly, "filtrated" through the "refining" process of an
intermediate body.
But although fictitious and forged, yet the distress was real,
and did an immensity of mischief. Vast numbers of individuals
were ruined, or crippled in their affairs; a great many banks
were broken--a run being made upon all that would not come
into the system of the national bank. The deposit banks above
all were selected for pressure. Several of them were driven
to suspension--some to give up the deposits--and the bank in
Washington, in which the treasury did its business, was only saved
from closing its doors by running wagons with specie through mud
and mire from the mint in Philadelphia to the bank in Washington, to
supply the place of what was hauled from the bank in Washington to
the national bank in Philadelphia--the two sets of wagons, one going
and one coming, often passing each other on the road. But, while
ruin was going on upon others, the great corporation in Philadelphia
was doing well. The distress of the country was its harvest; and its
monthly returns showed constant increases of specie.
When all was over, and the Senate's sentence had been sent out to
do its office among the people, General Jackson felt that the time
had come for him to speak; and did so in a "Protest," addressed to
the Senate, and remarkable for the temperance and moderation of
its language. He had considered the proceeding against him, from
the beginning, as illegal and void--as having no legislative aim
or object--as being intended merely for censure; and, therefore,
not coming within any power or duty of the Senate. He deemed it
extra-judicial and unparliamentary, legally no more than the act of
a town meeting, while invested with the forms of a legal proceeding;
and intended to act upon the public mind with the force of a
sentence of conviction on an impeachment, while in reality but a
personal act against him in his personal, and not in his official
character. This idea he prominently put forth in his "Protest;" from
which some passages are here given:
"The resolution in question was introduced, discussed, and
passed, not as a joint, but as a separate resolution. It
asserts no legislative power, proposes no legislative action;
and neither possesses the form nor any of the attributes of a
legislative measure. It does not appear to have been entertained
or passed, with any view or expectation of its issuing in a
law or joint resolution, or in the repeal of any law or joint
resolution, or in any other legislative action.
"Whilst wanting both the form and substance of a legislative
measure, it is equally manifest, that the resolution was not
justified by any of the executive powers conferred on the
Senate. These powers relate exclusively to the consideration of
treaties and nominations to office; and they are exercised in
secret session, and with closed doors. This resolution does not
apply to any treaty or nomination, and was passed in a public
session.
"Nor does this proceeding in any way belong to that class
of incidental resolutions which relate to the officers of
the Senate, to their chamber, and other appurtenances, or to
subjects of order, and other matters of the like nature--in all
which either House may lawfully proceed without any co-operation
with the other, or with the President.
"On the contrary the whole phraseology and sense of the
resolution seem to be judicial. Its essence, true character,
and only practical effect, are to be found in the conduct which
it charges upon the President, and in the judgment which it
pronounces on that conduct. The resolution, therefore, though
discussed and adopted by the Senate in its legislative capacity,
is, in its office, and in all its characteristics, essentially
judicial.
"That the Senate possesses a high judicial power, and that
instances may occur in which the President of the United States
will be amenable to it, is undeniable. But under the provisions
of the constitution, it would seem to be equally plain that
neither the President nor any other officer can be rightfully
subjected to the operation of the judicial power of the Senate
except in the cases and under the forms prescribed by the
constitution.
"The constitution declares that 'the President, Vice-President,
and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed
from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason,
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors'--that the
House of Representatives 'shall have the sole power of
impeachment'--that the Senate 'shall have the sole power to
try all impeachments'--that 'when sitting for that purpose,
they shall be on oath or affirmation'--that 'when the
President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice
shall preside'--that no person shall be convicted without the
concurrence of two-thirds of the members present'--and that
'judgment shall not extend further than to remove from office,
and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust or profit, under the United States.'
"The resolution above quoted, charges in substance that in
certain proceedings relating to the public revenue, the
President has usurped authority and power not conferred upon him
by the constitution and laws, and that in doing so he violated
both. Any such act constitutes a high crime--one of the highest,
indeed, which the President can commit--a crime which justly
exposes him to impeachment by the House of Representatives, and
upon due conviction, to removal from office, and to the complete
and immutable disfranchisement prescribed by the constitution.
"The resolution, then, was in substance an impeachment of the
President; and in its passage amounts to a declaration by a
majority of the Senate, that he is guilty of an impeachable
offence. As such it is spread upon the journals of the
Senate--published to the nation and to the world--made part
of our enduring archives--and incorporated in the history of
the age. The punishment of removal from office and future
disqualification, does not, it is true, follow this decision;
nor would it have followed the like decision, if the regular
forms of proceeding had been pursued, because the requisite
number did not concur in the result. But the moral influence
of a solemn declaration, by a majority of the Senate, that the
accused is guilty of the offence charged upon him, has been
as effectually secured, as if the like declaration had been
made upon an impeachment expressed in the same terms. Indeed,
a greater practical effect has been gained, because the votes
given for the resolution, though not sufficient to authorize a
judgment of guilty on an impeachment, were numerous enough to
carry that resolution.
"That the resolution does not expressly allege that the
assumption of power and authority, which it condemns, was
intentional and corrupt, is no answer to the preceding view of
its character and effect. The act thus condemned, necessarily
implies volition and design in the individual to whom it
is imputed, and being unlawful in its character, the legal
conclusion is, that it was prompted by improper motives,
and committed with an unlawful intent. The charge is not of
a mistake in the exercise of supposed powers, but of the
assumption of powers not conferred by the constitution and laws,
but in derogation of both, and nothing is suggested to excuse or
palliate the turpitude of the act. In the absence of any such
excuse, or palliation, there is room only for one inference;
and that is, that the intent was unlawful and corrupt. Besides,
the resolution not only contains no mitigating suggestion, but
on the contrary, it holds up the act complained of as justly
obnoxious to censure and reprobation; and thus as distinctly
stamps it with impurity of motive, as if the strongest epithets
had been used.
"The President of the United States, therefore, has been by a
majority of his constitutional triers, accused and found guilty
of an impeachable offence; but in no part of this proceeding
have the directions of the constitution been observed.
"The impeachment, instead of being preferred and prosecuted by
the House of Representatives, originated in the Senate, and was
prosecuted without the aid or concurrence of the other House.
The oath or affirmation prescribed by the constitution, was
not taken by the senators; the Chief Justice did not preside;
no notice of the charge was given to the accused; and no
opportunity afforded him to respond to the accusation, to meet
his accusers face to face, to cross-examine the witnesses, to
procure counteracting testimony, or to be heard in his defence.
The safeguards and formalities which the constitution has
connected with the power of impeachment, were doubtless supposed
by the framers of that instrument, to be essential to the
protection of the public servant, to the attainment of justice,
and to the order, impartiality, and dignity of the procedure.
These safeguards and formalities were not only practically
disregarded, in the commencement and conduct of these
proceedings, but in their result, I find myself convicted by
less than two-thirds of the members present, of an impeachable
offence."
Having thus shown the proceedings of the Senate to have been
extra-judicial and the mere fulmination of a censure, such as might
come from a "mass meeting," and finding no warrant in any right or
duty of the body, and intended for nothing but to operate upon him
personally, he then showed that senators from three States had voted
contrary to the sense of their respective State legislatures. On
this point he said:
"There are also some other circumstances connected with the
discussion and passage of the resolution, to which I feel it
to be, not only my right, but my duty to refer. It appears by
the journal of the Senate, that among the twenty-six senators
who voted for the resolution on its final passage, and who had
supported it in debate, in its original form, were one of the
senators from the State of Maine, the two senators from New
Jersey, and one of the senators from Ohio. It also appears by
the same journal, and by the files of the Senate, that the
legislatures of these States had severally expressed their
opinions in respect to the Executive proceedings drawn in
question before the Senate.
"It is thus seen that four senators have declared by their
votes that the President, in the late Executive proceedings in
relation to the revenue, had been guilty of the impeachable
offence of 'assuming upon himself authority and power not
conferred by the constitution and laws, but in derogation of
both,' whilst the legislatures of their respective States had
deliberately approved those very proceedings, as consistent with
the constitution, and demanded by the public good. If these
four votes had been given in accordance with the sentiments of
the legislatures, as above expressed, there would have been but
twenty-four votes out of forty-six for censuring the President,
and the unprecedented record of his conviction could not have
been placed upon the journals of the Senate.
"In thus referring to the resolutions and instructions of State
legislatures, I disclaim and repudiate all authority or design
to interfere with the responsibility due from members of the
Senate to their own consciences, their constituents and their
country. The facts now stated belong to the history of these
proceedings, and are important to the just development of the
principles and interests involved in them, as well as to the
proper vindication of the Executive department, and with that
view, and that view only, are they here made the topic of
remark."
The President then entered his solemn protest against the Senate's
proceedings in these words:
"With this view, and for the reasons which have been stated,
I do hereby solemnly protest against the aforementioned
proceedings of the Senate, as unauthorized by the constitution;
contrary to its spirit and to several of its express provisions;
subversive of that distribution of the powers of government
which it has ordained and established; destructive of the checks
and safeguards by which those powers were intended, on the one
hand, to be controlled, and, on the other, to be protected;
and calculated, by their immediate and collateral effects, by
their character and tendency, to concentrate in the hands of a
body not directly amenable to the people, a degree of influence
and power dangerous to their liberties, and fatal to the
constitution of their choice."
And it concluded with an affecting appeal to his private history
for the patriotism and integrity of his life, and the illustration
of his conduct in relation to the bank, and showed his reliance on
God and the People to sustain him; and looked with confidence to the
place which justice would assign him on the page of history. This
moving peroration was in these words:
"The resolution of the Senate contains an imputation upon my
private as well as upon my public character; and as it must
stand for ever on their journals, I cannot close this substitute
for that defence which I have not been allowed to present in
the ordinary form, without remarking, that I have lived in
vain, if it be necessary to enter into a formal vindication
of my character and purposes from such an imputation. In vain
do I bear upon my person, enduring memorials of that contest
in which American liberty was purchased; in vain have I since
perilled property, fame, and life, in defence of the rights
and privileges so dearly bought: in vain am I now, without
a personal aspiration, or the hope of individual advantage,
encountering responsibilities and dangers, from which, by mere
inactivity in relation to a single point, I might have been
exempt--if any serious doubts can be entertained as to the
purity of my purposes and motives. If I had been ambitious, I
should have sought an alliance with that powerful institution,
which even now aspires to no divided empire. If I had been
venal, I should have sold myself to its designs. Had I preferred
personal comfort and official ease to the performance of my
arduous duty, I should have ceased to molest it. In the history
of conquerors and usurpers, never, in the fire of youth, nor
in the vigor of manhood, could I find an attraction to lure
me from the path of duty; and now, I shall scarcely find an
inducement to commence the career of ambition, when gray hairs
and a decaying frame, instead of inviting to toil and battle,
call me to the contemplation of other worlds, where conquerors
cease to be honored, and usurpers expiate their crimes. The
only ambition I can feel, is to acquit myself to Him to whom
I must soon render an account of my stewardship, to serve my
fellow-men, and live respected and honored in the history of
my country. No; the ambition which leads me on, is an anxious
desire and a fixed determination, to return to the people,
unimpaired, the sacred trust they have confided to my charge--to
heal the wounds of the constitution and preserve it from
further violation; to persuade my countrymen, so far as I may,
that it is not in a splendid government, supported by powerful
monopolies and aristocratical establishments, that they will
find happiness, or their liberties protected, but in a plain
system, void of pomp--protecting all, and granting favors to
none--dispensing its blessings like the dews of heaven, unseen
and unfelt, save in the freshness and beauty they contribute
to produce. It is such a government that the genius of our
people requires--such a one only under which our States may
remain for ages to come, united, prosperous, and free. If the
Almighty Being who has hitherto sustained and protected me,
will but vouchsafe to make my feeble powers instrumental to
such a result, I shall anticipate with pleasure the place to be
assigned me in the history of my country, and die contented with
the belief, that I have contributed in some small degree, to
increase the value and prolong the duration of American liberty.
"To the end that the resolution of the Senate may not be
hereafter drawn into precedent, with the authority of silent
acquiescence on the part of the Executive department; and to the
end, also, that my motives and views in the Executive proceeding
denounced in that resolution may be known to my fellow-citizens,
to the world, and to all posterity, I respectfully request
that this message and protest may be entered at length on the
journals of the Senate."
No sooner was this Protest read in the Senate than it gave rise to
a scene of the greatest excitement. Mr. Poindexter, of Mississippi,
immediately assailed it as a breach of the privileges of the
Senate, and unfit to be received by the body. He said: "I will not
dignify this paper by considering it in the light of an Executive
message: it is no such thing. I regard it simply as a paper, with
the signature of Andrew Jackson; and, should the Senate refuse to
receive it, it will not be the first paper with the same signature
which has been refused a hearing in this body, on the ground of the
abusive and vituperative language which it contained. This effort to
denounce and overawe the deliberations of the Senate may properly
be regarded as capping the climax of that systematic plan of
operations which had for several years been in progress, designed
to bring this body into disrepute among the people, and thereby
remove the only existing barrier to the arbitrary encroachments
and usurpations of Executive power:"--and he moved that the paper,
as he called it, should not be received. Mr. Benton deemed this a
proper occasion to give notice of his intention to move a strong
measure which he contemplated--an expunging resolution against the
sentence of the Senate:--a determination to which he had come from
his own convictions of right, and which he now announced without
consultation with any of his friends. He deemed this movement too
bold to be submitted to a council of friends--too daring to expect
their concurrence;--and believed it was better to proceed without
their knowledge, than against their decision. He, therefore,
delivered his notice _ex abruptu_, accompanied by an earnest
invective against the conduct of the Senate; and committed himself
irrevocably to the prosecution of the "expunging resolution" until
he should succeed in the effort, or terminate his political life: He
said:
"The public mind was now to be occupied with a question of the
very first moment and importance, and identical in all its
features with the great question growing out of the famous
resolutions of the English House of Commons in the case of the
Middlesex election in the year 1768; and which engrossed the
attention of the British empire for fourteen years before it was
settled. That question was one in which the House of Commons was
judged, and condemned, for adopting a resolution which was held
by the subjects of the British crown to be a violation of their
constitution, and a subversion of the rights of Englishmen: the
question now before the Senate, and which will go before the
American people, grows out of a resolution in which he (Mr. B.)
believed that the constitution had been violated--the privileges
of the House of Representatives invaded--and the rights of an
American citizen, in the person of the President, subverted.
The resolution of the House of Commons, after fourteen years of
annual motions, was expunged from the Journal of the House; and
he pledged himself to the American people to commence a similar
series of motions with respect to this resolution of the Senate.
He had made up his mind to do so without consultation with any
human being, and without deigning to calculate the chances or
the time of success. He rested under the firm conviction that
the resolution of the Senate, which had drawn from the President
the calm, temperate, and dignified protest, which had been read
at the table, was a resolution which ought to be expunged from
the Journal of the Senate; and if any thing was necessary to
stimulate his sense of duty in making a motion to that effect,
and in encouraging others after he was gone, in following up
that motion to success, it would be found in the history and
termination of the similar motion which was made in the English
House of Commons to which he had referred. That motion was
renewed for fourteen years--from 1768 to 1782--before it was
successful. For the first seven years, the lofty and indignant
majority did not condescend to reply to the motion. They sunk it
under a dead vote as often as presented. The second seven years
they replied; and at the end of the term, and on the assembling
of a new Parliament, the veteran motion was carried by more than
two to one; and the gratifying spectacle was beheld of a public
expurgation, in the face of the assembled Commons of England,
of the obnoxious resolution from the Journal of the House. The
elections in England were septennial, and it took two terms of
seven years, or two general elections, to bring the sense of the
kingdom to bear upon their representatives. The elections of the
Senate were sexennial, with intercalary exits and entrances,
and it might take a less, or a longer period, he would not
presume to say which, to bring the sense of the American people
to bear upon an act of the American Senate. Of that, he would
make no calculation; but the final success of the motion in the
English House of Commons, after fourteen years' perseverance,
was a sufficient encouragement for him to begin, and doubtless
would encourage others to continue, until the good work should
be crowned with success; and the only atonement made which it
was in the Senate's power to make, to the violated majesty
of the constitution, the invaded privileges of the House of
Representatives and the subverted rights of an American citizen.
"In bringing this great question before the American people, Mr.
B. should consider himself as addressing the calm intelligence
of an enlightened community. He believed the body of the
American people to be the most enlightened community upon earth;
and, without the least disparagement to the present Senate, he
must be permitted to believe that many such Senates might be
drawn from the ranks of the people, and still leave no dearth
of intelligence behind. To such a community--in an appeal, on
a great question of constitutional law, to the understandings
of such a people--declamation, passion, epithets, opprobrious
language, would stand for nothing. They would float, harmless
and unheeded, through the empty air, and strike in vain upon
the ear of a sober and dispassionate tribunal. Indignation,
real or affected; wrath, however hot; fury, however enraged;
asseverations, however violent; denunciation, however furious;
will avail nothing. Facts--inexorable facts--are all that will
be attended to; reason, calm and self-possessed, is all that
will be listened to. An intelligent tribunal will exact the
respect of an address to their understandings; and he that
wishes to be heard in this great question, or being heard,
would wish to be heeded, will have occasion to be clear and
correct in his facts; close and perspicuous in his application
of law; fair and candid in his conclusions and inferences;
temperate and decorous in his language; and scrupulously free
from every taint of vengeance and malice. Solemnly impressed
with the truth of all these convictions, it was the intention of
himself (Mr. B.), whatever the example or the provocation might
be--never to forget his place, his subject, his audience, and
his object--never to forget that he was speaking in the American
Senate, on a question of violated constitution and outraged
individual right, to an audience comprehending the whole body
of the American people, and for the purpose of obtaining a
righteous decision from the calm and sober judgment of a
high-minded, intelligent, and patriotic community.
"The question immediately before the Senate was one of minor
consequence; it might be called a question of small import,
except for the effect which the decision might have upon the
Senate itself. In that point of view, it might be a question
of some moment; for, without reference to individuals, it
was essential to the cause of free governments, that every
department of the government, the Senate inclusive, should so
act as to preserve to itself the respect and the confidence of
the country. The immediate question was, upon the rejection of
the President's message. It was moved to reject it--to reject
it, not after it was considered, but before it was considered!
and thus to tell the American people that their President shall
not be heard--should not be allowed to plead his defence--in
the presence of the body that condemned him--neither before the
condemnation, nor after it! This is the motion: and certainly no
enemy to the Senate could wish it to miscarry. The President,
in the conclusion of his message, has respectfully requested
that his defence might be entered upon the Journal of the
Senate--upon that same Journal which contains the record of
his conviction. This is the request of the President. Will the
Senate deny it? Will they refuse this act of sheer justice
and common decency? Will they go further, and not only refuse
to place it on the Journal, but refuse even to suffer it to
remain in the Senate? Will they refuse to permit it to remain
on file, but send it back, or throw it out of doors, without
condescending to reply to it? For that is the exact import of
the motion now made! Will senators exhaust their minds, and
their bodies also, in loading this very communication with
epithets, and then say that it shall not be received? Will they
receive memorials, resolutions, essays, from all that choose
to abuse the President, and not receive a word of defence from
him? Will they continue the spectacle which had been presented
here for three months--a daily presentation of attacks upon the
President from all that choose to attack him, young and old,
boys and men--attacks echoing the very sound of this resolution,
and which are not only received and filed here, but printed,
which, possibly, the twenty-six could not unite here, nor go
to trial upon any where! He remarked, in the third place, upon
the effect produced in the character of the resolution, and
affirmed that it was nothing. He said that the same charge ran
through all three. They all three imputed to the President a
violation of the constitution and laws of the country--of that
constitution which he was sworn to support, and of those laws
which he was not only bound to observe himself, but to cause to
be faithfully observed by all others.
"A violation of the constitution and of the laws, Mr. B. said,
were not abstractions and metaphysical subtleties. They must
relate to persons or things. The violations cannot rest in
the air; they must affix themselves to men or to property;
they must connect themselves with the transactions of real
life. They cannot be ideal and contemplative. In omitting the
specifications relative to the dismission of one Secretary
of the Treasury, and the appointment of another, what other
specifications were adopted or substituted? Certainly none! What
others were mentally intended? Surely none! What others were
suggested? Certainly none! The general charge then rests upon
the same specification; and so completely is this the fact,
that no supporter of the resolutions has thought it necessary
to make the least alteration in his speeches which supported
the original resolution, or to say a single additional word in
favor of the altered resolution as finally passed. The omission
of the specification is then an omission of form and not of
substance; it is a change of words and not of things; and the
substitution of a derogation of the laws and constitution,
for dangerous to the liberties of the people, is a still more
flagrant instance of change of words without change of things.
It is tautologous and nonsensical. It adds nothing to the
general charge, and takes nothing from it. It neither explains
it nor qualifies it. In the technical sense it is absurd; for
it is not the case of a statute in derogation of the common
law, to wit, repealing a part of it; in the common parlance
understanding, it is ridiculous, for the President is not even
charged with defaming the constitution and the laws; and, if he
was so charged, it would present a curious trial of _scandalum
magnatum_ for the American Senate to engage in. No! said Mr. B.,
this derogation clause is an expletion! It is put in to fill up!
The regular impeaching clause of dangerous to the liberties of
the people, had to be taken out. There was danger, not in the
people certainly, but to the character of the resolution, if it
staid in. It identified that resolution as an impeachment, and,
therefore, constituted a piece of internal evidence which it was
necessary to withdraw; but in withdrawing which, the character
of the resolution was not altered. The charge for violating
the laws and the constitution still stood; and the substituted
clause was nothing but a stopper to a vacuum--additional sound
without additional sense, to fill up a blank and round off a
sentence.
"After showing the impeaching character of the Senate's
resolution, from its own internal evidence, Mr. B. had recourse
to another description of evidence, scarcely inferior to the
resolutions themselves, in the authentic interpretations of
their meaning. He alluded to the speeches made in support
of them, and which had resounded in this chamber for three
months, and were now circulating all over the country in every
variety of newspaper and pamphlet form. These speeches were
made by the friends of the resolution to procure its adoption
here, and to justify its adoption before the country. Let the
country then read, let the people read, what has been sent to
them for the purpose of justifying these resolutions which they
are now to try! They will find them to be in the character of
prosecution pleadings against an accused man, on his trial
for the commission of great crimes! Let them look over these
speeches, and mark the passages; they will find language
ransacked, history rummaged, to find words sufficiently strong,
and examples sufficiently odious, to paint and exemplify the
enormity of the crime of which the President was alleged to be
guilty. After reading these passages, let any one doubt, if he
can, as to the character of the resolution which was adopted.
Let him doubt, if he can, of the impeachable nature of the
offence which was charged upon the President. Let him doubt,
if he can, that every Senator who voted for that resolution,
voted the President to be guilty of an impeachable offence--an
offence, for the trial of which this Senate is the appointed
tribunal--an offence which it will be the immediate duty of the
House of Representatives to bring before the Senate, in a formal
impeachment, unless they disbelieve in the truth and justice of
the resolution which has been adopted.
"Mr. B. said there were three characters in which the Senate
could act; and every time it acted it necessarily did so in
one or the other of these characters. It possessed executive,
legislative, and judicial characters. As a part of the
executive, it acted on treaties and nominations to office;
as a part of the legislative, it assisted in making laws; as
a judicial tribunal, it decided impeachments. Now, in which
of these characters did the Senate act when it adopted the
resolution in question? Not in its executive character, it
will be admitted; not in its legislative character, it will be
proved: for the resolution was, in its nature, wholly foreign to
legislation. It was directed, not to the formation of a law, but
to the condemnation of the President. It was to condemn him for
dismissing one Secretary, because he would not do a thing, and
appointing another that he might do it; and certainly this was
not matter for legislation; for Mr. Duane could not be restored
by law, nor Mr. Taney be put out by law. It was to convict the
President of violating the constitution and the laws; and surely
these infractions are not to be amended by laws, but avenged by
trial and punishment. The very nature of the resolution proves
it to be foreign to all legislation; its form proves the same
thing; for it is not joint, to require the action of the House
of Representatives, and thus ripen into law; nor is it followed
by an instruction to a committee to report a bill in conformity
to it. No such instruction could even now be added without
committing an absurdity of the most ridiculous character. There
was another resolution, with which this must not be confounded,
and upon which an instruction to a committee might have been
bottomed; it was the resolution which declared the Secretary's
reasons for removing the deposits to be insufficient and
unsatisfactory; but no such instruction has been bottomed even
upon that resolution; so that it is evident that no legislation
of any kind was intended to follow either resolution, even that
to which legislation might have been appropriate, much less
that to which it would have been an absurdity. Four months have
elapsed since the resolutions were brought in. In all that
time, there has been no attempt to found a legislative act
upon either of them; and it is too late now to assume that the
one which, in its nature and in its form, is wholly foreign to
legislation, is a legislative act, and adopted by the Senate
in its legislative character. No! This resolution is judicial;
it is a judgment pronounced upon an imputed offence; it is the
declared sense of a majority of the Senate, of the guilt of the
President of a high crime and misdemeanor. It is, in substance,
an impeachment--an impeachment in violation of all the forms
prescribed by the constitution--in violation of the privileges
of the House of Representatives--in subversion of the rights of
the accused, and the record of which ought to be expunged from
the Journal of the Senate.
"Mr. B. said the selection of a tribunal for the trial of
impeachments was felt, by the convention which framed the
constitution, as one of the most delicate and difficult tasks
which they had to perform. Those great men were well read in
history, both ancient and modern, and knew that the impeaching
power--the usual mode for trying political men for political
offences--was often an engine for the gratification of factious
and ambitious feelings. An impeachment was well known to
be the beaten road for running down a hated or successful
political rival. After great deliberation--after weighing all
the tribunals, even that of the Supreme Court--the Senate
of the United States was fixed upon as the body which, from
its constitution, would be the most impartial, neutral, and
equitable, that could be selected, and, with the check of a
previous inquisition, and presentment of charges by the House of
Representatives, would be the safest tribunal to which could
be confided a power so great in itself, and so susceptible of
being abused. The Senate was selected; and to show that he had
not overstated the difficulties of the convention in making the
selection, he would take leave to read a passage from a work
which was canonical on this subject, and from an article in that
work which was written by the gentleman whose authority would
have most weight on this occasion. He spoke of the Federalist,
and of the article written by General Hamilton on the impeaching
power:
"'A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an
object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained, in
a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction
are those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public
men; or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some
public trust. They are of a nature which may, with peculiar
propriety, be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to
injuries done immediately to society itself. The prosecution of
them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions
of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or
less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases, it will
connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist
all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest, on
one side or on the other; and, in such cases, there will always
be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated
more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real
demonstrations of innocence or guilt. The delicacy and magnitude
of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation
and existence of every man engaged in the administration of
public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing
it rightly in a government resting entirely on the basis of
periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is
considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from
that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the
most cunning or the most numerous faction; and, on this account,
can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality
towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.
"'The division of the powers of impeachment between the two
branches of the legislature, assigning to one the right
of accusing, to the other the right of trying, avoids the
inconvenience of making the same persons both accusers and
judges; and guards against the danger of persecution from the
prevalency of a factious spirit in either of those branches.'
"Mr. B. said there was much matter for elucidation of the
present object of discussion in the extract which he had read.
Its definition of an impeachable offence covered the identical
charge which was contained in the resolution adopted by the
Senate against the President. The offence charged upon him
possessed every feature of the impeachment defined by General
Hamilton. It imputes misconduct to a public man, for the abuse
and violation of a public trust. The discussion of the charge
has agitated the passions of the whole community; it has
divided the people into parties, some friendly, some inimical,
to the accused; it has connected itself with the pre-existing
parties, enlisting the whole of the opposition parties under
one banner, and calling forth all their animosities--all their
partialities--all their influence--all their interest; and,
what was not foreseen by General Hamilton, it has called forth
the tremendous moneyed power, and the pervading organization
of a great moneyed power, wielding a mass of forty millions of
money, and sixty millions of debt; wielding the whole in aid
and support of this charge upon the President, and working the
double battery of seduction, on one hand, and oppression on the
other, to put down the man against whom it is directed! This is
what General Hamilton did not foresee; but the next feature in
the picture he did foresee, and most accurately describe, as
it is now seen by us all. He said that the decision of these
impeachments would often be regulated more by the comparative
strength of parties than by the guilt or innocence of the
accused. How prophetic! Look to the memorials, resolutions, and
petitions, sent in here to criminate the President, so clearly
marked by a party line, that when an exception occurs, it is
made the special subject of public remark. Look at the vote in
the Senate, upon the adoption of the resolution, also as clearly
defined by a party line as any party question can ever be
expected to be.
"To guard the most conspicuous characters from being
persecuted--Mr. B. said he was using the language of General
Hamilton--to guard the most conspicuous characters from being
persecuted by the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or
the most numerous faction--the convention had placed the power
of trying impeachments, not in the Supreme Court, not even in
a body of select judges chosen for the occasion, but in the
Senate of the United States, and not even in them without an
intervening check to the abuse of that power, by associating
the House of Representatives, and forbidding the Senate to
proceed against any officer until that grand inquest of the
nation should demand his trial. How far fortunate, or otherwise,
the convention may have been in the selection of its tribunal
for the trial of impeachments, it was not for him, Mr. B., to
say. It was not for him to say how far the requisite neutrality
towards those whose conduct may be under scrutiny, may be found,
or has been found, in this body. But he must take leave to
say, that if a public man may be virtually impeached--actually
condemned by the Senate of an impeachable offence, without the
intervention of the House of Representatives, then has the
constitution failed at one of its most vital points and a ready
means found for doing a thing which had filled other countries
with persecution, faction, and violence, and which it was
intended should never be done here.
"Mr. B. called upon the Senate to recollect what was the feature
in the famous court of the Star Chamber, which rendered that
court the most odious that ever sat in England. It was not the
mass of its enormities--great as they were--for the regular
tribunals which yet existed, exceeded that court, both in the
mass and in the atrocity of their crimes and oppressions. The
regular courts in the compass of a single reign--that of James
the Second; a single judge, in a single riding--Jeffries,
on the Western Circuit--surpassed all the enormities of the
Star Chamber, in the whole course of its existence. What then
rendered that court so intolerably odious to the English
people? Sir, said Mr. B., it was because that court had no
grand jury--because it proceeded without presentment, without
indictment--upon information alone--and thus got at its victims
without the intervention, without the restraint, of an accusing
body. This is the feature which sunk the Star Chamber in
England. It is the feature which no criminal tribunal in this
America is allowed to possess. The most inconsiderable offender,
in any State of the Union, must be charged by a grand jury
before he can be tried by the court. In this Senate, sitting as
a high court of impeachment, a charge must first be presented
by the House of Representatives, sitting as the grand inquest
of the nation. But if the Senate can proceed, without the
intervention of this grand inquest, wherein is it to differ from
the Star Chamber, except in the mere execution of its decrees?
And what other execution is now required for delinquent public
men, than the force of public opinion? No! said Mr. B., we live
in an age when public opinion over public men, is omnipotent and
irreversible!--when public sentiment annihilates a public man
more effectually than the scaffold. To this new and omnipotent
tribunal, all the public men of Europe and America are now
happily subject. The fiat of public opinion has superseded
the axe of the executioner. Struck by that opinion, kings
and emperors in Europe, and the highest functionaries among
ourselves, fall powerless from the political stage, and wander,
while their bodies live, as shadows and phantoms over the land.
Should he give examples? It might be invidious; yet all would
recollect an eminent example of a citizen, once sitting at
the head of this Senate, afterwards falling under a judicial
prosecution, from which he escaped untouched by the sword of the
law, yet that eminent citizen was more utterly annihilated by
public opinion, than any execution of a capital sentence could
ever have accomplished upon his name.
"What occasion then has the Senate, sitting as a court of
impeachment, for the power of execution? The only effect of
a regular impeachment now, is to remove from office, and
disqualification for office. An irregular impeachment will be
tantamount to removal and disqualification, if the justice of
the sentence is confided in by the people. If this condemnation
of the President had been pronounced in the first term of his
administration, and the people had believed in the truth and
justice of the sentence, certainly President Jackson would
not have been elected a second time; and every object that a
political rival, or a political party, could have wished from
his removal from office, and disqualification for office, would
have been accomplished. Disqualification for office--loss of
public favor--political death--is now the object of political
rivalship; and all this can be accomplished by an informal,
as well as by a formal impeachment, if the sentence is only
confided in by the people. If the people believed that the
President has violated the constitution and the laws, he ceases
to be the object of their respect and their confidence; he
loses their favor; he dies a political death; and that this
might be the object of the resolution, Mr. B. would leave to
the determination of those who should read the speeches which
were delivered in support of the measure, and which would
constitute a public and lasting monument of the temper in which
the resolution was presented, and the object intended to be
accomplished by it.
"It was in vain to say there could be no object, at this
time, in annihilating the political influence of President
Jackson, and killing him off as a public man, with a senatorial
conviction for violating the laws and constitution of the
country. Such an assertion, if ventured upon by any one, would
stand contradicted by facts, of which Europe and America are
witnesses. Does he not stand between the country and the bank?
Is he not proclaimed the sole obstacle to the recharter of
the bank; and in its recharter is there not wrapped up the
destinies of a political party, now panting for power? Remove
this sole obstacle--annihilate its influence--kill off President
Jackson with a sentence of condemnation for a high crime and
misdemeanor, and the charter of the bank will be renewed, and in
its renewal, a political party, now thundering at the gates of
the capitol, will leap into power. Here then is an object for
desiring the extinction of the political influence of President
Jackson! An object large enough to be seen by all America! and
attractive enough to enlist the combined interest of a great
moneyed power, and of a great political party."
Thus spoke Mr. Benton; but the debate on the protest went on;
and the motion of Mr. Poindexter, digested into four different
propositions, after undergoing repeated modifications upon
consultations among its friends, and after much acrimony on both
sides, was adopted by the fixed majority of twenty-seven. In voting
that the protest was a breach of the privileges of the Senate,
that body virtually affirmed the impeachment character of the
condemnatory resolutions, and involved itself in the predicament of
voting an impeachable matter without observing a single rule for
the conduct of impeachments. The protest placed it in a dilemma.
It averred the Senate's judgment to be without authority--without
any warrant in the constitution--any right in the body to pronounce
it. To receive that protest, and enter it on the journal, was to
record a strong evidence against themselves; to reject it as a
breach of privilege was to claim for their proceeding the immunity
of a regular and constitutional act; and as the proceeding was on
criminal matter, amounting to a high crime and misdemeanor, on
which matter the Senate could only act in its judicial capacity;
therefore it had to claim the immunity that would belong to it in
that capacity; and assume a violation of privilege. Certainly if the
Senate had tried an impeachment in due form, the protest, impeaching
its justice, might have been a breach of privilege; but the Senate
had no privilege to vote an impeachable matter without a regular
impeachment; and therefore it was no breach of privilege to impugn
the act which they had no privilege to commit.
CHAPTER CIV.
MR. WEBSTER'S PLAN OF RELIEF.
It has already been seen that Mr. Webster took no direct part in
promoting the adoption of the resolutions against General Jackson.
He had no private grief to incite him against the President; and,
as first drawn up, it would have been impossible for him, honored
with the titles of "expounder and defender of the constitution," to
have supported the resolve: bearing plainly on its face impeachable
matter. After several modifications, he voted for it; but, from the
beginning, he had his own plan in view, which was entirely different
from an attack on the President; and solely looked to the advantage
of the bank, and the relief of the distress, in a practical and
parliamentary mode of legislation. He looked to a renewal of the
bank charter for a short term, and with such modifications as
would tend to disarm opposition, and to conciliate favor for it.
The term of the renewal was only to be for six years: a length of
time well chosen; because, from the shortness of the period, it
would have an attraction for all that class of members--always
more or less numerous in every assembly--who, in every difficulty,
are disposed to temporize and compromise; while, to the bank, in
carrying its existence beyond the presidential term of General
Jackson, it felt secure in the future acquisition of a full term.
Besides the attraction in the short period, Mr. Webster proposed
another amelioration, calculated to have serious effect; it was to
give up the exclusive or monopoly feature in the charter--leaving
to Congress to grant any other charter, in the mean time, to a new
company, if it pleased. The objectionable branch bank currency
of petty drafts was also given up. Besides this, and as an
understanding that the corporation would not attempt to obtain a
further existence beyond the six years, the directors were to be
at liberty to begin to return the capital to the stockholders at
any time within the period of three years, before the expiration of
the six renewed years. The deposits were not to be restored until
after the first day of July; and, as an agreeable concession to
the enemies of small paper currency the bank was to issue, or use,
no note under the amount of twenty dollars. He had drawn up a bill
with these provisions, and asked leave to bring it in; and, asking
the leave, made a very plausible business speech in its favor: the
best perhaps that could have been devised. In addition to his own
weight, and the recommendations in the bill, it was understood to
be the preference of Mr. Biddle himself--his own choice of remedies
in the difficulties which surrounded his institution. But he met
opposition from quarters not to be expected: from Mr. Clay, who
went for the full term of twenty years; and Mr. Calhoun, who went
for twelve. It was difficult to comprehend why these two gentlemen
should wish to procure for the bank more than it asked, and which
it was manifestly impossible for it to gain. Mr. Webster's bill was
the only one that stood the least chance of getting through the two
Houses; and on that point he had private assurances of support from
friends of the administration, if all the friends of the bank stood
firm. In favoring this charter for twelve years, Mr. Calhoun felt
that an explanation of his conduct was due to the public, as he was
well known to have been opposed to the renewed charter, when so
vehemently attempted, in 1832; and also against banks generally. His
explanation was, that he considered it a currency question, and a
question between the national and local banks; and that the renewed
charter was to operate against them; and, in winding itself up, was
to cease for ever, having first established a safe currency. His
frequent expression was, that his plan was to "unbank the banks:" a
process not very intelligibly explained at the time, and on which
he should be allowed to speak for himself. Some passages are,
therefore, given from his speech:
"After a full survey of the whole subject, I can see no means of
extricating the country from its present danger, and to arrest
its further increase, but a bank, the agency of which, in some
form; or under some authority, is indispensable. The country has
been brought into the present diseased state of the currency
by banks, and must be extricated by their agency. We must, in
a word, use a bank to unbank the banks, to the extent that may
be necessary to restore a safe and stable currency--just as
we apply snow to a frozen limb, in order to restore vitality
and circulation, or hold up a burn to the flame to extract the
inflammation. All must see that it is impossible to suppress
the banking system at once. It must continue for a time. Its
greatest enemies, and the advocates of an exclusive specie
circulation, must make it a part of their system to tolerate
the banks for a longer or a shorter period. To suppress them at
once, would, if it were possible, work a greater revolution: a
greater change in the relative condition of the various classes
of the community than would the conquest of the country by a
savage enemy. What, then, must be done? I answer, a new and
safe system must gradually grow up under, and replace, the old;
imitating, in this respect, the beautiful process which we
sometimes see, of a wounded or diseased part in a living organic
body, gradually superseded by the healing process of nature.
"How is this to be effected? How is a bank to be used as the
means of correcting the excess of the banking system? And what
bank is to be selected as the agent to effect this salutary
change? I know, said Mr. C., that a diversity of opinion will
be found to exist, as to the agent to be selected, among those
who agree on every other point, and who, in particular, agree
on the necessity of using some bank as the means of effecting
the object intended; one preferring a simple recharter of
the existing bank--another, the charter of a new bank of the
United States--a third, a new bank ingrafted upon the old--and
a fourth, the use of the State banks, as the agent. I wish,
said Mr. C., to leave all these as open questions, to be
carefully surveyed and compared with each other, calmly and
dispassionately, without prejudice or party feeling; and that to
be selected which, on the whole, shall appear to be best--the
most safe; the most efficient; the most prompt in application,
and the least liable to constitutional objection. It would,
however, be wanting in candor on my part, not to declare that my
impression is, that a new Bank of the United States, ingrafted
upon the old, will be found, under all the circumstances of
the case, to combine the greatest advantages, and to be liable
to the fewest objections; but this impression is not so firmly
fixed as to be inconsistent with a calm review of the whole
ground, or to prevent my yielding to the conviction of reason,
should the result of such review prove that any other is
preferable. Among its peculiar recommendations, may be ranked
the consideration, that, while it would afford the means of a
prompt and effectual application for mitigating and finally
removing the existing distress, it would, at the same time, open
to the whole community a fair opportunity of participation in
the advantages of the institution, be they what they may.
"Let us then suppose (in order to illustrate and not to indicate
a preference) that the present bank be selected as the agent to
effect the intended object. What provisions will be necessary?
I will suggest those that have occurred to me, mainly, however,
with a view of exciting the reflection of those much more
familiar with banking operations than myself, and who, of
course, are more competent to form a correct judgment on their
practical effect.
"Let, then, the bank charter be renewed for twelve years after
the expiration of the present term, with such modifications and
limitations as may be judged proper, and that after that period,
it shall issue no notes under ten dollars; that government
shall not receive in its dues any sum less than ten dollars,
except in the legal coins of the United States; that it shall
not receive in its dues the notes of any bank that issues notes
of a denomination less than five dollars; and that the United
States Bank shall not receive in payment, or on deposit, the
notes of any bank whose notes are not receivable in dues of
the government; nor the notes of any bank which may receive
the notes of any bank whose notes are not receivable by the
government. At the expiration of six years from the commencement
of the renewed charter, let the bank be prohibited from issuing
any note under twenty dollars, and let no sum under that amount
be received in the dues of the government, except in specie;
and let the value of gold be raised at least equal to that of
silver, to take effect immediately, so that the country may be
replenished with the coin, the lightest and the most portable
in proportion to its value, to take the place of the receding
bank notes. It is unnecessary for me to state, that at present,
the standard value of gold is several per cent. less than that
of silver, the necessary effect of which has been to expel gold
entirely from our circulation, and thus to deprive us of a coin
so well calculated for the circulation of a country so great in
extent, and having so vast an intercourse, commercial, social,
and political, between all its parts, as ours. As an additional
recommendation to raise its relative value, gold has, of late,
become an important product of three considerable States of the
Union, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia--to the industry
of which, the measure proposed would give a strong impulse, and
which in turn would greatly increase the quantity produced.
"Such are the means which have occurred to me. There are members
of this body far more competent to judge of their practical
operation than myself, and as my object is simply to suggest
them for their reflection, and for that of others who are more
familiar with this part of the subject, I will not at present
enter into an inquiry as to their efficiency, with a view of
determining whether they are fully adequate to effect the
object in view or not. There are doubtless others of a similar
description, and perhaps more efficacious, that may occur to
the experienced, which I would freely embrace, as my object
is to adopt the best and most efficient. And it may be hoped
that, if on experience it should be found that neither these
provisions nor any other in the power of Congress, are fully
adequate to effect the important reform which I have proposed,
the co-operation of the States may be afforded, at least to
the extent of suppressing the circulation of notes under five
dollars, where such are permitted to be issued under their
authority."
The ultimate object proposed to be accomplished by Mr. Calhoun in
this process of "unbanking the banks," was to arrive eventually
and by slow degrees, at a metallic currency, and the revival of
gold. This had been my object, and so declared in the Senate, from
the time of the first opposition to the United States Bank. He had
talked his plan over to myself and others: we had talked over ours
to him. There was a point at which we all agreed--the restoration
of a metallic currency; but differed about the means--he expecting
to attain it slowly and eventually, through the process which he
mentioned; and we immediately, through the revival of the gold
currency, the extinction of the Bank of the United States, the
establishment of an independent treasury, and the exclusion of all
paper money from the federal receipts and payments. Laying hold of
the point on which we agreed, (and which was also the known policy
of the President), Mr. Calhoun appealed to Mr. Silas Wright and
myself and other friends of the administration, to support his plan.
He said:
"If I understand their views, as expressed by the senator from
Missouri, behind me (Mr. Benton)--the senator from New-York (Mr.
Wright); and other distinguished members of the party, and the
views of the President, as expressed in reported conversations,
I see not how they can reject the measure (_to wit_: his plan).
They profess to be the advocates of a metallic currency. I
propose to restore it by the most effectual measures that can be
devised, gradually and slowly, and to the extent that experience
may show that it can be done consistently with due regard to the
public interest. Further, no one can desire to go."
The reference here made by Mr. Calhoun to the views of the senator
from Missouri was to conversations held between them; in which each
freely communicated his own plan. Mr. Benton had not then brought
forward his proposition for the revival of the gold currency; but
did so, (in a speech which he had studied), the moment Mr. Calhoun
concluded. That was a thing understood between them. Mr. Calhoun
had signified his wish to speak first; to which Mr. Benton readily
assented: and both took the opportunity presented by Mr. Webster's
motion, and the presentation of his plan, to present their own
respectively. Mr. Benton presented his the moment Mr. Calhoun sat
down, in a much considered speech, which will be given in the next
chapter; and which was the first of his formal speeches in favor of
reviving the gold currency. In the mean time, Mr. Webster's plan
lingered on the motion for leave to bring in his bill. That leave
was not granted. Things took a strange turn. The friends of the bank
refused in a body to give Mr. Webster the leave asked: the enemies
of the bank were in favor of giving him the leave--chiefly, perhaps,
because his friends refused it. In this state of contrariety among
his friends, Mr. Webster moved to lay his own motion on the table;
and Mr. Forsyth, to show that this balk came from his own side of
the chamber, asked the yeas and nays; which were granted and were as
follows:
"YEAS.--Messrs Black, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Ewing,
Frelinghuysen, Hendricks, King of Georgia, Mangum, Moore,
Naudain, Poindexter, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins,
Silsbee, Smith, Southard, Sprague, Swift, Tomlinson, Waggaman,
Webster.
"NAYS.--Messrs. Benton, Brown, Forsyth, Grundy, Hill, Kane, King
of Alabama, Morris, Robinson, Shepley, Tallmadge, Tipton, White,
Wilkins, Wright."
The excuse for the movement--for this unexpected termination to Mr.
Webster's motion--was that the Senate might proceed with Mr. Clay's
resolution against General Jackson, and come to a conclusion upon
it. It was now time for that conclusion. It was near the last of
March, and the Virginia elections came on in April: but the real
cause for Mr. Webster's motion was the settled opposition of his
political friends to his plan; and that was proved by its subsequent
fate. In his motion to lay his application on the table, he treated
it as a temporary disposition of it--the application to be renewed
it some future time: which it never was.
CHAPTER CV.
REVIVAL OF THE GOLD CURRENCY--MR. BENTON'S SPEECH.
Mr. Benton said it was now six years since he had begun to oppose
the renewal of the charter of this bank, but he had not, until the
present moment, found a suitable occasion for showing the people the
kind of currency which they were entitled to possess, and probably
would possess, on the dissolution of the Bank of the United States.
This was a view of the subject which many wished to see, and which
he felt bound to give; and which he should proceed to present, with
all the brevity and perspicuity of which he was master.
1. In the first place, he was one of those who believed that the
government of the United States was intended to be a hard money
government: that it was the intention, and the declaration of the
constitution of the United States, that the federal currency should
consist of gold and silver; and that there is no power in Congress
to issue, or to authorize any company of individuals to issue, any
species of federal paper currency whatsoever.
Every clause in the constitution, said Mr. B., which bears upon the
subject of money--every early statute of Congress which interprets
the meaning of these clauses--and every historic recollection which
refers to them, go hand in hand, in giving to that instrument the
meaning which this proposition ascribes to it. The power granted to
Congress to coin money is an authority to stamp metallic money, and
is not an authority for emitting slips of paper containing promises
to pay money. The authority granted to Congress to regulate the
value of coin, is an authority to regulate the value of the metallic
money, not of paper. The prohibition upon the States against
making any thing but gold and silver a legal tender, is a moral
prohibition, founded in virtue and honesty, and is just as binding
upon the federal government as upon the State governments; and that
without a written prohibition; for the difference in the nature of
the two governments is such, that the States may do all things which
they are not forbid to do; and the federal government can do nothing
which it is not authorized by the constitution to do. The power to
punish the crime of counterfeiting is limited to the current coin
of the United States, and to the securities of the United States;
and cannot be extended to the offence of forging paper money, but by
that unjustifiable power of construction which founds an implication
upon an implication, and hangs one implied power upon another. The
word currency is not in the constitution, nor any word which can
be made to cover a circulation of bank notes. Gold and silver is
the only thing recognized for money. It is the money, and the only
money, of the constitution; and every historic recollection, as
well as every phrase in the constitution, and every early statute
on the subject of money, confirms that idea. People were sick of
paper money about the time that this constitution was formed. The
Congress of the confederation, in the time of the Revolution, had
issued a currency of paper money. It had run the full career of
that currency. The wreck of two hundred millions of paper dollars
lay upon the land. The framers of that constitution worked in the
midst of that wreck. They saw the havoc which paper money had made
upon the fortunes of individuals, and the morals of the public. They
determined to have no more federal paper money. They created a hard
money government; they intended the new government to recognize
nothing for money but gold and silver; and every word admitted into
the constitution, upon the subject of money, defines and establishes
that sacred intention.
Legislative enactment, continued Mr. B., came quickly to the aid
of constitutional intention and historic recollection. The fifth
statute passed at the first session of the first Congress that
ever sat under the present constitution, was full and explicit on
this head. It defined the kind of money which the federal treasury
should receive. The enactments of the statute are remarkable
for their brevity and comprehension, as well as for their clear
interpretation of the constitution; and deserve to be repeated
and remembered. They are: That the fees and duties payable to the
federal government shall be received in gold and silver coin only;
the gold coins of France, Spain, Portugal, and England, and all
other gold coins of equal fineness, at eighty-nine cents for every
pennyweight; the Mexican dollar at one hundred cents; the crown of
France at one hundred and eleven cents; and all other silver coins
of equal fineness, at one hundred and eleven cents per ounce. This
statute was passed the 30th day of July, 1789--just one month after
Congress had commenced the work of legislation. It shows the sense
of the Congress composed of the men, in great part, who had framed
the constitution, and who, by using the word only, clearly expressed
their intention that gold and silver alone was to constitute the
currency of the new government.
In support of this construction of the constitution, Mr. B. referred
to the phrase so often used by our most aged and eminent statesmen,
that this was intended to be a hard money government. Yes, said
Mr. B., the framers of the constitution were hard money men; but
the chief expounder and executor of that constitution was not a
hard money man, but a paper system man! a man devoted to the paper
system of England, with all the firmness of conviction, and all
the fervor of enthusiasm. God forbid, said Mr. B., that I should
do injustice to Gen. Hamilton--that I should say, or insinuate,
aught to derogate from the just fame of that great man! He has many
titles to the gratitude and admiration of his countrymen, and the
heart could not be American which could dishonor or disparage his
memory. But his ideas of government did not receive the sanction of
general approbation; and of all his political tenets, his attachment
to the paper system was most strongly opposed at the time, and has
produced the most lasting and deplorable results upon the country.
In the year 1791, this great man, then Secretary of the Treasury,
brought forward his celebrated plan for the support of public
credit--that plan which unfolded the entire scheme of the paper
system, and immediately developed the great political line between
the federalists and the republicans. The establishment of a national
bank was the leading and predominant feature of that plan; and the
original report of the Secretary, in favor of establishing the bank,
contained this fatal and deplorable recommendation:
"The bills and notes of the bank, originally made payable, or which
shall have become payable, on demand, in gold and silver coin, shall
be receivable in all payments to the United States."
This fatal recommendation became a clause in the charter of the
bank. It was transferred from the report of the Secretary to
the pages of the statute book; and from that moment the moneyed
character of the federal government stood changed and reversed.
Federal bank notes took the place of hard money; and the whole
edifice of the new government slid, at once, from the solid rock of
gold and silver money, on which its framers had placed it, into the
troubled and tempestuous ocean of a paper currency.
Mr. B. said it was no answer to this most serious charge of having
changed the moneyed character of the federal government, and of
the whole Union, to say that the notes of the Bank of the United
States are not made a legal tender between man and man. There
was no necessity, he said, for a statute law to that effect; it
was sufficient that they were made a legal tender to the federal
government; the law of necessity, far superior to that of the
statute book, would do the rest. A law of tender was not necessary;
a forced, incidental tender, resulted as an inevitable consequence
from the credit and circulation which the federal government
gave them. Whatever was received at the custom-houses, at the
land-offices, at the post-offices, at the marshals' and district
attorneys' offices, and in all the various dues to the federal
government, must be received and will be received by the people.
It becomes the actual and practical currency of the land. People
must take it, or get nothing; and thus the federal government,
establishing a paper currency for itself, establishes it also for
the States and for the people; and every body must use it from
necessity, whether compelled by law or not.
Mr. B. said it was not to be supposed that the objection which he
now took to the unconstitutionality of the clause which made the
notes of the federal bank a legal tender to the federal government,
was an objection which could be overlooked, or disregarded, by
the adversaries of the bank in 1791. It was not overlooked, or
disregarded; on the contrary, it was denounced, and combated, as in
itself a separate and distinct breach of the constitution, going
the whole length of emitting paper money; and the more odious and
reprehensible because a privileged company was to have the monopoly
of the emission. The genius of Hamilton was put in requisition
to answer this objection; and the best answer which that great
man could give it, was a confession of the omnipotence of the
objection, and the total impossibility of doing it away. His answer
surrendered the whole question of a currency. It sunk the notes of
the bank, which were then to be tendered to the federal government,
to the condition of supplies furnished to the government, and
to be consumed by it. The answer took refuge under the natural
power, independent of all constitutions, for the tax receiver to
receive his taxes in what articles he pleased. To do justice to
General Hamilton, and to detect and expose the true character
of this bank paper, Mr. B. read a clause from Gen. Hamilton's
reply to the cabinet opinions of Mr. Jefferson, and the Attorney
General Randolph, when President Washington had the charter of
the first bank under advisement with his Secretaries. It was the
clause in which General Hamilton replied to the objection to the
constitutionality of making the notes of the bank receivable in
payment of public dues. "To designate or appoint the money or thing
in which taxes are to be paid, is not only a proper, but a necessary
exercise of the power of collecting them. Accordingly, Congress,
in the law concerning the collection of the duties, imposts, and
tonnage, has provided that they shall be payable in gold and silver.
But, while it was an indispensable part of the work to say in what
they should be paid, the choice of the specific thing was a mere
matter of discretion. The payment might have been required in the
commodities themselves. Taxes in kind, however ill judged, are not
without precedents, even in the United States; or it might have
been in the paper money of the several States; or in the bills
of the Bank of North America, New-York, and Massachusetts, all,
or either of them; it might have been in bills issued under the
authority of the United States. No part of this, it is presumed,
can be disputed. The appointment of the money or thing in which the
taxes are to be paid, is an incident of the power of collection. And
among the expedients which may be adopted, is that of bills issued
under the authority of the United States." Mr. B. would read no
further, although the argument of General Hamilton extended through
several pages. The nature of the argument is fully disclosed in
what is read. It surrenders the whole question of a paper currency.
Neither the power to furnish a currency, or to regulate currency,
is pretended to be claimed. The notes of the new bank are put upon
the footing, not of money, but of commodities--things--articles in
kind--which the tax receiver may accept from the tax payer; and
which are to be used and consumed by the tax receiver, and not to be
returned to the people, much less to be diffused over the country in
place of money. This is the original idea and conception of these
notes. It is the idea under which they obtained the legal capacity
of receivability in payment of public dues; and from this humble
conception, this degraded assimilation to corn and grain, to clothes
and provisions, they have, by virtue of that clause in the charter,
crept up to the character of money--become the real, practical
currency of the land--driven the currency of the constitution from
the land--and so depraved the public intellect as now to be called
for as money, and proclaimed to be indispensable to the country,
when the author of the bank could not rank it higher than an
expedient for paying a tax.
2. In the next place, Mr. B. believed that the quantity of specie
derivable from foreign commerce, added to the quantity of gold
derivable from our own mines, were fully sufficient, if not expelled
from the country by unwise laws, to furnish the people with an
abundant circulation of gold and silver coin, for their common
currency, without having recourse to a circulation of small bank
notes.
The truth of these propositions, Mr. B. held to be susceptible of
complete and ready proof. He spoke first of the domestic supply
of native gold, and said that no mines had ever developed more
rapidly than these had done, or promised more abundantly than they
now do. In the year 1824 they were a spot in the State of North
Carolina; they are now a region spreading into six States. In the
year 1824 the product was $5,000; in the last year the product,
in coined gold, was $868,000; in uncoined, as much more; and the
product of the present year computed at two millions; with every
prospect of continued and permanent increase. The probability was
that these mines alone, in the lapse of a few years, would furnish
an abundant supply of gold to establish a plentiful circulation
of that metal, if not expelled from the country by unwise laws.
But the great source of supply, both for gold and silver, Mr. B.
said, was in our foreign commerce. It was this foreign commerce
which filled the States with hard money immediately after the close
of the Revolutionary War, when the domestic mines were unknown;
and it is the same foreign commerce which, even now, when federal
laws discourage the importation of foreign coins and compel their
exportation, is bringing in an annual supply of seven or eight
millions. With an amendment of the laws which now discourage the
importation of foreign coins, and compel their exportation, there
could be no delay in the rapid accumulation of a sufficient stock
of the precious metals to supply the largest circulation which the
common business of the country could require.
Mr. B. believed the product of foreign mines, and the quantity
of gold and silver now in existence, to be much greater than was
commonly supposed; and, as a statement of its amount would establish
his proposition in favor of an adequate supply of these metals for
the common currency of the country, he would state that amount, as
he found it calculated in approved works of political economy. He
looked to the three great sources of supply: 1. Mexico and South
America; 2. Europe and Northern Asia; 3. The coast of Africa. Taking
the discovery of the New World as the starting point from which the
calculation would commence, and the product was:
1. Mexico and South America, $6,458,000,000
2. Europe and Northern Asia, 628,000,000
3. The coast of Africa, 150,000,000
--making a total product of seven thousand two hundred and
thirty-six millions, in the short space of three centuries and a
half. To this is to be added the quantity existing at the time the
New World was discovered, and which was computed at $2,300,000,000.
Upon all these data, the political economists, Mr. B. said, after
deducting $2,000,000,000 for waste and consumption, still computed
the actual stock of gold and silver in Europe, Asia, and America, in
1832, at about seven thousand millions of dollars; and that quantity
constantly and rapidly increasing.
Mr. B. had no doubt but that the quantity of gold and silver in
Europe, Asia, and America, was sufficient to carry on the whole
business of the world. He said that states and empires--far greater
in wealth and population than any now existing--far superior in
public and private magnificence--had carried on all the business
of private life, and all the affairs of national government, upon
gold and silver alone; and that before the mines of Mexico and
Peru were known, or dreamed of. He alluded to the great nations of
antiquity--to the Assyrian and Persian empires; to Egypt, Carthage,
Rome; to the Grecian republics; the kingdoms of Asia Minor; and
to the empire, transcending all these put together--the Saracenic
empire of the Caliphs, which, taking for its centre the eastern
limit of the Roman world, extended its dominion as far west as
Rome had conquered, and further east than Alexander had marched.
These great nations, whose armies crushed empires at a blow, whose
monumental edifices still attest their grandeur, had no idea of
bank credits and paper money. They used gold and silver alone. Such
degenerate phrases as sound currency, paper medium, circulating
media, never once sounded in their heroic ears. But why go back,
exclaimed Mr. B., to the nations of antiquity? Why quit our own
day? Why look beyond the boundaries of Europe? We have seen an
empire in our own day, of almost fabulous grandeur and magnificence,
carrying on all its vast undertakings upon a currency of gold and
silver, without deigning to recognize paper for money. I speak,
said Mr. B., of France--great and imperial France--and have my eye
upon that first year of the consulate, when a young and victorious
general, just transferred from the camp to a council, announced to
his astonished ministers that specie payments should commence in
France by a given day!--in that France which, for so many years, had
seen nothing but a miserable currency of depreciated mandats and
assignats! The annunciation was heard with the inward contempt, and
open distrust, which the whole tribe of hack politicians every where
feel for the statesmanship of military men. It was followed by the
success which it belongs to genius to inspire and to command. Specie
payments commenced in France on the day named; and a hard money
currency has been the sole currency of France from that day to this.
Such, said Mr. B., is the currency of France; a country whose taxes
exceed a thousand millions of francs--whose public and private
expenditures require a circulation of three hundred and fifty
millions of dollars--and which possesses that circulation, every
dollar of it, in gold and silver. After this example, can any one
doubt the capacity of the United States to supply itself with
specie? Reason and history forbid the doubt. Reason informs us that
hard money flows into the vacuum the instant that small bank notes
are driven out. France recovered a specie circulation within a year
after the consular government refused to recognize paper for money.
England recovered a gold circulation of about one hundred millions
of dollars within four years after the one and two pound notes were
suppressed. Our own country filled up with Spanish milled dollars,
French crowns, doubloons, half joes, and guineas, as by magic, at
the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, and the suppression of
the continental bills. The business of the United States would not
require above sixty or seventy millions of gold and silver for the
common currency of the people, and the basis of large bank notes
and bills of exchange. Of that sum, more than one third is now in
the country, but not in circulation. The Bank of the United States
hoards above ten millions. At the expiration of her charter, in
1836, that sum will be paid out in redemption of its notes--will go
into the hands of the people--and, of itself, will nearly double
the quantity of silver now in circulation. Our native mines will be
yielding, annually, some millions of gold; foreign commerce will be
pouring in her accustomed copious supply; the correction of the
erroneous value of gold, the liberal admission of foreign coins, and
the suppression of small notes, will invite and retain an adequate
metallic currency. The present moment is peculiarly favorable for
these measures. Foreign exchanges are now in our favor; silver is
coming here, although not current by our laws; both gold and silver
would flow in, and that immediately, to an immense amount, if
raised to their proper value, and put on a proper footing, by our
laws. Three days' legislation on these subjects would turn copious
supplies of gold and silver into the country, diffuse them through
every neighborhood, and astonish gentlemen when they get home at
midsummer, at finding hard money where they had left paper.
3. In the third place, Mr. B. undertook to affirm, as a proposition
free from dispute or contestation, that the value now set upon gold,
by the laws of the United States, was unjust and erroneous; that
these laws had expelled gold from circulation; and that it was the
bounden duty of Congress to restore that coin to circulation, by
restoring it to its just value.
That gold was undervalued by the laws of the United States, and
expelled from circulation, was a fact, Mr. B. said, which every body
knew; but there was something else which every body did not know;
which few, in reality, had an opportunity of knowing, but which was
necessary to be known, to enable the friends of gold to go to work
at the right place to effect the recovery of that precious metal
which their fathers once possessed--which the subjects of European
kings now possess--which the citizens of the young republics to
the South all possess--which even the free negroes of San Domingo
possess--but which the yeomanry of this America have been deprived
of for more than twenty years, and will be deprived of for ever,
unless they discover the cause of the evil, and apply the remedy to
its root.
I have already shown, said Mr. B., that the plan for the support of
public credit which General Hamilton brought forward, in 1791, was
a plan for the establishment of the paper system in our America. We
had at that time a gold currency which was circulating freely and
fully all over the country. Gold is the antagonist of paper, and,
with fair play, will keep a paper currency within just and proper
limits. It will keep down the small notes; for, no man will carry
a five, a ten, or a twenty dollar note in his pocket, when he can
get guineas, eagles, half eagles, doubloons, and half joes to carry
in their place. The notes of the new Bank of the United States,
which bank formed the leading feature in the plan for the support
of public credit, had already derived one undue advantage over
gold, in being put on a level with it in point of legal tender to
the federal government, and universal receivability in all payments
to that government: they were now to derive another, and a still
greater undue advantage over gold, in the law for the establishment
of the national mint; an institution which also formed a feature of
the plan for the support of public credit. It is to that plan that
we trace the origin of the erroneous valuation of gold, which has
banished that metal from the country. Mr. Secretary Hamilton, in his
proposition for the establishment of a mint, recommended that the
relative value of gold to silver should be fixed at fifteen for one;
and that recommendation became the law of the land; and has remained
so ever since. At the same time, the relative value of these metals
in Spain and Portugal, and throughout their vast dominions in the
new world, whence our principal supplies of gold were derived, was
at the rate of sixteen for one; thus making our standard six per
cent. below the standard of the countries which chiefly produced
gold. It was also below the English standard, and the French
standard, and below the standard which prevailed in these States,
before the adoption of the constitution, and which was actually
prevailing in the States, at the time that this new proportion of
fifteen to one was established.
Mr. B. was ready to admit that there was some nicety requisite in
adjusting the relative value of two different kinds of money--gold
and silver for example--so as to preserve an exact equipoise between
them, and to prevent either from expelling the other. There was some
nicety, but no insuperable or even extraordinary difficulty, in
making the adjustment. The nicety of the question was aggravated in
the year '92, by the difficulty of obtaining exact knowledge of the
relative value of these metals, at that time, in France and England;
and Mr. Gallatin has since shown that the information which was then
relied upon was clearly erroneous. The consequence of any mistake
in fixing our standard, was also well known in the year '92. Mr.
Secretary Hamilton, in his proposition for the establishment of a
mint, expressly declared that the consequence of a mistake in the
relative value of the two metals, would be the expulsion of the one
that was undervalued. Mr. Jefferson, then Secretary of State, in his
cotemporaneous report upon foreign coins, declared the same thing.
Mr. Robert Morris, financier to the revolutionary government, in
his proposal to establish a mint, in 1782, was equally explicit to
the same effect. The delicacy of the question and the consequence
of a mistake, were then fully understood forty years ago, when the
relative value of gold and silver was fixed at fifteen to one. But,
at that time, it unfortunately happened that the paper system,
then omnipotent in England, was making its transit to our America;
and every thing that would go to establish that system--every
thing that would go to sustain the new-born Bank of the United
States--that eldest daughter and _spem gregis_ of the paper system
in America--fell in with the prevailing current, and became
incorporated in the federal legislation of the day. Gold, it was
well known, was the antagonist of paper; from its intrinsic value,
the natural predilection of all mankind for it, its small bulk, and
the facility of carrying it about, it would be preferred to paper,
either for travelling or keeping in the house; and thus would limit
and circumscribe the general circulation of bank notes, and prevent
all plea of necessity for issuing smaller notes. Silver, on the
contrary, from its inconvenience of transportation, would favor the
circulation of bank notes. Hence the birth of the doctrine, that if
a mistake was to be committed, it should be on the side of silver!
Mr. Secretary Hamilton declares the existence of this feeling when,
in his report upon the establishment of a mint, he says: "It is
sometimes observed, that silver ought to be encouraged, rather than
gold, as being more conducive to the extension of bank circulation,
from the greater difficulty and inconvenience which its greater
bulk, compared with its value, occasions in the transportation of
it." This passage in the Secretary's report, proves the existence
of the feeling in favor of silver against gold, and the cause of
that feeling. Quotations might be made from the speeches of others
to show that they acted upon that feeling; but it is due to General
Hamilton to say that he disclaimed such a motive for himself, and
expressed a desire to retain both metals in circulation, and even to
have a gold dollar.
The proportion of fifteen to one was established. The 11th section
of the act of April, 1792, enacted that every fifteen pounds weight
of pure silver, should be equal in value, in all payments, with
one pound of pure gold; and so in proportion for less quantities
of the respective metals. This act was the death warrant to the
gold currency. The diminished circulation of that coin soon began
to be observable; but it was not immediately extinguished. Several
circumstances delayed, but could not prevent that catastrophe.
1. The Bank of the United States then issued no note of less
denomination than ten dollars, and but few of them. 2. There were
but three other banks in the United States, and they issued but few
small notes; so that a small note currency did not come directly
into conflict with gold. 3. The trade to the lower Mississippi
continued to bring up from Natchez and New Orleans, for many years,
a large supply of doubloons; and long supplied a gold currency
to the new States in the West. Thus, the absence of a small note
currency, and the constant arrivals of doubloons from the lower
Mississippi, deferred the fate of the gold currency; and it was
not until the lapse of near twenty years after the adoption of the
erroneous standard of 1792, that the circulation of that metal, both
foreign and domestic, became completely and totally extinguished in
the United States. The extinction is now complete, and must remain
so until the laws are altered.
In making this annunciation, and in thus standing forward to expose
the error, and to demand the reform of the gold currency, he (Mr.
B.) was not setting up for the honors of a first discoverer, or
first inventor. Far from it. He was treading in the steps of other,
and abler men, who had gone before him. Four Secretaries of the
Treasury, Gallatin, Dallas, Crawford, Ingham, had, each in their
day, pointed out the error in the gold standard, and recommended
its correction. Repeated reports of committees, in both Houses of
Congress, had done the same thing. Of these reports he would name
those of the late Mr. Lowndes of South Carolina; of Mr. Sanford,
late a senator from New-York; of Mr. Campbell P. White, now a
representative from the city of New-York. Mr. B. took pleasure in
recalling and presenting to public notice, the names of the eminent
men who had gone before him in the exploration of this path. It was
due to them, now that the good cause seemed to be in the road to
success, to yield to them all the honors of first explorers; it was
due to the cause also, in this hour of final trial, to give it the
high sanction of their names and labors.
Mr. B. would arrest for an instant the current of his remarks, to
fix the attention of the Senate upon a reflection which must suggest
itself to the minds of all considerate persons. He would ask how
it could happen that so many men, and such men as he had named,
laboring for so many years, in a cause so just, for an object so
beneficial, upon a state of facts so undeniable, could so long and
so uniformly fail of success? How could this happen? Sir, exclaimed
Mr. B., it happened because the policy of the Bank of the United
States required it to happen! The same policy which required gold
to be undervalued in 1792, when the first bank was chartered, has
required it to be undervalued ever since, now that a second bank
has been established; and the same strength which enabled these
banks to keep themselves up, also enabled them to keep gold down.
This is the answer to the question; and this the secret of the
failure of all these eminent men in their laudable efforts to raise
gold again to the dignity of money. This is the secret of their
failure; and this secret being now known, the road which leads to
the reformation of the gold currency lies uncovered and revealed
before us: it is the road which leads to the overthrow of the Bank
of the United States--to the sepulchre of that institution: for,
while that bank lives, or has the hope of life, gold cannot be
restored to life. Here then lies the question of the reform of the
gold currency. If the bank is defeated, that currency is reformed;
if the bank is victorious, gold remains degraded; to continue an
article of merchandise in the hands of the bank, and to be expelled
from circulation to make room for its five, its ten, and its twenty
dollar notes. Let the people then, who are in favor of restoring
gold to circulation, go to work in the right place, and put down the
power that first put down gold, and which will never suffer that
coin to rise while it has power to prevent it.
Mr. B. did not think it necessary to descant and expatiate upon the
merits and advantages of a gold currency. These advantages had been
too well known, from the earliest ages of the world, to be a subject
of discussion in the nineteenth century; but, as it was the policy
of the paper system to disparage that metal, and as that system,
in its forty years' reign over the American people, had nearly
destroyed a knowledge of that currency, he would briefly enumerate
its leading and prominent advantages. 1. It had an intrinsic value,
which gave it currency all over the world, to the full amount of
that value, without regard to laws or circumstances. 2. It had a
uniformity of value, which made it the safest standard of the value
of property which the wisdom of man had ever yet discovered. 3. Its
portability; which made it easy for the traveller to carry it about
with him. 4. Its indestructibility; which made it the safest money
that people could keep in their houses. 5. Its inherent purity;
which made it the hardest money to be counterfeited, and the easiest
to be detected, and, therefore, the safest money for the people to
handle. 6. Its superiority over all other money; which gave to its
possessor the choice and command of all other money. 7. Its power
over exchanges; gold being the currency which contributes most to
the equalization of exchange, and keeping down the rate of exchange
to the lowest and most uniform point. 8. Its power over the paper
money; gold being the natural enemy of that system, and, with fair
play, able to hold it in check. 9. It is a constitutional currency
and the people have a right to demand it, for their currency, as
long as the present constitution is permitted to exist.
Mr. B. said, that the false valuation put upon gold had rendered the
mint of the United States, so far as the gold coinage is concerned,
a most ridiculous and absurd institution. It has coined, and that
at a large expense to the United States, 2,262,717 pieces of gold,
worth $11,852,890; and where are these pieces now? Not one of them
to be seen! all sold, and exported! and so regular is this operation
that the director of the mint, in his latest report to Congress,
says that the new coined gold frequently remains in the mint,
uncalled for, though ready for delivery, until the day arrives for a
packet to sail to Europe. He calculates that two millions of native
gold will be coined annually hereafter; the whole of which, without
a reform of the gold standard, will be conducted, like exiles, from
the national mint to the sea-shore, and transported to foreign
regions, to be sold for the benefit of the Bank of the United States.
Mr. B. said this was not the time to discuss the relative value of
gold and silver, nor to urge the particular proportion which ought
to be established between them. That would be the proper work of a
committee. At present it might be sufficient, and not irrelevant,
to say that this question was one of commerce--that it was purely
and simply a mercantile problem--as much so as an acquisition of
any ordinary merchandise from foreign countries could be. Gold
goes where it finds its value, and that value is what the laws of
great nations give it. In Mexico and South America--the countries
which produce gold, and from which the United States must derive
their chief supply--the value of gold is 16 to 1 over silver; in
the island of Cuba it is 17 to 1; in Spain and Portugal it is 16
to 1; in the West Indies, generally, it is the same. It is not to
be supposed that gold will come from these countries to the United
States, if the importer is to lose one dollar in every sixteen
that he brings; or that our own gold will remain with us, when an
exporter can gain a dollar upon every fifteen that he carries out.
Such results would be contrary to the laws of trade; and therefore
we must place the same value upon gold that other nations do,
if we wish to gain any part of theirs, or to regain any part of
our own. Mr. B. said that the case of England and France was no
exception to this rule. They rated gold at something less than 16
for 1, and still retained gold in circulation; but it was retained
by force of peculiar laws and advantages which do not prevail in
the United States. In England the circulation of gold was aided
and protected by four subsidiary laws, neither of which exist
here: one which prevented silver from being a tender for more than
forty shillings; another which required the Bank of England to pay
all its notes in gold; a third which suppressed the small note
circulation; a fourth which alloyed their silver nine per cent.
below the relative value of gold. In France the relative proportion
of the two metals was also below what it was in Spain, Portugal,
Mexico, and South America, and still a plentiful supply of gold
remained in circulation; but this result was aided by two peculiar
causes; first, the total absence of a paper currency; secondly, the
proximity of Spain, and the inferiority of Spanish manufactures,
which gave to France a ready and a near market for the sale of her
fine fabrics, which were paid for in the gold of the New World. In
the United States, gold would have none of these subsidiary helps;
on the contrary it would have to contend with a paper currency, and
would have to be obtained, the product of our own mines excepted,
from Mexico and South America, where it is rated as sixteen to one
for silver. All these circumstances, and many others, would have
to be taken into consideration in fixing a standard for the United
States. Mr. B. repeated that there was nicety, but no difficulty,
in adjusting the relative value of gold and silver so as to retain
both in circulation. Several nations of antiquity had done it; some
modern nations also. The English have both in circulation at this
time. The French have both, and have had for thirty years. The
States of this Union also had both in the time of the confederation;
and retained them until this federal government was established, and
the paper system adopted. Congress should not admit that it cannot
do for the citizens of the United States, what so many monarchies
have done for their subjects. Gentlemen, especially, who decry
military chieftains, should not confess that they themselves cannot
do for America, what a military chieftain did for France.
Mr. B. made his acknowledgments to the great apostle of American
liberty (Mr. Jefferson), for the wise, practical idea, that the
value of gold was a commercial question, to be settled by its value
in other countries. He had seen that remark in the works of that
great man, and treasured it up as teaching the plain and ready way
to accomplish an apparently difficult object; and he fully concurred
with the senator from South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun], that gold, in
the United States, ought to be the preferred metal; not that silver
should be expelled, but both retained; the mistake, of any, to be in
favor of gold, instead of being against it.
IV. Mr. B. believed that it was the intention and declared meaning
of the constitution, that foreign coins should pass currently as
money, and at their full value, within the United States; that
it was the duty of Congress to promote the circulation of these
coins by giving them their full value; that this was the design
of the States in conferring upon Congress the exclusive power of
regulating the value of these coins; that all the laws of Congress
for preventing the circulation of foreign coins, and underrating
their value, were so many breaches of the constitution, and so many
mischiefs inflicted upon the States; and that it was the bounden
duty of Congress to repeal all such laws; and to restore foreign
coins to the same free and favored circulation which they possessed
when the federal constitution was adopted.
In support of the first branch of his first position Mr. B.
quoted the words of the constitution which authorized Congress to
regulate the value of foreign coins; secondly, the clause in the
constitution which authorized Congress to provide for punishing
the counterfeiting of current coin, in which term, foreign coin
was included; thirdly, the clause which prohibited the States from
making any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of
debts; a clause which did not limit the prohibition to domestic
coins, and therefore included foreign ones. These three clauses,
he said, were concurrent, and put foreign coin and domestic coin
upon the same precise footing of equality, in every particular
which concerned their current circulation, their value, and their
protection from counterfeiters. Historical recollections were the
next evidence to which Mr. B. referred to sustain his position. He
said that foreign coins were the only coins known to the United
States at the adoption of the constitution. No mint had been
established up to that time. The coins of other nations furnished
the currency, the exclusive metallic currency, which the States had
used from the close of the Revolutionary War up to the formation
of this federal government. It was these foreign coins then which
the framers of the constitution had in view when they inserted
all the clauses in the constitution which bear upon the value and
current circulation of coin; its protection from counterfeiters,
and the prohibitory restriction upon the States with respect to the
illegality of tenders of any thing except of gold and silver. To
make this point still plainer, if plainer it could be made, Mr. B.
adverted to the early statutes of Congress which related to foreign
coins. He had seen no less than nine statutes, passed in the first
four years of the action of this federal government, all enacted
for the purpose of regulating the value, protecting the purity, and
promoting the circulation of these coins. Not only the well-known
coins of the principal nations were provided for in these statutes,
but the coins of all the nations with whom we traded, how rare or
small might be the coin, or how remote or inconsiderable might be
the nation. By a general provision of the act of 1789, the gold
coins of all nations, which equalled those of England, France,
Spain and Portugal, in fineness, were to be current at 89 cents the
pennyweight; and the silver coins of all nations, which equalled
the Spanish dollar in fineness, were to be current at 111 cents
the ounce. Under these general provisions, a great influx of the
precious metals took place; doubloons, guineas, half joes, were
the common and familiar currency of farmers and laborers, as well
as of merchants and traders. Every substantial citizen then kept
in his house a pair of small scales to weigh gold, which are now
used by his posterity to weigh physic. It is a great many years--a
whole generation has grown up--since these scales were used for
their original purpose; nor will they ever be needed again for that
use until the just and wise laws of '89 and '90, for the general
circulation of foreign coins, shall again be put in force. These
early statutes, added to historical recollections, could leave no
doubt of the true meaning of the constitution, and that foreign
coins were intended to be for ever current within the United States.
With this obvious meaning of the constitution, and the undeniable
advantage which redounded to the United States from the acquisition
of the precious metals from all foreign nations, the inquiry
naturally presents itself, to know for what reason these coins
have been outlawed by the Congress of the United States, and
driven from circulation? The inquiring mind wishes to know how
Congress could be brought, in a few short years after the adoption
of the constitution, to contradict that instrument in a vital
particular--to repeal the nine statutes which they had passed in
favor of foreign coin--and to illegalize the circulation of that
coin whose value they were to regulate, and whose purity to protect?
Sir, said Mr. B., I am unwilling to appear always in the same train,
tracing up all the evils of our currency to the same fountain of
mischiefs--the introduction of the paper system, and the first
establishment of a federal bank among us. But justice must have its
sway; historical truth must take its course; facts must be told; and
authentic proof shall supply the place of narrative and assertion.
We ascend, then, to the year '91--to the exhibition of the plan for
the support of public credit--and see in that plan, as one of its
features, a proposition for the establishment of a national mint;
and in that establishment a subsidiary engine for the support of
the federal bank. We have already seen that in the proposition for
the establishment of the mint, gold was largely undervalued; and
that this undervaluation has driven gold from the country and left
a vacuum for the circulation of federal bank notes; we are now to
see that the same mint establishment was to give further aid to
the circulation of these notes, by excluding foreign coins, both
gold and silver, from circulation, and thus enlarging the vacuum
which was to be filled by bank paper. This is what we are now to
see; and to see it, we will look at the plan for the support of
public credit, and that feature of the plan which proposes the
establishment of a national mint.
Mr. B. would remark, that four points were presented in this plan:
1. The eventual abolition of the currency of foreign coins; 2.
The reduction of their value while allowed to circulate; 3. The
substitution of domestic coins; and, 4. The substitution of bank
notes in place of the uncurrent and undervalued foreign coins. Such
were the recommendations of Secretary Hamilton; and legislative
enactments quickly followed to convert his recommendations into
law. The only power the constitution had given to Congress over
foreign coins, was a power to regulate their value, and to protect
them from debasement by counterfeiters. It was certainly a most
strange construction of that authority, first, to underrate the
value of these coins, and next, to prohibit their circulation! Yet
both things were done. The mint went into operation in 1794; foreign
coins were to cease to be a legal tender in 1797; but, at the end of
that time, the contingencies on which the Secretary calculated, to
enable the country to do without foreign coins, had not occurred;
the substitutes had not appeared; the mint had not supplied the
adequate quantity of domestic coin, nor had the circulation of
bank notes become sufficiently familiar to the people to supersede
gold. The law for the exclusion of foreign coins was found to be
impracticable; and a suspension of it for three years was enacted.
At the end of this time the evil was found to be as great as ever;
and a further suspension of three years was made. This third term
of three years also rolled over, the supply of domestic coins was
still found to be inadequate, and the people continued to be as
averse as ever to the bank note substitute. A fourth suspension of
the law became necessary, and in 1806 a further suspension for three
years was made; after that a fifth, and finally a sixth suspension,
each for the period of three years; which brought the period for
the actual and final cessation of the circulation of foreign coins,
to the month of November, 1819. From that time there was no further
suspension of the prohibitory act. An exception was continued,
and still remains, in favor of Spanish milled dollars and parts
of dollars; but all other foreign coins, even those of Mexico and
all the South American States, have ceased to be a legal tender,
and have lost their character of current money within the United
States. Their value is degraded to the mint price of bullion; and
thus the constitutional currency becomes an article of merchandise
and exportation. Even the Spanish milled dollar, though continued
as a legal tender, is valued, not as money, but for the pure silver
in it, and is therefore undervalued three or four per cent. and
becomes an article of merchandise. The Bank of the United States has
collected and sold 4,450,000 of them. Every money dealer is employed
in buying, selling, and exporting them. The South and West, which
receives them, is stripped of them.
Having gone through this narrative of facts, and shown the exclusion
of foreign coins from circulation to be a part of the paper system,
and intended to facilitate the substitution of a bank note currency,
Mr B. went on to state the injuries resulting from the measure.
At the head of these injuries he was bound to place the violation
of the constitution of the United States, which clearly intended
that foreign coins should circulate among us, and which, in giving
Congress authority to regulate their value, and to protect them from
counterfeiters, could never have intended to stop their circulation,
and to abandon them to debasement. 2. He denounced this exclusion
of foreign coins as a fraud, and a fraud of the most injurious
nature, upon the people of the States. The States had surrendered
their power over the coinage to Congress; they made the surrender in
language which clearly implied that their currency of foreign coins
was to be continued to them; yet that currency is suppressed; a
currency of intrinsic value, for which they paid interest to nobody,
is suppressed; and a currency without intrinsic value, a currency
of paper subject to every fluctuation, and for the supply of which
corporate bodies receive interest, is substituted in its place. 3.
He objected to this suppression as depriving the whole Union, and
especially the Western States, of their due and necessary supply of
hard money. Since that law took effect, the United States had only
been a thoroughfare for foreign coins to pass through. All that
was brought into the country, had to go out of the country. It was
exported as fast as imported. The custom-house books proved this
fact. They proved, that from 1821 to 1833, the imports of specie
were $89,428,462; the exports, for the same time, were $88,821,433;
lacking but three quarters of a million of being precisely equal
to the imports! Some of this coin was recoined before it was
exported, a foolish and expensive operation on the part of the
United States; but the greater part was exported in the same form
that it was received. Mr. B. had only been able to get the exports
and imports from 1821; if he could have obtained those of 1820, and
the concluding part of 1819, when the prohibitory law took effect,
the amount would have been about ninety-six millions of dollars;
the whole of which was lost to the country by the prohibitory law,
while much of it would have been saved, and retained for home
circulation, if it had not been for this law. The loss of this great
sum in specie was an injury to the whole Union, but especially to
the Western States, whose sole resource for coin was from foreign
countries; for the coinage of the mint could never flow into that
region; there was nothing in the course of trade and exchanges, to
carry money from the Atlantic States to the West, and the mint,
if it coined thousands of millions, could not supply them. The
taking effect of the law in the year 1819, was an aggravation of
the injury. It was the most unfortunate and ruinous of all times
for driving specie from the country. The Western banks, from their
exertions to aid the country during the war, had stretched their
issues to the utmost limit; their notes had gone into the land
offices; the federal government turned them over to the Bank of the
United States; and that bank demanded specie. Thus, the necessity
for specie was increased at the very moment that the supply was
diminished; and the general stoppage of the Western banks, was the
inevitable and natural result of these combined circumstances.
Having shown the great evils resulting to the country from the
operation of this law, Mr. B. called upon its friends to tell what
reason could now be given for not repealing it? He affirmed that,
of the two causes to which the law owed its origin, one had failed
_in toto_, and the other had succeeded to a degree to make it the
curse and the nuisance of the country. One reason was to induce an
adequate supply of foreign coins to be brought to the mint, to be
recoined; the other to facilitate the substitution of a bank note
currency. The foreign coins did not go to the mint, those excepted
which were imported in its own neighborhood; and even these were
exported nearly as fast as recoined. The authority of the director
of the mint had already been quoted to show that the new coined
gold was transferred direct from the national mint to the packet
ships, bound to Europe. The custom-house returns showed the large
exportation of domestic coins. They would be found under the head
of "Domestic Manufactures Exported;" and made a large figure
in the list of these exports. In the year 1832, it amounted to
$2,058,474, and in the year 1833, to $1,410,941; and every year it
was more or less; so that the national mint had degenerated into a
domestic manufactory of gold and silver, for exportation to foreign
countries. But the coins imported at New Orleans, at Charleston,
and at other points remote from Philadelphia, did not go there to
be recoined. They were, in part, exported direct from the place
of import, and in part used by the people as current money, in
disregard of the prohibitory law of 1819. But the greater part was
exported--for no owner of foreign coin could incur the trouble,
risk, and expense, of sending it some hundred or a thousand miles
to Philadelphia, to have it recoined; and then incurring the same
expense, risk, and trouble (lying out of the use of the money, and
receiving no interest all the while), of bringing it back to be put
into circulation; with the further risk of a deduction for want of
standard fineness at the mint, when he could sell and export it
upon the spot. Foreign coins could not be recoined, so as to supply
the Union, by a solitary mint on the Atlantic coast. The great West
could only be supplied from New Orleans. A branch of the mint,
placed there, could supply the West with domestic coins. Mexico,
since she became a free country, has established seven mints in
different places, because it was troublesome and expensive to carry
bullion from all parts of the country to be coined in the capital;
and when coined there, there was nothing in the course of trade to
carry them back into the country; and the owners of it would not
be at the expense and trouble of carrying it back, and getting it
into circulation, being the exact state of things at present in the
gold mines of the Southern States. The United States, upon the same
principles and for the same reasons, should establish branches of
the mint in the South, convenient to the gold mine region, and at
New Orleans, for the benefit of that city and the West. Without a
branch of the mint at New Orleans, the admission of foreign coins
is indispensable to the West; and thus the interest of that region
joins itself to the voice of the constitution in demanding the
immediate repeal of all laws for illegalizing the circulation of
these coins, and for sinking them from their current value as money,
to their mint value as bullion. The design of supplying the mint
with foreign coins, for recoinage, had then failed; and in that
respect the exclusion of foreign coins has failed in one of its
objects--in the other, that of making room for a substitute of bank
notes, the success of the scheme has been complete, excessive, and
deplorable.
Foreign coins were again made a legal tender, their value regulated
and their importation encouraged, at the expiration of the charter
of the first Bank of the United States. This continued to be
the case until after the present Bank of the United States was
chartered; as soon as that event happened, and bank policy again
became predominant in the halls of Congress, the circulation of
foreign coins was again struck at and, in the second year of the
existence of the bank, the old act of 1793, for rendering these
coins uncurrent, was carried into final and complete effect. Since
that time, the bank has enjoyed all her advantages from this
exclusion. The expulsion of these coins has created a vacuum, to
be filled up by her small note circulation; the traffic and trade
in them has been as large a source of profit to her as of loss to
the country. Gold coin she has sold at an advance of five or six
per cent.; silver coin at about two or three per cent.; and, her
hand being in, she made no difference between selling domestic coin
and foreign coin. Although forbid by her charter to deal in coin,
she has employed her branches to gather $40,040,000 of coin from
the States; a large part of which she admits that she has sold and
transported to Europe. For the sale of the foreign coin, she sets
up the lawyer-like plea, that it is not coin, but bullion! resting
the validity of the plea upon English statute law! while, by the
constitution of the United States, all foreign coins are coin;
while, by her own charter, the coins, both gold and silver, of Great
Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal, and their dominions, are
declared to be coin; and, as such, made receivable in payment of the
specie proportion of the bank stock--and, worse yet! while Spanish
dollars, by statute, remain the current coin of the United States,
the bank admits the sale of 4,450,142 of these identical Spanish
milled dollars!
Mr. B. then took a rapid view of the present condition of the
statute currency of the United States--of that currency which was
a legal tender--that currency with which a debtor had a right by
law to protect his property from execution, and his body from jail,
by offering it as a matter of right, to his creditor in payment of
his debt. He stated this statute currency to be: 1st. Coins from
the mint of the United States; 2dly. Spanish milled dollars, and
the parts of such dollars. This was the sum total of the statute
currency of the United States; for happily no paper of any bank,
State or federal, could be made a legal tender. This is the sum
total out of which any man in debt can legally pay his debt: and
what is his chance for making payment out of this brief list?
Let us see. Coinage from the mint: not a particle of gold, nor a
single whole dollar to be found; very few half dollars, except in
the neighborhood of the mint, and in the hands of the Bank of the
United States and its branches; the twenty, ten, and five cent
pieces scarcely seen, except as a curiosity, in the interior parts
of the country. So much for the domestic coinage. Now for the
Spanish milled dollars--how do they stand in the United States?
Nearly as scarce as our own dollars; for, there has been none coined
since Spain lost her dominion over her colonies in the New World;
and the coinage of these colonies, now independent States, neither
is in law, nor in fact, Spanish milled. That term belongs to the
coinage of the Spanish crown, with a Spanish king's head upon the
face of it; although the coin of the new States, the silver dollars
of Mexico, Central America, Peru, and Chili, are superior to Spanish
dollars, in value, because they contain more pure silver, still they
are not a tender; and all the francs from France, in a word, all
foreign coin except Spanish milled dollars, the coinage of which
has ceased, and the country stripped of all that were in it, by the
Bank of the United States, are uncurrent, and illegal as tenders:
so that the people of the United States are reduced to so small a
list, and so small a supply of statute currency, out of which debts
can legally be paid, that it may be fairly assumed that the whole
debtor part of the community lie at the mercy of their creditors, to
have their bodies sent to jail, or their property sold for nothing,
at any time that their creditors please. To such a condition are
the free and high-minded inhabitants of this country reduced! and
reduced by the power and policy of the first and second Banks of
the United States, and the controlling influence which they have
exercised over the moneyed system of the Union, from the year 1791
down to the present day.
Mr. B. would conclude what he had to say, on this head, with one
remark; it was this: that while the gold and silver coin of all the
monarchs of Europe were excluded from circulation in the United
States, the paper notes of their subjects were received as current
money. The Bank of the United States was, in a great degree, a
foreign institution. Foreigners held a great part of its stock,
and may hold it all. The paper notes issued by this institution,
thus composed in great part of the subjects of European kings,
are made legal tenders to the federal government, and thus forced
into circulation among the people; while the gold and silver coin
of the kings to which they belong, is rejected and excluded, and
expelled from the country! He demanded if any thing could display
the vice and deformity of the paper system in a more revolting and
humiliating point of view than this single fact?
V. Mr. B. expressed his satisfaction at finding so many points
of concurrence between his sentiments on currency, and those of
the senator from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun). Reform of the gold
currency--recovery of specie--evils of excessive banking--and the
eventual suppression of small notes--were all points in which they
agreed, and on which he hoped they should be found acting together
when these measures should be put to the test of legislative action.
He regretted that he could not concur with that senator on the great
points to which all the others might be found to be subordinate and
accessorial. He alluded to the prolonged existence of the Bank of
the United States! and especially to the practical views which that
senator had taken of the beneficial operation of that institution,
first, as the regulator of the local currencies, and next, as the
supplier of a general currency to the Union. On both these points,
he differed--immeasurably differed--from that senator; and dropping
all other views of that bank, he came at once to the point which the
senator from South Carolina marked out as the true and practical
question of debate; and would discuss that question simply under
its relation to the currency; he would view the bank simply as
the regulator of local currencies and the supplier of a national
currency, and would give his reasons for differing--irreconcilably
differing--from the senator from South Carolina on these points.
Mr. B. took three distinct objections to the Bank of the United
States, as a regulator of currency: 1, that this was a power which
belonged to the government of the United States; 2, that it could
not be delegated; 3, that it ought not be delegated to any bank.
1. The regulation of the currency of a nation, Mr. B. said, was one
of the highest and most delicate acts of sovereign power. It was
precisely equivalent to the power to create currency; for, a power
to make more or less, was, in effect, a power to make much or none.
It was the coining power; a power that belonged to the sovereign;
and, where a paper currency was tolerated, the coining power was
swallowed up and superseded by the manufactory which emitted paper.
In the present state of the currency of the United States, the
federal bank was the mint for issuing money; the federal mint was
a manufactory for preparing gold and silver for exportation. The
States, in the formation of the constitution, gave the coining power
to Congress; with that power, they gave authority to regulate the
currency of the Union, by regulating the value of gold and silver,
and preventing any thing but metallic money from being made a
tender in payment of debts. It is by the exercise of these powers
that the federal government is to regulate the currency of the
Union; and all the departments of the government are required to
act their parts in effecting the regulation: the Congress, as the
department that passes the law; the President, as the authority that
recommends it, approves it, and sees that it is faithfully executed;
the judiciary, as standing between the debtor and creditor, and
preventing the execution from being discharged by any thing but gold
and silver and that at the rate which the legislative department has
fixed. This is the power, and sole power, of regulating currency
which the federal constitution contains; this power is vested in
the federal government, not in one department of it, but in the
joint action of the three departments; and while this power is
exercised by the government, the currency of the whole Union will be
regulated, and the regulation effected according to the intention
of the constitution, by keeping all the local banks up to the point
of specie payment; and thereby making the value of their notes
equivalent to specie.
2. This great and delicate power, thus involving the sacred
relations of debtor and creditor, and the actual rise or fall in the
value of every man's property, Mr. B. undertook to affirm, could
not be delegated. It was a trust from the State governments to the
federal government. The State governments divested themselves of
this power, and invested the federal government with it, and made
its exercise depend upon the three branches of the new government;
and this new government could no more delegate it, than they
could delegate any other great power which they were bound to
execute themselves. Not a word of this regulating power, Mr. E.
said, was heard of when the first bank was chartered, in the year
1791. No person whispered such a reason for the establishment
of a bank at that time; the whole conception is newfangled--an
afterthought--growing out of the very evils which the bank itself
has brought upon the country, and which are to be cured by putting
down that great bank; after which, the Congress and the judiciary
will easily manage the small banks, by holding them up to specie
payments, and excluding every unsolid note from revenue payments.
3. Mr. B. said that the government ought not to delegate this
power, if it could. It was too great a power to be trusted to any
banking company whatever, or to any authority but the highest
and most responsible which was known to our form of government.
The government itself ceased to be independent--it ceases to be
safe--when the national currency is at the will of a company. The
government can undertake no great enterprise, neither of war nor
peace, without the consent and co-operation of that company; it
cannot count its revenues for six months ahead without referring
to the action of that company--its friendship or its enmity--its
concurrence or opposition--to see how far that company will permit
money to be plenty, or make it scarce; how far it will let the
moneyed system go on regularly, or throw it into disorder; how far
it will suit the interests, or policy, of that company to create a
tempest, or to suffer a calm, in the moneyed ocean. The people are
not safe when a company has such a power. The temptation is too
great--the opportunity too easy--to put up and put down prices;
to make and break fortunes; to bring the whole community upon its
knees to the Neptunes who preside over the flux and reflux of
paper. All property is at their mercy. The price of real estate--of
every growing crop--of every staple article in market--is at their
command. Stocks are their playthings--their gambling theatre--on
which they gamble daily, with as little secrecy, and as little
morality, and far more mischief to fortunes, than common gamblers
carry on their operations. The philosophic Voltaire, a century
ago, from his retreat in Ferney, gave a lively description of this
operation, by which he was made a winner, without the trouble of
playing. I have a friend, said he, who is a director in the Bank of
France, who writes to me when they are going to make money plenty,
and make stocks rise, and then I give orders to my broker to sell;
and he writes to me when they are going to make money scarce, and
make stocks fall, and then I write to my broker to buy; and thus,
at a hundred leagues from Paris, and without moving from my chair,
I make money. This, said Mr. B., is the operation on stocks to the
present day; and it cannot be safe to the holders of stock that
there should be a moneyed power great enough in this country to
raise and depress the prices of their property at pleasure. The
great cities of the Union are not safe, while a company, in any
other city, have power over their moneyed system, and are able, by
making money scarce or plenty--by exciting panics and alarms--to
put up, or put down, the price of the staple articles in which
they deal. Every commercial city, for its own safety, should have
an independent moneyed system--should be free from the control and
regulation of a distant, possibly a rival city, in the means of
carrying on its own trade. Thus, the safety of the government, the
safety of the people, the interest of all owners of property--of
all growing crops--the holders of all stocks--the exporters of
all staple articles--require that the regulation of the currency
should be kept out of the hands of a great banking company; that it
should remain where the constitution placed it--in the hands of the
federal government--in the hands of their representatives who are
elected by them, responsible to them, may be exchanged by them, who
can pass no law for regulating currency which will not bear upon
themselves as well as upon their constituents. This is what the
safety of the community requires; and, for one, he (Mr. B.) would
not, if he could, delegate the power of regulating the currency of
this great country to any banking company whatsoever. It was a power
too tremendous to be trusted to a company. The States thought it too
great a power to be trusted to the State governments; he (Mr. B.)
thought so too. The States confided it to the federal government;
he, for one, would confine it to the federal government, and would
make that government exercise it. Above all, he would not confer it
upon a bank which was itself above regulation; and on this point
he called upon the Senate to recollect the question, apparently
trite, but replete with profound sagacity--that sagacity which it
belongs to great men to possess, and to express--which was put to
the Congress of 1816, when this bank charter was under discussion,
and the regulation of the currency was one of the attributes with
which it was to be invested; he alluded to his late esteemed friend
(Mr. Randolph), and to his call upon the House to tell him who was
to bell the cat? That single question contains in its answer, and in
its allusion, the exact history of the people of the United States,
and of the Bank of the United States, at this day. It was a flash of
lightning into the dark vista of futurity, showing in 1816 what we
all see in 1834.
Mr. B. took up the second point on which he disagreed with the
Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun], namely, the capacity
of the Bank of the United States to supply a general currency
to the Union. In handling this question he would drop all other
inquiries--lay aside every other objection--overlook every
consideration of the constitutionality and expediency of the bank,
and confine himself to the strict question of its ability to diffuse
and retain in circulation a paper currency over this extended
Union. He would come to the question as a banker would come to it
at his table, or a merchant in his counting-room, looking to the
mere operation of a money system. It was a question for wise men to
think of, and for abler men than himself to discuss. It involved the
theory and the science of banking--Mr. B. would say the philosophy
of banking, if such a term could be applied to a moneyed system.
It was a question to be studied as the philosopher studies the
laws which govern the material world--as he would study the laws
of gravitation and attraction which govern the movements of the
planets, or draw the waters of the mountains to the level of the
ocean. The moneyed system, said Mr. B., has its laws of attraction
and gravitation--of repulsion and adhesion; and no man may be
permitted to indulge the hope of establishing a moneyed system
contrary to its own laws. The genius of man has not yet devised
a bank--the historic page is yet to be written which tells of a
bank--which has diffused over an extensive country, and retained
in circulation, a general paper currency. England is too small a
theatre for a complete example; but even there the impossibility
is confessed, and has been confessed for a century. The Bank of
England, in her greatest day of pre-eminence, could not furnish a
general currency for England alone--a territory not larger than
Virginia. The country banks furnished the local paper currency, and
still furnish it as far as it is used. They carried on their banking
upon Bank of England notes, until the gold currency was restored;
and local paper formed the mass of local circulation. The notes of
the Bank of England flowed to the great commercial capitals, and
made but brief sojourn in the counties. But England is not a fair
example for the United States; it is too small; a fairer example
is to be found nearer home, in our own country, and in this very
Bank of the United States which is now existing, and in favor of
which the function of supplying a general currency to this extended
confederacy is claimed. We have the experiment of this bank, not
once, but twice made; and each experiment proves the truth of the
laws which govern the system. The theory of bank circulation,
over an extended territory, is this, that you may put out as many
notes as you may in any one place, they will immediately fall into
the track of commerce--into the current of trade--into the course
of exchange--and follow that current wherever it leads. In these
United States the current sets from every part of the interior,
and especially from the South and West into the Northeast--into
the four commercial cities north of the Potomac; Baltimore,
Philadelphia, New-York, and Boston: and all the bank notes which
will pass for money in those places, fall into the current which
sets in that direction. When there, there is nothing in the course
of trade to bring them back. There is no reflux in that current! It
is a trade-wind which blows twelve months in the year in the same
direction. This is the theory of bank circulation over extended
territory; and the history of the present bank is an exemplification
of the truth of that theory. Listen to Mr. Cheves. Read his report
made to the stockholders at their triennial meeting in 1822. He
stated this law of circulation, and explained the inevitable
tendency of the branch bank notes to flow to the Northeast; the
impossibility of preventing it; and the resolution which he had
taken and executed, to close all the Southern and Western branches,
and prevent them from issuing any more notes. Even while issuing
their own notes, they had so far forgot their charter as to carry
on operations, in part, upon the notes of the local banks--having
collected those notes in great quantity, and loaned them out. This
was reported by the investigating committee of 1819, and made one
of the charges of misconduct against the bank at that time. To
counteract this tendency, the bank applied to Congress for leave to
issue their bank notes on terms which would have made them a mere
local currency. Congress refused it; but the bank is now attempting
to do it herself, by refusing to take the notes received in payment
of the federal revenue, and sending it back to be paid where issued.
Such was the history of the branch bank notes, and which caused
that currency to disappear from all the interior, and from the
whole South and West, so soon after the bank got into operation.
The attempt to keep out branch notes, or to send the notes of the
mother bank to any distance, being found impracticable, there was
no branch currency of any kind in circulation for a period of eight
or nine years, until the year 1827, when the branch checks were
invented, to perform the miracle which notes could not. Mr. B. would
say nothing about the legality of that invention; he would now treat
them as a legal issue under the charter; and in that most favorable
point of view for them, he would show that these branch checks were
nothing but a quack remedy--an empirical contrivance--which made
things worse. By their nature they were as strongly attracted to
the Northeast as the branch notes had been; by their terms they
were still more strongly attracted, for they bore Philadelphia on
their face! they were payable at the mother bank! and, of course,
would naturally flow to that place for use or payment. This was
their destiny, and most punctually did they fulfil it. Never did the
trade-winds blow more truly--never did the gulf stream flow more
regularly--than those checks flowed to the Northeast! The average
of four years next ensuing the invention of these checks, which
went to the mother bank, or to the Atlantic branches north of the
Potomac, including the branch notes which flowed with them, was
about nineteen millions of dollars per annum! Mr. B. then exhibited
a table to prove what he alleged, and from which it appeared that
the flow of the branch paper to the Northeast was as regular and
uniform as an operation of nature; that each city according to its
commercial importance, received a greater or less proportion of
this inland paper gulf stream; and that the annual variation was so
slight as only to prove the regularity of the laws by which it was
governed. The following is the table which he exhibited. It was one
of the tabular statements obtained by the investigating committee in
1832:
_Amount of Branch Bank Paper received at_--
1828. 1829. 1830. 1831.
1. New-York, 11,938,350 11,294,960 9,168,370 12,284,320
2. Philadelphia, 4,453,150 4,106,985 4,579,725 5,398,800
3. Boston, 1,010,730 1,844,170 1,794,750 1,816,430
4. Baltimore, 1,437,100 1,420,360 1,376,320 1,588,680
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
18,888,330 18,666,475 16,919,160 21,092,230
After exhibiting this table, and taking it for complete proof of the
truth of the theory which he had laid down, and that it demonstrated
the impossibility of keeping up a circulation of the United States
Bank paper in the remote and interior parts of the Union, Mr. B.
went on to say that the story was yet but half told--the mischief
of this systematic flow of national currency to the Northeast, was
but half disclosed; another curtain was yet to be lifted--another
vista was yet to be opened--and the effect of the system upon the
metallic currency of the States was to be shown to the people and
the States. This view would show, that as fast as the checks or
notes of any branch were taken up at the mother bank, or at the
branches north of the Potomac, an account was opened against the
branch from which they came. The branch was charged with the amount
of the notes or checks taken up; and periodically served with a
copy of the account, and commanded to send on specie or bills of
exchange to redeem them. When redeemed, they were remitted to the
branch from which they came; while on the road they were called
notes in transitu; and when arrived they were put into circulation
again at that place--fell into the current immediately, which
carried them back to the Northeast--there taken up again, charged
to the branch--the branch required to redeem them again with specie
or bills of exchange; and then returned to her, to be again put
into circulation, and to undergo again and again, and until the
branch could no longer redeem them, the endless process of flowing
to the Northeast. The result of the whole was, is, and for ever
will be, that the branch will have to redeem its circulation till
redemption is impossible; until it has exhausted the country of
its specie; and then the country in which the branch is situated
is worse off than before she had a branch; for she had neither
notes nor specie left. Mr. B. said that this was too important a
view of the case to be rested on argument and assertion alone; it
required evidence to vanquish incredulity, and to prove it up; and
that evidence was at hand. He then referred to two tables to show
the amount of hard money which the mother bank, under the operation
of this system, had drawn from the States in which her branches
were situated. All the tables were up to the year 1831, the period
to which the last investigating committee had brought up their
inquiries. One of these statements showed the amount abstracted from
the whole Union; it was $40,040,622 20; another showed the amount
taken from the Southern and Western States; it was $22,523,387 94;
another showed the amount taken from the branch at New Orleans; it
was $12,815,798 10. Such, said Mr. B., has been the result of the
experiment to diffuse a national paper currency over this extended
Union. Twice in eighteen years it has totally failed, leaving the
country exhausted of its specie, and destitute of paper. This was
proof enough, but there was still another mode of proving the same
thing; it was the fact of the present amount of United States Bank
notes in circulation. Mr. B. had heard with pain the assertion made
in so many memorials presented to the Senate, that there was a great
scarcity of currency; that the Bank of the United States had been
obliged to contract her circulation in consequence of the removal
of the deposits, and that her notes had become so scarce that none
could be found; and strongly contrasting the present dearth which
now prevails with the abundant plenty of these notes which reigned
over a happy land before that fatal measure came to blast a state
of unparalleled prosperity. The fact was, Mr. B. said, that the
actual circulation of the bank is greater now than it was before the
removal of the deposits; greater than it has been in any month but
one for upwards of a year past. The discounts were diminished, he
said, but the circulation was increased.
Mr. B. then exhibited a table of the actual circulation of the Bank
of the United States for the whole year 1833, and for the two past
months of the present year; and stated it to be taken from the
monthly statements of the bank, as printed and laid upon the tables
of members. It was the net circulation--the quantity of notes and
checks actually out--excluding all that were on the road returning
to the branch banks, called notes in transitu, and which would
not be counted till again issued by the branch to which they were
returned.
_The following is the table_:
January, 1833, $17,666,444
February, " 18,384,050
March, " 18,033,205
April, " 18,384,075
May, " 18,991,200
June, " 19,366,555
July, " 18,890,505
August, " 18,413,287
September, " 19,128,189
October, " 18,518,000
November, " 18,650,912
December, " not found.
January, 1834, 19,208,375
February, " 19,260,472
By comparing the circulation of each month, as exhibited on this
table, Mr. B. said, it would be seen that the quantity of United
States Bank notes now in circulation is three quarters of a million
greater than it was in October last, and a million and a half
greater than it was in January, 1833. How, then, are we to account
for this cry of no money, in which so many respectable men join? It
is in the single fact of their flow to the Northeast. The pigeons,
which lately obscured the air with their numbers, have all taken
their flight to the North! But pigeons will return of themselves,
whereas these bank notes will never return till they are purchased
with gold and silver, and brought back. Mr. B. then alluded to a
petition from a meeting in his native State, North Carolina, and
in which one of his esteemed friends (Mr. Carson) late a member
of the House of Representatives, was a principal actor, and which
stated the absolute disappearance of United States Bank notes
from all that region of country. Certainly the petition was true
in that statement; but it is equally true that it was mistaken in
supposing that the circulation of the bank was diminished. The table
which he had read had shown the contrary; it showed an increase,
instead of a diminution, of the circulation. The only difference
was that it had all left that part of the country, and that it would
do for ever! If a hundred millions of United States Bank notes
were carried to the upper parts of North Carolina, and put into
circulation, it would be but a short time before the whole would
have fallen into the current which sweeps the paper of that bank to
the Northeast. Mr. B. said there were four other classes of proof
which he could bring in, but it would be a consumption of time,
and a work of supererogation. He would not detail them, but state
their heads: 1. One was the innumerable orders which the mother
bank had forwarded to her branches to send on specie and bills of
exchange to redeem their circulation--to pour in reinforcements
to the points to which their circulation tends; 2. Another was
in the examination of Mr. Biddle, president of the bank, by the
investigating committee, in 1832, in which this absorbing tendency
of the branch paper to flow to the Northeast was fully charged and
admitted; 3. A third was in the monthly statement of the notes _in
transitu_, which amount to an average of four millions and a half
for the last twelve months, making fifty millions for the year; and
which consist, by far the greater part, of branch notes and checks
redeemed in the Northeast, purchased back by the branches, and on
their way back to the place from which they issued; and, 4. The
last class of proof was in the fact, that the branches north of the
Potomac, being unable or unwilling to redeem these notes any longer,
actually ceased to redeem them last fall, even when taken in revenue
payment to the United States, until coerced by the Secretary of
the Treasury; and that they will not be redeemed for individuals
now, and are actually degenerating into a mere local currency. Upon
these proofs and arguments, Mr. B. rested his case, and held it
to be fully established first, by argument, founded in the nature
of bank circulation over an extended territory; and secondly, by
proof, derived from the operation of the present bank of the United
States, that neither the present bank, nor any one that the wisdom
of man can devise, can ever succeed in diffusing a general paper
circulation over the States of this Union.
VI. Dropping every other objection to the bank--looking at it purely
and simply as a supplier of national currency--he, Mr. B., could
not consent to prolong the existence of the present bank. Certainly
a profuse issue of paper at all points--an additional circulation
of even a few millions poured out at the destitute points--would
make currency plenty for a little while, but for a little while
only. Nothing permanent would result from such a measure. On the
contrary, in one or two years, the destitution and distress would be
greater than it now is. At the same time, it is completely in the
power of the bank, at this moment, to grant relief, full, adequate,
instantaneous relief! In making this assertion, Mr B. meant to prove
it; and to prove it, he meant to do it in a way that it should reach
the understanding of every candid and impartial friend that the bank
possessed; for he meant to discard and drop from the inquiry, all
his own views upon the subject; to leave out of view every statement
made, and every opinion entertained by himself, and his friends, and
proceed to the inquiry upon the evidence of the bank alone--upon
that evidence which flowed from the bank directory itself, and from
the most zealous, and best informed of its friends on this floor.
Mr. B. assumed that a mere cessation to curtail discounts, at this
time, would be a relief--that it would be the salvation of those
who were pressed--and put an end to the cry of distress; he averred
that this curtailment must now cease, or the bank must find a new
reason for carrying it on; for the old reason is exhausted, and
cannot apply. Mr. B. then took two distinct views to sustain his
position: one founded in the actual conduct and present condition of
the bank itself, and the other in a comparative view of the conduct
and condition of the former Bank of the United States, at the
approaching period of its dissolution.
I. As to the conduct and condition of the present bank.
Mr. B. appealed to the knowledge of all present for the accuracy
of his assertion, when he said that the bank had now reduced her
discounts, dollar for dollar, to the amount of public deposits
withdrawn. The adversaries of the bank said the reduction was much
larger than the abstraction; but he dropped that, and confined
himself strictly to the admissions and declarations of the bank
itself. Taking then the fact to be, as the bank alleged it to
be, that she had merely brought down her business in proportion
to the capital taken from her, it followed of course that there
was no reason for reducing her business any lower. Her relative
position--her actual strength--was the same now that it was before
the removal; and the old reason could not be available for the
reduction of another dollar. Next, as to her condition. Mr. B.
undertook to affirm, and would quickly prove, that the general
condition of the bank was better now than it had been for years
past; and that the bank was better able to make loans, or to
increase her circulation, than she was in any of those past periods
in which she was so lavishly accommodating the public. For the
proof of this, Mr. B. had recourse to her specie fund, always the
true test of a bank's ability, and showed it to be greater now than
it had been for two years past, when her loans and circulation
were so much greater than they are now. He took the month of May,
1832, when the whole amount of specie on hand was $7,890,347 59;
when the net amount of notes in circulation was $21,044,415; and
when the total discounts were $70,428,070 72: and then contrasted
it with the condition of the bank at this time, that is to say,
in the month of February last, when the last return was made; the
items stands thus: specie, $10,523,385 69; net amount of notes in
circulation, $19,260,472; total discounts, $54,842,973 64. From this
view of figures, taken from the official bank returns, from which
it appeared that the specie in the bank was nearly three millions
greater than it was in May, 1832, her net circulation nearly two
millions less, and her loans and discounts upwards of fifteen
millions less; Mr. B. would submit it to all candid men to say
whether the bank is not more able to accommodate the community now
than she was then? At all events, he would demand if she was not now
able to cease pressing them?
II. As to the comparative condition and conduct of the first Bank
the United States at the period of its approaching dissolution.
Mr. B. took the condition of the bank from Mr. Gallatin's statement
of its affairs to Congress, made in January, 1811, just three months
before the charter expired; and which showed the discounts and loans
of the bank to be $14,578,294 25, her capital being $10,000,000; so
that the amount of her loans, three months before her dissolution,
was nearly in proportion--near enough for all practical views--to
the proportion which the present loans of the Bank of the United
States bear to its capital of thirty-five millions. Fifty per cent.
upon the former would give fifteen millions; fifty per cent. upon
the latter would give fifty-two millions and a half. To make the
relative condition of the two banks precisely equal, it will be
sufficient that the loans and discounts of the present bank shall be
reduced to fifty-two millions by the month of January, 1836; that
is to say, it need not make any further sensible reduction of its
loans for nearly two years to come. Thus, the mere imitation of the
conduct of the old bank will be a relief to the community. A mere
cessation to curtail, will put an end to the distress, and let the
country go on, quietly and regularly, in its moneyed operations.
If the bank will not do this--if it will go on to curtail--it is
bound to give some new reason to the country. The old reason, of
the removal of the deposits, will no longer answer. Mr. B. had no
faith in that reason from the beginning, but he was now taking the
bank upon her own evidence, and trying her upon her own reasons,
and he held it to be impossible for her to go on without the
production of a reason. The hostility of the government--rather
an incomprehensible, and altogether a gratuitous reason, from the
beginning--will no longer answer. The government in 1811 was as
hostile to the old bank, as the government now is to this one;
and rather more so. Both Houses of Congress were then hostile to
it, and hostile unto death! For they let it die! die on the day
appointed by law for its death, without pity, without remorse,
without the reprieve of one day. The government can do no worse now.
The Secretary of the Treasury has removed the deposits; and that
account is settled by the reduction of an equal amount of loans and
discounts. The rest depends upon the government; and the hostility
of the government cannot go further than to kill the bank, and
cannot kill it more dead than the old bank was killed in 1811. Mr.
B. had a further comparison to draw between the conduct of the old
bank, and the present one. The old bank permitted her discounts
to remain at their maximum to the very end of her charter; she
discounted sixty days' paper up to the last day of her existence;
while this bank has commenced a furious curtailment two years and
a half before the expiration of her charter. Again: the old bank
had not an hour, as a corporation, to wind up her business after
the end of her charter; this bank has the use of all her corporate
faculties, for that purpose, for two years after the end of her
charter. Again: the present bank pretends that she will have to
collect the whole of her debts within the period limited for winding
up her affairs; the old bank took upwards of twelve years after the
expiration of her charter to collect hers! She created a trust; she
appointed trustees; all the debts and credits were put into their
hands, the trustees proceeded like any other collectors, giving time
to all debtors who would secure the debt, pay interest punctually,
and discharge the principal by instalments. This is what the old
bank did; and she did not close her affairs until the 16th of June,
in the year 1823. The whole operation was conducted so gently,
that the public knew nothing about it. The cotemporaries of the
dissolution of the bank, knew nothing about its dissolution. And
this is what the present bank may do, if it pleases. That it has not
done so--that it is now grinding the community, and threatening to
grind them still harder, is a proof of this dangerous nature of a
great moneyed power; and should be a warning to the people who now
behold its conduct--who feel its gripe, and hear its threat--never
to suffer the existence of such another power in our free and happy
land.
VII. Mr. B. deprecated the spirit which seemed to have broken out
against State banks; it was a spirit which augured badly for the
rights of the States. Those banks were created by the States;
and the works of the States ought to be respected; the stock in
those banks was held by American citizens, and ought not to be
injuriously assailed to give value to stock held in the federal
bank by foreigners and aliens. The very mode of carrying on the
warfare against State banks, has itself been an injury, and a just
cause of complaint. Some of the most inconsiderable have been picked
out--their affairs presented in the most unfavorable light; and then
held forth as a fair sample of the whole. How much more easy would
it have been to have acted a more grateful, and a more equitable
part! a part more just to the State governments which created those
banks, and the American citizens who held stock in them! Instead
of hunting out for remote and inconsiderable banks, and instituting
a most disparaging scrutiny into their small affairs, and making
this high Senate the conspicuous theatre for the exhibition of
their insignificance, why not take the higher order of the State
banks?--those whose names and characters are well known? whose stock
upon the exchange of London and New-York, is superior to that of the
United States Bank? whose individual deposits are greater than those
of the rival branches of the Bank of the United States, seated in
their neighborhood? whose bills of exchange are as eagerly sought
for as those of the federal bank? which have reduced exchange below
the rates of the federal bank? and which, in every particular that
tries the credit, is superior to the one which is receiving so much
homage and admiration? Mr. B. said there were plenty of such State
banks as he had described; they were to be found in every principal
city, from New Orleans to Boston. Some of them had been selected for
deposit banks, others not; but there was no difficulty in making a
selection of an ample number.
This spirit of hostility to the State banks, Mr. B. said, was of
recent origin, and seemed to keep pace with the spirit of attack
upon the political rights of the States. When the first federal bank
was created, in the year 1791, it was not even made, by its charter,
a place of deposit for the public moneys. Mr. Jefferson preferred
the State banks at that time; and so declared himself in his cabinet
opinion to President Washington. Mr. Gallatin deposited a part of
the public moneys in the State banks during the whole of the long
period that he was at the head of the treasury. At the dissolution
of the first Bank of the United States, he turned over all the
public moneys which he held in deposit to these banks, taking their
obligation to pay out all the treasury warrants drawn upon them in
gold and silver, if desired by the holder. When the present bank
was chartered, the State banks stood upon an equal footing with the
federal bank, and were placed upon an equality with it as banks of
deposit, in the very charter which created the federal bank. Mr. B.
was alluding to the 14th fundamental article of the constitution
of the bank--the article which provided for the establishment of
branches--and which presented an argument in justification of the
removal of the deposits which the adversaries of that measure most
pertinaciously decline to answer. The government wanted banks of
deposit, not of circulation; and by that article, the State banks
are made just as much banks of deposit for the United States as the
Bank of the United States is. They are put upon exact equality,
so far as the federal government is concerned; for she stipulates
but for one single branch of the United States Bank, and that to
be placed at Washington city. As for all other branches, their
establishment was made to depend--not on the will, or power, of
the federal government--not on any supposed or real necessity on
her part to have the use of such branches--but upon contingencies
over which she had no control; contingencies depending, one upon
the mere calculation of profit and loss by the bank itself, the
other upon the subscriptions of stock within a State, and the
application of its legislature. In these contingencies, namely,
if the Bank of the United States thought it to her interest to
establish branches in the States, she might do it; or, if 2,000
shares of stock was subscribed for in a State, and thereupon an
application was made by the State legislature for the institution of
a branch, then its establishment within the State became obligatory
upon the bank. In neither contingency had the will, the power,
or the necessities of the federal government, the least weight,
concern, or consideration, in the establishment of the branch. If
not established, and so far as the government is concerned, it might
not be, then the State banks, selected by the United States Bank,
and approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, were to be the banks
of deposit for the federal moneys. This was an argument, Mr. B.
said, in justification of the removal of the deposits, and in favor
of the use of the State banks which gentlemen on the opposite side
of the question--gentlemen who take so much pains to decry State
banks--have been careful not to answer.
The evils of a small paper circulation, he considered among the
greatest grievances that could afflict a community. The evils
were innumerable, and fell almost exclusively upon those who were
least able to bear them, or to guard against them. If a bank stops
payment, the holders of the small notes, who are usually the working
part of the community, are the last to find it out, and the first
to suffer. If counterfeiting is perpetrated, it is chiefly the
small notes which are selected for imitation, because they are most
current among those who know the least about notes, and who are most
easily made the dupes of imposition, and the victims of fraud. As
the expeller of hard money, small notes were the bane and curse of a
country. A nation is scarce, or abundant, in hard money, precisely
in the degree in which it tolerates the lower denominations of bank
notes. France tolerates no note less than $100; and has a gold and
silver circulation of 350 millions of dollars. England tolerates no
note of less than $25; and has a gold and silver circulation of 130
millions of dollars: in the United States, where $5 is the minimum
size of the federal bank notes, the whole specie circulation,
including what is in the banks, does not amount to thirty millions
of dollars. To increase the quantity of hard money in the United
States, and to supply the body of the people with an adequate specie
currency to serve for their daily wants, and ordinary transactions,
the banknote circulation below twenty dollars, ought to be
suppressed. If Congress could pass a law to that effect, it ought
to bed one; but it cannot pass such a law: it has no constitutional
power to pass it. Congress can, however, do something else, which
will, in time, effectually put down such a currency. It can discard
it, and disparage it. It can reject it from all federal payments. It
can reject the whole circulation of any bank that will continue to
issue small notes. Their rejection from all federal payments, would
check their currency, and confine the orbit of their circulation
to the immediate neighborhood of the issuing bank. The bank itself
would find but little profit from issuing them--public sentiment
would come to the aid of federal policy. The people of the States,
when countenanced and sustained by the federal government, would
indulge their natural antipathy and honest detestation of a small
paper currency. They would make war upon all small notes. The
State legislatures would be under the control of the people; and
the States that should first have the wisdom to limit their paper
circulation to a minimum of twenty dollar bills, would immediately
fill up with gold and silver. The common currency would be
entirely metallic; and there would be a broad and solid basis for
a superstructure of large notes; while the States which continued
to tolerate the small notes, would be afflicted with all the evils
of a most pestilential part of the paper system,--small notes, part
counterfeit, part uncurrent, half worn out; and all incapable of
being used with any regard to a beneficial economy. Mr. B. went on
to depict the evils of a small note currency, which he looked upon
as the bane and curse of the laboring part of the community, and the
reproach and opprobrium of any government that tolerated it. He said
that the government which suffered its currency to fall into such a
state that the farmer, the artisan, the market man, the day laborer,
and the hired servant, could only be paid in small bank notes, was a
government which abdicated one of its most sacred duties; and became
an accomplice on the part of the strong in the oppression of the
weak.
Mr. B. placed great reliance upon the restoration of the gold
currency for putting down a small note circulation. No man would
choose to carry a bundle of small bank notes in his pocket, even
new and clean ones, much less old, ragged, and filthy ones, when he
could get gold in their place. A limitation upon the receivability
of these notes, in payment of federal dues, would complete their
suppression. Mr. B. did not aspire to the felicity of seeing as
fine a currency in the United States as there is in France, where
there was no bank note under five hundred francs, and where there
was a gold and silver circulation at the rate of eleven dollars a
head for each man, woman, and child, in the kingdom, namely, three
hundred and fifty millions of dollars for a population of thirty-two
millions of souls; but he did aspire to the comparative happiness
of seeing as good currency established for ourselves, by ourselves,
as our old fellow-subjects--the people of old England--now possess
from their king, lords, and commons. They--he spoke of England
proper--had no bank note less than five pounds sterling, and they
possessed a specie circulation (of which three-fourths was gold) at
the rate of about nine dollars a head, men, women, children (even
paupers) included; namely, about one hundred and thirty millions for
a population of fourteen millions. He, Mr. B., must be allowed to
aspire to the happiness of possessing, and in his sphere to labor
to acquire, as good a circulation as these English have; and that
would be an immeasurable improvement upon our present condition.
We have local bank notes of one, two, three, four dollars; we have
federal bank notes of five and ten dollars--the notes of those
English who are using gold at home while we are using their paper
here:--we have not a particle of gold, and not more silver than at
the rate of about two dollars a head, men, women, children (even
slaves) included; namely, about thirty millions of silver for a
population of thirteen millions. Mr. B. believed there was not upon
the face of the earth, a country whose actual currency was in a more
deplorable condition than that of the United States was at present;
the bitter fruit of that fatal paper system which was brought upon
us, with the establishment of the first Bank of the United States in
1791, and which will be continued upon us until the citadel of that
system--the Bastile of paper money, the present Bank of the United
States,--shall cease to exist.
Mr. B. said, that he was not the organ of the President on this
floor--he had no authority from the President to speak his
sentiments to the Senate. Even if he knew them, it would be
unparliamentary, and irregular, to state them. There was a way for
the Senate to communicate with the President, which was too well
known to every gentleman to require any indication from him. But
he might be permitted to suggest--in the absence of all regular
information--that if any Senator wished to understand, and to
comment upon, the President's opinions on currency, he might,
perhaps, come something nearer to the mark, by commenting on what
he (Mr. B.) had been saying, than by having recourse to the town
meeting reports of inimical bank committees.
CHAPTER CVI.
ATTEMPTED INVESTIGATION OF THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.
The House of Representatives had appointed a select committee of
its members to investigate the affairs of the Bank of the United
States--seven in number, and consisting of Mr. Francis Thomas,
of Maryland; Mr. Edward Everett, of Massachusetts; Mr. Henry A.
Muhlenberg, of Pennsylvania; Mr. John Y. Mason, of Virginia; Mr. W.
W. Ellsworth, of Connecticut; Mr. Abijah Mann, Jr. of New-York; Mr.
Robert T. Lytle, of Ohio. The authority under which the committee
acted, required them to ascertain: 1. The causes of the commercial
embarrassment, and the public distress complained of in the numerous
distress memorials presented to the two Houses during the session;
and whether the bank had been any way instrumental, through its
management or money, in producing the distress and embarrassment,
of which so much complaint was made. 2. To inquire whether the
charter of the bank had been violated; and what corruptions and
abuses, if any, had existed in its management. 3. To inquire whether
the bank had used its corporate power, or money, to control the
press, to interpose in politics, or to influence elections. The
authority conferred upon the committee was ample for the execution
of these inquiries. It was authorized to send for persons and
papers; to summon and examine witnesses on oath; to visit, if
necessary, the principal bank, and its branches; to inspect the
books, correspondence and accounts of the bank, and other papers
connected with its management. The right of the House to make this
investigation was two-fold: _first_, under the twenty-third article
of the charter: _secondly_, as the founder of the corporation; to
whom belongs, in law language, the right to "visit" the institution
it has founded; which "visiting" is for examination--as a bishop
"visits" his diocese--a superintendent "visits" the works and
persons under his care; not to see them, but to examine into
their management and condition. There was also, a _third_ right
of examination, resulting from the act of the corporation; it was
again soliciting a re-charter, and was bound to show that the
corporators had used their actual charter fairly and legally before
it asked for another. And, _fourthly_, there was a further right
of investigation, still resulting from its conduct. It denied all
the accusations brought against it by the government directors,
and brought before Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury;
and joined issue upon those accusations in a memorial addressed
to the two Houses of Congress, To refuse examination under these
circumstances would be shrinking from the issue which itself had
joined. The committee proceeded to Philadelphia, and soon found
that the bank did not mean to submit to an examination. Captious
and special pleading objections were made at every step, until
attempts on one side and objections on the other ended in a total
refusal to submit their books for inspection, or themselves for an
examination. The directors had appointed a company of seven to meet
the committee of the House--a procedure unwarranted by any right or
usage, and offensive in its pretentious equality; but to which the
committee consented, at first, from a desire to do nothing to balk
the examination. That corporation committee was to sit with them,
in the room in the bank assigned for the examination; and took care
always to pre-occupy it before the House committee arrived; and to
act as if at home, receiving guests. The committee then took a room
in a hotel, and asked to have the bank books sent to them; which
was refused. They then desired to have the books subjected to their
inspection in the bank itself; in which request they were baffled,
and defeated. The bank committee required written specification
of their points of inquiry, either in examining a book, or asking
a question--that it might judge its legality; which they confined
to mere breaches of the charter. And when the directors were
summoned to answer questions, they refused to be sworn, and excused
themselves on the ground of being parties to the proceeding. Some
passages from the committee's report will show to what extent this
higgling and contumacy was carried by this corporation--deriving its
existence from Congress, and endeavoring to force a renewed charter
from it while refusing to show how it had used the first one. Thus:
"On the 23d of April, their chairman addressed to the President
of the bank, a communication, inclosing a copy of the resolution
of the House of Representatives, and notifying him of the
readiness of the committee to visit the bank on the ensuing
day, at any hour agreeable to him. In reply, the President
informed the committee that the papers thus received should be
submitted to the board of directors, at a special meeting to
be called for that purpose. It appears, in the journal of the
proceedings of the committee, herewith presented to the House,
that this was done, and that the directors appointed a committee
of seven of their board, to receive the committee of the House
of Representatives, and to offer for their inspection such books
and papers of the bank, as may be necessary to exhibit the
proceedings of the corporation, according to the requirement of
the charter. In the letter of John Sergeant, Esq., as chairman
of the committee of directors communicating the proceedings of
the board, he says that he was directed to inform the chairman
of this committee that the committee of the directors 'will
immediately direct the necessary arrangements to be made for the
accommodation of the committee of the House of Representatives,'
and would attend at the bank to receive them the next day, at
eleven o'clock. Your committee attended, and were received by
the committee of directors.
"Up to this period, nothing had occurred to justify the belief
that a disposition was felt, on the part of the managers of
the bank, to embarrass the proceedings of the committee, or
have them conducted differently from those of the two preceding
committees of investigation. On assembling, however, the next
morning, at the bank, they found the room which had been offered
for their accommodation, preoccupied by the committee of the
board, with the president of the bank, as an _ex officio_
member, claiming the right to be present at the investigations
and examinations of this committee. This proceeding the
committee were not prepared to expect. When the appointment of
the committee of seven was first made, it was supposed that that
measure, however designed, was not well calculated to facilitate
the examination.
"With a previous determination to be present when their books
were to be inspected, they could have waited to avow it until
these books were called for, and the attempt made to inspect
them in their absence. These circumstances are now reviewed,
because they then excited an apprehension, which the sequel
formed into conviction, that this committee of directors
had been appointed to supervise the acts and doings of your
committee, and to limit and restrain their proceedings, not
according to the directions contained in the resolution of the
House, but the will and judgment of the board of directors. Your
committee have chosen to ascribe this claim of the committee of
directors to sit conjointly with them, to the desire to prevent
them from making use of the books and papers, for some of the
purposes pointed out by the resolution of the House. They are
sensible that this claim to be present at all examinations,
avowed prematurely, and subsequently persisted in with peculiar
pertinacity, could be attributed to very different motives;
but respect for themselves, and respect for the gentlemen
who compose the committee of directors, utterly forbids the
ascription to them of a feeling which would merit compassion and
contempt much more than resentment.
"This novel position, voluntarily and deliberately taken by
the committee of the directors, predicated on an idea of
equality of rights with your committee, under your resolution,
rendered it probable, and in some measure necessary, that your
committee should express its opinions of the relative rights
of the corporation and the House of Representatives. To avoid
all misunderstanding and future misrepresentations, it was
desirable that each question should be decided separately.
Contemplating an extended investigation, but unwilling that
an apprehension should exist of improper disclosures being
made of the transactions of the bank and its customers your
committee, following the example of the committee of 1832,
adopted a resolution declaring that their proceedings should be
confidential, until otherwise ordered by the committee, and also
a resolution that the committee would conduct its investigations
'without the presence of any person not required or invited
to attend.' A copy of these resolutions was furnished to the
committee of directors, in the hope that the exclusive control
of a room at the bank, during its hours of business, would
thereafter be conceded to your committee, while the claim of
the committee of directors to be present when the books were
submitted for inspection, should be postponed for decision, when
the books were called for and produced by them.
"On the 28th ult. this committee assembled at the banking
house, and again found the room they expected to find set apart
for their use, preoccupied by the committee of directors, and
others, officers of the bank. And instead of such assurances
as they had a right to expect, they received copies of two
resolutions adopted by the board of directors, in which they
were given to understand that their continued occupation of
the room must be considered a favor and not a matter of right;
and in which the board indulge in unjust commentaries on the
resolution of the House of Representatives; and intimate
an apprehension that your committee design to make their
examinations secret, partial, unjust, oppressive and contrary to
common right."
On receiving this offensive communication, manifestly intended to
bring on a quarrel, the committee adopted a resolution to sit in a
room of their hotel, and advised the bank accordingly; and required
the president and directors to submit the books to their inspection
in the room so chosen, at a day and hour named. To this the
directors answered that they could not comply; and the committee,
desirous to do all they could to accomplish the investigation
committed to them, then gave notice that they would attend at the
bank on a named day and hour to inspect the books in the bank
itself--either at the counter, or in a room. Arriving at the
appointed time, and asking to see the books, they were positively
refused, reasons in writing being assigned for the refusal. They
then made a written request to see certain books specifically and
for a specified purpose, namely, to ascertain the truth of the
report of the government directors in using the money and power of
the bank in politics, in elections, or in producing the distress.
The manner in which this call was treated must be given in the words
of the report itself; thus:
"Without giving a specific answer to these calls for books
and papers, the committee of directors presented a written
communication, which was said to be 'indicative of the mode of
proceeding deemed right by the bank.'
"The committee of the board in that communication, express the
opinion, that the inquiry can only be rightfully extended to
alleged violations of the charter, and deny virtually the right
of the House of Representatives to authorize the inquiries
required in the resolution.
"They also required of the committee of investigation, 'when
they asked for books and papers, to state specifically in
writing, the purposes for which they are proposed to be
inspected; and if it be to establish a violation of the charter,
then to state specifically in writing, what are the alleged or
supposed violations of charter, to which the evidence is alleged
to be applicable.'
"To this extraordinary requirement, made on the supposition
that your committee were charged with the duty of crimination,
or prosecution for criminal offence, and implying a right on
the part of the directors to determine for what purposes the
inspection should be made, and what books or papers should
be submitted to inspection, your committee replied, that
they were not charged with the duty of criminating the bank,
its directors, or others; but simply to inquire, amongst
other things, whether any prosecution in legal form should
be instituted, and from the nature of their duties, and the
instructions of the House of Representatives, they were not
bound to state specifically in writing any charges against
the bank, or any special purpose for which they required the
production of the books and papers for inspection."
The committee then asked for copies of the accounts and entries
which they wished to see, and were answered that it would require
the labor of two clerks for ten months to make them out; and so
declined to give the copies. The committee finding that they could
make nothing out of books and papers, determined to change their
examination of things into that of persons; and for that purpose
had recourse to the subpoenas, furnished by the House; and had them
served by the United States marshal on the president and directors.
This subpoena, which contained a clause of _duces tecum_, with
respect to the books, was so far obeyed as to bring the directors
in person before the committee; and so far disobeyed as to bring
them without the books, and so far exceeded as to bring them with a
written refusal to be sworn--for reasons which they stated. But this
part deserves to be told in the language of the report; which says:
"Believing they had now exhausted, in their efforts to execute
the duty devolved upon them, all reasonable means depending
solely upon the provisions of the bank charter, to obtain the
inspection of the books of this corporation, your committee
were at last reluctantly compelled to resort to the subpoenas
which had been furnished to them under the seal of this House,
and attested by its clerk. They, thereby, on the 9th inst.
directed the marshal of the eastern district of Pennsylvania to
summon Nicholas Biddle, president, and thirteen other persons,
directors of the bank, to attend at their committee room, on the
next day, at twelve o'clock, at noon, to testify concerning the
matters of which your committee were authorized to inquire, and
to bring with them certain books therein named for inspection.
The marshal served the summons in due form of law, and at the
time appointed, the persons therein named appeared before the
committee and presented a written communication signed by each
of them, as the answer of each to the requirements of the
subpoena, which is in the appendix to this report. In this paper
they declare 'that they do not produce the books required,
because they are not in the custody of either of us, but as has
been heretofore stated, of the board,' and add, 'considering
that as corporators and directors, we are parties to the
proceeding--we do not consider ourselves bound to testify, and
therefore respectfully decline to do so.'"
This put an end to the attempted investigation. The committee
returned to Washington--made report of their proceedings, and
moved: "That the speaker of this House do issue his warrant to the
sergeant-at-arms, to arrest Nicholas Biddle, president--Manuel
Eyre, Lawrence Lewis, Ambrose White, Daniel W. Cox, John Holmes,
Charles Chauncey, John Goddard, John R. Neff, William Platt,
Matthew Newkirk, James C. Fisher, John S. Henry, and John Sergeant,
directors--of the Bank of the United States, and bring them to
the bar of this House to answer for the contempt of its lawful
authority." This resolve was not acted upon by the House; and the
directors had the satisfaction to enjoy a negative triumph in their
contempt of the House, flagrant as that contempt was upon its own
showing, and still more so upon its contrast with the conduct of
the same bank (though under a different set of directors), in the
year 1819. A committee of investigation was then appointed, armed
with the same powers which were granted to this committee of the
year 1834, and the directors of that time readily submitted to
every species of examination which the committee chose to make.
They visited the principal bank at Philadelphia, and several of
its branches. They had free and unrestrained access to the books
and papers of the bank. They were furnished by the officers with
all the copies and extracts they asked for. They summoned before
them the directors and officers of the bank, examined them on oath,
took their testimony in writing--and obtained full answers to all
their questions, whether they implied illegalities violative of the
charter, or abuses, or mismanagement, or mistakes and errors.
CHAPTER CVII.
MR. TANEY'S REPORT ON THE FINANCES--EXPOSURE OF THE DISTRESS
ALARMS--END OF THE PANIC.
About the time when the panic was at its height, and Congress most
heavily assailed with distress memorials, the Secretary of the
Treasury was called upon by a resolve of the Senate for a report
upon the finances--with the full belief that the finances were going
to ruin, and that the government would soon be left without adequate
revenue, and driven to the mortifying resource of loans. The call
on the Secretary was made early in May, and was answered the middle
of June; and was an utter disappointment to those who called for
it. Far from showing the financial decline which had been expected,
it showed an increase in every branch of the revenue! and from that
authentic test of the national condition, it was authentically shown
that the Union was prosperous! and that the distress, of which so
much was heard, was confined to the victims of the United States
Bank, so far as it was real; and that all beyond that was fictitious
and artificial--the result of the machinery for organizing panic,
oppressing debtors, breaking up labor, and alarming the timid. When
the report came into the Senate, the reading of it was commenced
at the table of the Secretary, and had not proceeded far when Mr.
Webster moved to cease the reading, and send it to the Committee on
Finance--that committee in which a report of that kind could not
expect to find either an early or favorable notice. We had expected
a motion to get rid of it, in some quiet way, and had prepared for
whatever might happen. Mr. Taney had sent for me the day before it
came in; read it over with me; showed me all the tables on which
it was founded; and prepared me to sustain and emblazon it: for
it was our intention that such a report should go to the country,
not in the quiet, subdued tone of a State paper, but with all the
emphasis, and all the challenges to public attention, which the
amplifications, the animation, and the fire and freedom which
the speaking style admitted. The instant, then, that Mr. Webster
made his motion to stop the reading, and refer the report to the
Finance Committee, Mr. Benton rose, and demanded that the reading be
continued: a demand which he had a right to make, as the rules gave
it to every member. He had no occasion to hear it read, and probably
heard nothing of it; but the form was necessary, as the report was
to be the text of his speech. The instant it was done, he rose and
delivered his speech, seizing the circumstance of the interrupted
reading to furnish the brief exordium, and to give a fresh and
impromptu air to what he was going to say. The following is the
speech:
Mr. Benton rose, and said that this report was of a nature to
deserve some attention, before it left the chamber of the Senate,
and went to a committee, from which it might not return in time
for consideration at this session. It had been called for under
circumstances which attracted attention, and disclosed information
which deserved to be known. It was called for early in May, in the
crisis of the alarm operations, and with confident assertions that
the answer to the call would prove the distress and the suffering
of the country. It was confidently asserted that the Secretary of
the Treasury had over-estimated the revenues of the year; that
there would be a great falling off--a decline--a bankruptcy;
that confidence was destroyed--enterprise checked--industry
paralyzed--commerce suspended! that the direful act of one man, in
one dire order, had changed the face of the country, from a scene
of unparalleled prosperity to a scene of unparalleled desolation!
that the canal was a solitude, the lake a desert waste of waters,
the ocean without ships, the commercial towns deserted, silent, and
sad; orders for goods countermanded; foreign purchases stopped! and
that the answer of the Secretary would prove all this, in showing
the falsity of his own estimates, and the great decline in the
revenue and importations of the country. Such were the assertions
and predictions under which the call was made, and to which the
public attention was attracted by every device of theatrical
declamation from this floor. Well, the answer comes. The Secretary
sends in his report, with every statement called for. It is a report
to make the patriot's heart rejoice! full of high and gratifying
facts; replete with rich information; and pregnant with evidences
of national prosperity. How is it received--how received by those
who called for it? With downcast looks, and wordless tongues! A
motion is even made to stop the reading! to stop the reading of such
a report! called for under such circumstances; while whole days
are given up to reading the monotonous, tautologous, and endless
repetitions of distress memorials, the echo of our own speeches,
and the thousandth edition of the same work, without emendation or
correction! All these can be read, and printed, too, and lauded
with studied eulogium, and their contents sent out to the people,
freighted upon every wind; but this official report of the Secretary
of the Treasury, upon the state of their own revenues, and of
their own commerce, called for by an order of the Senate, is to be
treated like an unwelcome and worthless intruder; received without a
word--not even read--slipped out upon a motion--disposed of as the
Abbé Sieyes voted for the death of Louis the Sixteenth: _mort sans
phrase!_ death, without talk! But he, Mr. B., did not mean to suffer
this report to be dispatched in this unceremonious and compendious
style. It had been called for to be given to the people, and the
people should hear of it. It was not what was expected, but it is
what is true, and what will rejoice the heart of every patriot in
America. A pit was dug for Mr. Taney; the diggers of the pit have
fallen into it; the fault is not his; and the sooner they clamber
out, the better for themselves. The people have a right to know the
contents of this report, and know them they shall; and if there is
any man in this America, whose heart is so constructed as to grieve
over the prosperity of his country, let him prepare himself for
sorrow; for the proof is forthcoming, that never, since America had
a place among nations, was the prosperity of the country equal to
what it is at this day!
Mr. B. then requested the Secretary of the Senate to send him the
report, and comparative statements; which being done, Mr. B. opened
the report, and went over the heads of it to show that the Secretary
of the Treasury had not over-estimated the revenue of the year, as
he had been charged, and as the report was expected to prove: that
the revenue was, in fact, superior to the estimate; and that the
importations would equal, if not exceed, the highest amount that
they had ever attained.
To appreciate the statements which he should make, Mr. B. said it
was necessary for the Senate to recollect that the list of dutiable
articles was now greatly reduced. Many articles were now free of
duty, which formerly paid heavy duties; many others were reduced
in duty; and the fair effect of these abolitions and reductions
would be a diminution of revenue even without a diminution of
imports; yet the Secretary's estimate, made at the commencement
of the session, was more than realized, and showed the gratifying
spectacle of a full and overflowing treasury, instead of the empty
one which had been predicted; and left to Congress the grateful
occupation of further reducing taxes, instead of the odious task of
borrowing money, as had been so loudly anticipated for six months
past. The revenue accruing from imports in the first quarter of the
present year, was 5,344,540 dollars; the payments actually made
into the treasury from the custom-houses for the same quarter, were
4,435,386 dollars; and the payments from lands for the same time,
were 1,398,206 dollars. The two first months of the second quarter
were producing in a full ratio to the first quarter; and the actual
amount of available funds in the treasury on the 9th day of this
month, was eleven millions, two hundred and forty-nine thousand,
four hundred and twelve dollars. The two last quarters of the year
were always the most productive. It was the time of the largest
importations of foreign goods which pay most duty--the woollens--and
the season, also, for the largest sale of public lands. It is well
believed that the estimate will be more largely exceeded in those
two quarters than in the two first; and that the excess for the
whole year, over the estimate, will be full two millions of dollars.
This, Mr. B. said, was one of the evidences of public prosperity
which the report contained, and which utterly contradicted the idea
of distress and commercial embarrassment which had been propagated,
from this chamber, for the last six months.
Mr. B. proceeded to the next evidence of commercial prosperity; it
was the increased importations of foreign goods. These imports,
judging from the five first months, would be seven millions more
than they were two years ago, when the Bank of the United States
had seventy millions loaned out; and they were twenty millions more
than in the time of Mr. Adams's administration. At the rate they
had commenced, they would amount to one hundred and ten millions
for the year. This will exceed whatever was known in our country.
The imports, for the time that President Jackson has served, have
regularly advanced from about $74,000,000 to $108,000,000. The
following is the statement of these imports, from which Mr. B. read:
1829 $74,492,527
1830 70,876,920
1831 103,191,124
1832 101,029,266
1833 108,118,311
Mr. B. said that the imports of the last year were greater in
proportion than in any previous year; a temporary decline might
reasonably have been expected; such declines always take place after
excessive importations. If it had occurred now, though naturally
to have been expected, the fact would have been trumpeted forth as
the infallible sign--the proof positive--of commercial distress,
occasioned by the fatal removal of the deposits. But, as there was
no decline, but on the contrary, an actual increase, he must claim
the evidence for the other side of the account, and set it down as
proof positive that commerce is not destroyed; and, consequently,
that the removal of the deposits did not destroy commerce.
The next evidence of commercial prosperity which Mr. B. would
exhibit to the Senate, was in the increased, and increasing number
of ship arrivals from foreign ports. The number of arrivals for
the month of May, in New-York, was two hundred and twenty-three,
exceeding by thirty-six those of the month of April, and showing
not only a great, but an increasing activity in the commerce of
that great emporium--he would not say of the United States, or even
of North America--but he would call it that great emporium of the
two Americas, and of the New World; for the goods imported to that
place, were thence distributed to every part of the two Americas,
from the Canadian lakes to Cape Horn.
A third evidence of national prosperity was in the sales of the
public lands. Mr. B. had, on a former occasion, adverted to these
sales, so far as the first quarter was concerned; and had shown,
that instead of falling off, as had been predicted on this floor,
the revenue from the sales of these lands had actually doubled, and
more than doubled, what they were in the first quarter of 1833. The
receipts for lands for that quarter, were $668,526; for the first
quarter of the present year they were $1,398,206; being two to one,
and $60,000 over! The receipts for the two first months of the
second quarter, were also known, and would carry the revenue from
lands, for the first five months of this year, to two millions of
dollars; indicating five millions for the whole year; an enormous
amount, from which the people of the new States ought to be, in
some degree, relieved, by a reduction in the price of lands. Mr. B.
begged in the most emphatic terms, to remind the Senate, that at
the commencement of the session, the sales of the public lands were
selected as one of the criterions by which the ruin and desolation
of the country were to be judged. It was then predicted, and the
prediction put forth with all the boldness of infallible prophecy,
that the removal of the deposits would stop the sales of the public
lands; that money would disappear, and the people have nothing to
buy with; that the produce of the earth would rot upon the hands of
the farmer. These were the predictions; and if the sales had really
declined, what a proof would immediately be found in the fact to
prove the truth of the prophecy, and the dire effects of changing
the public moneys from one set of banking-houses to another! But
there is no decline; but a doubling of the former product; and a
fair conclusion thence deduced that the new States, in the interior,
are as prosperous as the old ones, on the sea-coast.
Having proved the general prosperity of the country from
these infallible data--flourishing revenue--flourishing
commerce--increased arrivals of ships--and increased sales of
public lands, Mr. B. said that he was far from denying that actual
distress had existed. He had admitted the fact of that distress
heretofore, not to the extent to which it was charged, but to a
sufficient extent to excite sympathy for the sufferers; and he had
distinctly charged the whole distress that did exist to the Bank
of the United States, and the Senate of the United States--to the
screw-and-pressure operations of the bank, and the alarm speeches
in the Senate. He had made this charge; and made it under a full
sense of the moral responsibility which he owed to the people, in
affirming any thing so disadvantageous to others, from this elevated
theatre. He had, therefore, given his proofs to accompany the
charge; and he had now to say to the Senate, and through the Senate
to the people, that he found new proofs for that charge in the
detailed statements of the accruing revenue, which had been called
for by the Senate, and furnished by the Secretary of the Treasury.
Mr. B. said he must be pardoned for repeating his request to the
Senate, to recollect how often they had been told that trade was
paralyzed; that orders for foreign goods were countermanded; that
the importing cities were the pictures of desolation; their ships
idle; their wharves deserted; their mariners wandering up and
down. Now, said Mr. B., in looking over the detailed statement
of the accruing revenue, it was found that there was no decline
of commerce, except at places where the policy and power of the
United States Bank was predominant! Where that power or policy
was predominant, revenue declined; where it was not predominant,
or the policy of the bank not exerted, the revenue increased;
and increased fast enough to make up the deficiency at the other
places. Mr. B. proceeded to verify this statement by a reference
to specified places. Thus, at Philadelphia, where the bank holds
its seat of empire, the revenue fell off about one third; it was
$797,316 for the first quarter of 1833, and only $542,498 for the
first quarter of 1834. At New-York, where the bank has not been
able to get the upper hand, there was an increase of more than
$120,000; the revenue there, for the first quarter of 1833, was
$3,122,166; for the first of 1834, it was $3,249,786. At Boston,
where the bank is again predominant, the revenue fell off about one
third; at Salem, Mass., it fell off four fifths. At Baltimore, where
the bank has been defeated, there was an increase in the revenue
of more than $70,000. At Richmond, the revenue was doubled, from
$12,034 to $25,810. At Charleston, it was increased from $69,503 to
$102,810. At Petersburg, it was slightly increased; and throughout
all the region south of the Potomac, there was either an increase,
or the slight falling off which might result from diminished duties
without diminished importations. Mr. B. said he knew that bank
power was predominant in some of the cities of the South; but he
knew, also, that the bank policy of distress and oppression had not
been practised there. That was not the region to be governed by
the scourge. The high mettle of that region required a different
policy: gentleness, conciliation, coaxing! If the South was to be
gained over by the bank, it was to be done by favor, not by fear.
The scourge, though so much the most congenial to the haughty spirit
of the moneyed power, was only to be applied where it would be
submitted to; and, therefore, the whole region south of the Potomac,
was exempted from the lash.
Mr. B. here paused to fix the attention of the Senate upon these
facts. Where the power of the bank enabled her to depress commerce
and sink the revenue, and her policy permitted her to do it,
commerce was depressed; and the revenue was sunk, and the prophecies
of the distress orators were fulfilled; but where her power did
not predominate, or where her policy required a different course,
commerce increased, and the revenue increased; and the result of the
whole is, that New-York and some other anti-bank cities have gained
what Philadelphia and other bank cities have lost; and the federal
treasury is just as well off, as if it had got its accustomed supply
from every place.
This view of facts, Mr. B. said, must fasten upon the bank the odium
of having produced all the real commercial distress which has been
felt. But at one point, at New Orleans, there was further evidence
to convict her of wanton and wicked oppression. It was not in the
Secretary's reports, but it was in the weekly returns of the
bank; and showed that, in the beginning of March, that institution
had carried off from her branch in New Orleans, the sum of about
$800,000 in specie, which it had been collecting all the winter, by
a wanton curtailment, under the pretext of supplying the amount of
the deposits taken from her at that place. These $800,000 dollars
were collected from the New Orleans merchants in the very crisis of
the arrival of Western produce. The merchants were pressed to pay
debts, when they ought to have been accommodated with loans. The
price of produce was thereby depressed; the whole West suffered from
the depression; and now it is proved that the money was not wanted
to supply the place of the deposits, but was sent to Philadelphia,
where there was no use for it, the bank having more than she can
use; and that the whole operation was a wanton and wicked measure
to coerce the West to cry out for a return of the deposits, and a
renewal of the charter, by attacking their commerce in the market of
New Orleans. This fact, said Mr. B., would have been proved from the
books of the bank, if they had been inspected. Failing in that, the
proof was intelligibly found in the weekly returns.
Mr. B. took up another table to prove the prosperity of the country:
it was in the increase of specie since the programme for the
distress had been published. That programme dated from the first day
of October last, and the clear increase since that time is the one
half of the whole quantity then in the United States. The imports
had been $11,128,291; the exports only $998,761.
Mr. B. remarked, upon this statement, that it presented a clear gain
of more than ten millions of dollars. He was of opinion that two
millions ought to be added for sums not entered at the custom-house,
which would make twelve millions; and added to the six millions of
1833, would give eighteen millions of specie of clear gain to the
country, in the last twenty months. This, he said was prosperity. It
was wealth itself; and besides, it showed that the country was not
in debt for its large importations, and that a larger proportion of
foreign imports now consisted of specie than was ever known before.
Mr. B. particularized the imports and exports of gold; how the
former had increased, and the latter diminished, during the last
few months; and said that a great amount of gold, both foreign and
domestic, was now waiting in the country to see if Congress would
raise gold to its fair value. If so raised, this gold would remain,
and enter into circulation; if not, it would immediately go off to
foreign countries; for gold was not a thing to stay where it was
undervalued. He also spoke of silver, and said that it had arrived
without law, but could not remain without law. Unless Congress
passed an act to make it current, and that at full value as money,
and not at the mint value, as bullion, it would go off.
Mr. B. had a further view to give of the prosperity of the country,
and further evidence to show that all the distress really suffered
was factitious and unnatural. It was in the great increase of money
in the United States, during the last year and a half. He spoke of
money; not paper promises to pay money, but the thing itself--real
gold and silver--and affirmed that there was a clear gain of from
eighteen to twenty millions of specie, within the time that he had
mentioned. He then took up the custom-house returns to verify this
important statement, and to let the people see that the country
was never so well off for money as at the very time that it was
proclaimed to be in the lowest state of poverty and misery. He first
showed the imports and exports of specie and bullion for the year
ending the 30th of September, 1833. It was as follows:
_Year ending September 30, 1833._
Imports. Exports.
Gold bullion, $48,267 $26,775
Silver do. 297,840
Gold coin, 563,585 495,890
Silver do. 6,160,676 1,722,196
--------- ---------
$7,070,368 $2,244,861
Mr. B. having read over this statement, remarked upon it, that it
presented a clear balance of near five millions of specie in favor
of the United States on the first day of October last, without
counting at least another million which was brought by passengers,
and not put upon the custom-house books. It might be assumed, he
said, that there was a clear accession of six millions of specie
to the money of the United States, on the morning of that very day
which had been pitched upon by all the distress orators in the
country, to date the ruin and desolation of the country.
Mr. B. then showed a statement of the imports and exports of specie
and bullion, from the first of October, 1833, to the 11th of June,
instant.
Mr. B. recapitulated the evidences of national prosperity--increased
imports--revenue from customs exceeding the estimate--increased
revenue from public lands--increased amount of specie--above eleven
millions of available funds now in the treasury--domestic and
foreign commerce active--the price of produce and property fair and
good--labor every where finding employment and reward--more money in
the country than ever was in it at any one time before--the numerous
advertisements for the purchase of slaves, in the papers of this
city, for the Southern market, which indicated the high price of
Southern products--and affirmed his conscientious belief, that the
country was more prosperous at this time than at any period of its
existence; and inveighed in terms of strong indignation against the
arts and artifices, which for the last six months had disturbed and
agitated the country, and done serious mischief to many individuals.
He regretted the miscarriage of the attempt to examine the Bank of
the United States, which he believed would have completed the proof
against that institution for its share in getting up an unnatural
and factitious scene of distress, in the midst of real prosperity.
But he did not limit his invective to the bank, but came directly to
the Senate, and charged a full share upon the theatrical distress
speeches, delivered upon the floor of the Senate, in imitation of
Volney's soliloquy over the ruins of Palmyra. He repeated some
passages from the most affecting of these lamentations over the
desolation of the country, such as the Senate had been accustomed
to hear about the time of the New-York and Virginia elections. "The
canal a solitude! The lake a desert waste of waters! That populous
city lately resounding with the hum of busy multitudes, now silent
and sad! A whole nation, in the midst of unparalleled prosperity,
and Arcadian felicity, suddenly struck into poverty, and plunged
into unutterable woe! and all this by the direful act of one wilful
man!" Such, said Mr. B., were the lamentations over the ruins,
not of the Tadmor in the desert, but of this America, whose true
condition you have just seen exhibited in the faithful report of
the Secretary of the Treasury. Not even the "baseless fabric of a
vision" was ever more destitute of foundation, than those lamentable
accounts of desolation. The lamentation has ceased; the panic has
gone off; would to God he could follow out the noble line of the
poet, and say, "leaving not a wreck behind." But he could not say
that. There were wrecks! wrecks of merchants in every city in
which the bank tried its cruel policy, and wrecks of banks in this
district, where the panic speeches fell thickest and loudest upon
the ears of an astonished and terrified community!
But, continued Mr. B., the game is up; the alarm is over; the people
are tired of it; the agitators have ceased to work the engine of
alarm. A month ago he had said it was "the last of pea-time" with
these distress memorials; he would now use a bolder figure, and say,
that the Secretary's report, just read, had expelled forever the
ghost of alarm from the chamber of the Senate. All ghosts, said Mr.
B., are afraid of the light. The crowing of the cock--the break of
day--remits them all, the whole shadowy tribe, to their dark and
dreary abodes. How then can this poor ghost of alarm, which has
done such hard service for six months past, how can it stand the
full light, the broad glare, the clear sunshine of the Secretary's
report? "Alas, poor ghost!" The shade of the "noble Dane" never quit
the stage under a more inexorable law than the one which now drives
thee away! This report, replete with plain facts, and luminous
truths, puts to flight the apparition of distress, breaks down the
whole machinery of alarm, and proves that the American people are,
at this day, the most prosperous people on which the beneficent sun
of heaven did ever shine!
Mr. B. congratulated himself that the spectre of distress could
never be made to cross the Mississippi. It made but slow progress
any where in the Great Valley, but was balked at the King of Floods.
A letter from St. Louis informed him that an attempt had just been
made to get up a distress meeting in the town of St. Louis; but
without effect. The officers were obtained, and according to the
approved rule of such meetings, they were converts from Jacksonism;
but there the distress proceedings stopped, and took another turn.
The farce could not be played in that town. The actors would not
mount the stage.
Mr. B. spoke of the circulation of the Bank of the United States,
and said that its notes might be withdrawn without being felt or
known by the community. It contributed but four millions and a
quarter to the circulation at this time. He verified this statement
by showing that the bank had twelve millions and a quarter of specie
in its vaults, and but sixteen millions and a half of notes in
circulation. The difference was four millions and a quarter; and
that was the precise amount which that gigantic institution now
contributed to the circulation of the country! Only four millions
and a quarter. If the gold bill passed, and raised gold sixteen to
one, there would be more than that amount of gold in circulation in
three months. The foreign coin bill, and the gold bill, would give
the country many dollars in specie, without interest, for each paper
dollar which the bank issues, and for which the country pays so
dearly. The dissolution of the bank would turn out twelve millions
and a quarter of specie, to circulate among the people; and the
sooner that is done the better it will be for the country.
The Bank is now a nuisance, said Mr. B. With upwards of twelve
millions in specie, and less than seventeen millions in circulation,
and only fifty-two millions of loans, it pretends that it cannot
lend a dollar, not even to business men, to be returned in sixty
days; when, two years ago, with only six millions of specie and
twenty-two millions of circulation, it ran up its loans to seventy
millions. The president of the bank then swore, that all above six
millions of specie was a surplus! How is it now, with near double
as much specie, and five millions less of notes out, and twelve
millions less of debt? The bank needs less specie than any other
banking institution, because its notes are receivable, by law, in
all federal payments; and from that circumstance alone would be
current, at par, although the bank itself might be wholly unable to
redeem them. Such a bank is a nuisance. It is the dog in the manger.
It might lend money to business men, at short dates, to the last day
of its existence; yet the signs are for a new pressure; a new game
of distress for the fall elections in Pennsylvania, New-York, and
Ohio. If that game should be attempted, Mr. B. said, it would have
to be done without excuse, for the bank was full of money; without
pretext, for the deposit farce is over; without the aid of panic
speeches, for the Senate will not be in session.
Mr. B. said, that among the strange events which took place in
this world, nothing could be more strange than to find, in our own
country, and in the nineteenth century, any practical illustration
of the ancient doctrine of the metempsychosis. Stranger still,
if that doctrine should be so far improved, as to take effect in
soulless bodies; for, according to the founders of the doctrine, the
soul alone could transmigrate. Now, corporations had no souls; that
was law, laid down by all the books: that all corporations, moneyed
ones especially, and above all, the Bank of the United States,
was most soulless. Yet the rumor was, that this bank intended to
attempt the operation of effecting a transfer of her soul; and after
submitting to death in her present form, to rise up in a new one.
Mr. B. said he, for one, should be ready for the old sinner, come
in the body of what beast it might. No form should deceive him, not
even if it condescended, in its new shape, to issue from Wall-street
instead of Chestnut!
A word more, and Mr. B. was done. It was a word to those gentlemen
whose declarations, many ten thousand times issued from this floor,
had deluded a hundred thousand people to send memorials here,
certifying what those gentlemen so incontinently repeated, that
the removal of the deposits had made the distress, and nothing but
the restoration of the deposits, or the renewal of the charter,
could remove the distress! Well! the deposits are not restored,
and the charter is not renewed; and yet the distress is gone!
What is the inference? Why that gentlemen are convicted, and
condemned, upon their own argument! They leave this chamber to go
home, self-convicted upon the very test which they themselves have
established; and after having declared, for six months, upon this
floor, that the removal of the deposits made the distress, and
nothing but their restoration, or the renewal of the bank charter,
could relieve it, and that they would sit here until the dog-days,
and the winter solstice, to effect this restoration or renewal:
they now go home in good time for harvest, without effecting the
restoration or the renewal; and find every where, as they go the
evidences of the highest prosperity which ever blessed the land.
Yes! repeated and exclaimed Mr. B. with great emphasis, the deposits
are not restored--the charter is not renewed--the distress is
gone--and the distress speeches have ceased! No more lamentation
over the desolation of the land now; and a gentleman who should
undertake to entertain the Senate again in that vein, in the face
of the present national prosperity--in the face of the present
report from the Secretary of the Treasury--would be stared at, as
the Trojans were accustomed to stare at the frantic exhibitions of
Priam's distracted daughter, while vaticinating the downfall of Troy
in the midst of the heroic exploits of Hector.
At the conclusion of this speech Mr. Webster spoke a few words,
signifying that foreigners might have made the importations which
kept up the revenue; and Mr. Chambers, of Maryland, spoke more
fully, to show that there was not time yet for the distress to work
its effect nationally. Mr. Webster then varied his motion, and,
instead of sending the Secretary's report to the Finance Committee,
moved to lay it upon the table: which was done: and being printed,
and passed into the newspapers, with the speech to emblazon it, had
a great effect in bringing the panic to a close.
CHAPTER CVIII.
REVIVAL OF THE GOLD CURRENCY.
A measure of relief was now at hand, before which the machinery
of distress was to balk, and cease its long and cruel labors: it
was the passage of the bill for equalizing the value of gold and
silver, and legalizing the tender of foreign coins of both metals.
The bills were brought forward in the House by Mr. Campbell P. White
of New-York, and passed after an animated contest, in which the
chief question was as to the true relative value of the two metals,
varied by some into a preference for national bank paper. Fifteen
and five-eighths to one was the ratio of nearly all who seemed best
calculated, from their pursuits, to understand the subject. The
thick array of speakers was on that side; and the eighteen banks
of the city of New-York, with Mr. Gallatin at their head, favored
that proportion. The difficulty of adjusting this value, so that
neither metal should expel the other, had been the stumbling block
for a great many years; and now this difficulty seemed to be as
formidable as ever. Refined calculations were gone into: scientific
light was sought: history was rummaged back to the times of the
Roman empire: and there seemed to be no way of getting to a concord
of opinion either from the lights of science, the voice of history,
or the result of calculations. The author of this View had (in his
speeches on the subject), taken up the question in a practical point
of view, regardless of history, and calculations, and the opinions
of bank officers; and looking to the actual, and equal, circulation
of the two metals in different countries, he saw that this equality
and actuality of circulation had existed for above three hundred
years in the Spanish dominions of Mexico and South America, where
the proportion was 16 to one. Taking his stand upon this single
fact, as the practical test which solved the question, all the real
friends of the gold currency soon rallied to it. Mr. White gave up
the bill which he had first introduced, and adopted the Spanish
ratio. Mr. Clowney of South Carolina, Mr. Gillet and Mr. Cambreleng
of New-York, Mr. Ewing of Indiana, Mr. McKim of Maryland, and other
speakers, gave it a warm support. Mr. John Quincy Adams would vote
for it, though he thought the gold was over-valued; but if found to
be so, the difference could be corrected hereafter. The principal
speakers against it and in favor of a lower rate, were Messrs.
Gorham of Massachusetts; Selden of New-York; Binney of Pennsylvania;
and Wilde of Georgia. And, eventually the bill was passed by a
large majority--145 to 36. In the Senate it had an easy passage.
Mr. Calhoun and Webster supported it: Mr. Clay opposed it: and on
the final vote there were but seven negatives: Messrs. Chambers
of Maryland; Clay; Knight of Rhode Island; Alexander Porter of
Louisiana; Silsbee of Massachusetts; Southard of New Jersey; Sprague
of Maine.
The good effects of the bill were immediately seen. Gold began to
flow into the country through all the channels of commerce: old
chests gave up their hordes: the mint was busy: and in a few months,
and as if by magic, a currency banished from the country for thirty
years, overspread the land, and gave joy and confidence to all
the pursuits of industry. But this joy was not universal. A large
interest connected with the Bank of the United States, and its
subsidiary and subaltern institutions, and the whole paper system,
vehemently opposed it; and spared neither pains nor expense to check
its circulation, and to bring odium upon its supporters. People
were alarmed with counterfeits. Gilt counters were exhibited in the
markets, to alarm the ignorant. The coin itself was burlesqued, in
mock imitations of brass or copper, with grotesque figures, and
ludicrous inscriptions--the "whole hog" and the "better currency,"
being the favorite devices. Many newspapers expended their daily
wit in its stale depreciation. The most exalted of the paper money
party, would recoil a step when it was offered to them, and beg
for paper. The name of "Gold humbug" was fastened upon the person
supposed to have been chiefly instrumental in bringing the derided
coin into existence; and he, not to be abashed, made its eulogy
a standing theme--vaunting its excellence, boasting its coming
abundance, to spread over the land, flow up the Mississippi, shine
through the interstices of the long silken purse, and to be locked
up safely in the farmer's trusty oaken chest. For a year there was
a real war of the paper against gold. But there was something that
was an overmatch for the arts, or power, of the paper system in this
particular, and which needed no persuasions to guide it when it had
its choice: it was the instinctive feeling of the masses! which told
them that money which would jingle in the pocket was the right money
for them--that hard money was the right money for hard hands--that
gold was the true currency for every man that had any thing true to
give for it, either in labor or property: and upon these instinctive
feelings gold became the avidious demand of the vast operative and
producing classes.
CHAPTER CIX.
REJECTION OF MR. TANEY, NOMINATED FOR SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
A presentiment of what was to happen induced the President to delay,
until near the end of the session, the nomination to the Senate
of Mr. Taney for Secretary of the Treasury. He had offended the
Bank of the United States too much to expect his confirmation in
the present temper of the Senate. He had a right to hold back the
nomination to the last day of the session, as the recess appointment
was valid to its end; and he retained it to the last week, not being
willing to lose the able and faithful services of that gentleman
during the actual session of Congress. At last, on the 23d of
June, the nomination was sent in, and immediately rejected by the
usual majority in all cases in which the bank was concerned. Mr.
Taney, the same day resigned his place; and Mr. McClintock Young,
first clerk of the treasury, remained by law acting Secretary. Mr.
Benjamin Franklin Butler, of New-York, nominated for the place of
attorney-general, was confirmed--he having done nothing since he
came into the cabinet to subject him to the fate of his predecessor,
though fully concurring with the President in all his measures in
relation to the bank.
CHAPTER CX.
SENATORIAL INVESTIGATION OF THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.
This corporation had lost so much ground in the public estimation,
by repulsing the investigation attempted by the House of
Representatives, that it became necessary to retrieve the loss by
some report in its favor. The friends of the institution determined,
therefore, to have an investigation made by the Senate--by the
Finance Committee of that body. In conformity to this determination
Mr. Southard, on the last day of the session moved that that
committee should have leave to sit during the recess of the Senate
to inquire whether the Bank of the United States had violated its
charter--whether it was a safe depository of the public moneys--and
what had been its conduct since 1832 in regard to extension and
curtailment of loans, and its general management since that time.
The committee to whom this investigation was committed, consisted
of Messrs. Webster, Tyler, Ewing, Mangum, and Wilkins. Of this
committee all, except the last named, were the opponents of the
administration, friends of the bank, its zealous advocates in all
the questions between it and the government, speaking ardently in
its favor, and voting with it on all questions during the session.
Mr. Wilkins very properly refused to serve on the committee; and
Mr. King of Alabama, being proposed in his place, also, and with
equal propriety, refused to serve. This act of the Senate in thus
undertaking to examine the bank after a repulse of the committee
of the House of Representatives and still standing out in contempt
of that House, and by a committee so composed, and so restricted,
completed the measure of mortification to all the friends of the
American Senate. It was deemed a cruel wound given to itself by the
Senate. It was a wrong thing, done in a wrong way, and could have no
result but to lessen the dignity and respectability of the Senate.
The members of the committee were the advocates of the bank, and
its public defenders on all the points to be examined. This was a
violation of parliamentary law, as well as of the first principles
of decency and propriety--the whole of which require criminatory
investigations to be made, by those who make the accusations. It
was to be done in vacation; for which purpose the committee was
to sit in the recess--a proceeding without precedent, without
warrant from any word in the constitution--and susceptible of the
most abuseful and factious use. The only semblance of precedent
for it was the committee of the House in 1824, on the memorial of
Mr. Ninian Edwards against Mr. Crawford in that year; but that
was no warrant for this proceeding. It was a mere authority to an
existing committee which had gone through its examination, and made
its report to the House, to continue its session after the House
adjourned to take the deposition of the principal witness, detained
by sickness, but on his way to the examination. This deposition
the committee were to take, publish, and be dissolved; and so
it was done accordingly. And even this slight continuation of a
committee was obtained from the House with difficulty, and under
the most urgent circumstances. Mr. Crawford was a candidate for the
presidency; the election was to come on before Congress met again;
Mr. Edwards had made criminal charges against him; all the testimony
had been taken, except that of Mr. Edwards himself; and he had
notified the committee that he was on his way to appear before them
in obedience to their summons. And it was under these circumstances
that the existing committee was authorized to remain in session for
his arrival--to receive his testimony--publish it--and dissolve. No
perambulation through the country--no indefinite session--no putting
members upon Congress _per diems_ and mileage from one session to
another. Wrongful and abuseful in its creation, this peripatetic
committee of the Senate was equally so in its composition and
object. It was composed of the advocates of the bank, and its
object evidently was to retrieve for that institution a part of the
ground which it had lost; and was so viewed by the community. The
clear-sighted masses saw nothing in it but a contrivance to varnish
the bank, and the odious appellation of "whitewashing committee" was
fastened upon it.
CHAPTER CXI.
DOWNFALL OF THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.
When the author of the Æneid had shown the opening grandeur of Rome,
he deemed himself justified in departing from the chronological
order of events to look ahead, and give a glimpse of the dead
Marcellus, hope and heir of the Augustan empire; in the like manner
the writer of this View, after having shown the greatness of the
United States Bank--exemplified in her capacity to have Jackson
condemned--the government directors and a secretary of the treasury
rejected--a committee of the House of Representatives repulsed--the
country convulsed and agonized--and to obtain from the Senate of the
United States a committee to proceed to the city of Philadelphia
to "wash out its foul linen;"--after seeing all this and beholding
the greatness of the moneyed power at the culminating point of its
domination, I feel justified in looking ahead a few years to see
it in its altered phase--in its ruined and fallen estate. And this
shall be done in the simplest form of exhibition; namely: by copying
some announcements from the Philadelphia papers of the day. Thus: 1.
"Resolved (by the stockholders), that it is expedient for the Bank
of the United States to make a general assignment of the real and
personal estate, goods and chattels, rights and credits, whatsoever,
and wheresoever, of the said corporation, to five persons, for
the payment or securing of the debts of the same--agreeably to
the provisions of the acts of Assembly of this commonwealth
(Pennsylvania)." 2. "It is known that measures have been taken to
rescue the property of this shattered institution from impending
peril, and to recover as much as possible of those enormous bounties
which it was conceded had been paid by its late managers to trading
politicians and mercenary publishers for corrupt services, rendered
to it during its charter-seeking and electioneering campaigns."
3. "The amount of the suit instituted by the Bank of the United
States against Mr. N. Biddle is $1,018,000, paid out during his
administration, for which no vouchers can be found." 4. "The
United States Bank is a perfect wreck, and is seemingly the prey
of the officers and their friends, which are making away with its
choicest assets by selling them to each other, and taking pay in
the depreciated paper of the South." 5. "Besides its own stock of
35,000,000, which is sunk, the bank carries down with it a great
many other institutions and companies, involving a loss of about
21,000,000 more--making a loss of 56,000,000--besides injuries to
individuals." 6. "There is no price for the United States Bank
stock. Some shares are sold, but as lottery tickets would be. The
mass of the stockholders stand, and look on, as passengers on a
ship that is going down, and from which there is no escape." 7. "By
virtue of a writ of _venditioni exponas_, directed to the sheriff of
the city and county of Philadelphia, will be exposed to public sale
to the highest bidder, on Friday, the 4th day of November next, the
marble house and the grounds known as the Bank of the United States,
&c." 8. "By virtue of a writ of _levari facias_, to me directed,
will be exposed to public sale the estate known as 'Andalusia,'
ninety-nine and a half acres, one of the most highly improved places
in Philadelphia; the mansion-house, and out-houses and offices,
all on the most splendid scale; the green-houses, hot-houses, and
conservatories, extensive and useful; taken as the property of
Nicholas Biddle." 9. "To the honorable Court of General Sessions.
The grand jury for the county of Philadelphia, respectfully
submit to the court, on their oaths and affirmations, that certain
officers connected with the United States Bank, have been guilty of
a gross violation of the law--colluding together to defraud those
stockholders who had trusted their property to be preserved by them.
And that there is good ground to warrant a prosecution of such
persons for criminal offences, which the grand jury do now present
to the court, and ask that the attorney-general be directed to send
up for the action of the grand jury, bills of indictment against
Nicholas Biddle, Samuel Jaudon, John Andrews, and others, to the
grand jury unknown, for a conspiracy to defraud the stockholders in
the Bank of the United States of the sums of, &c." 10. "Bills of
indictment have been found against Nicholas Biddle, Samuel Jaudon
and John Andrews, according to the presentment of the grand jury;
and bench warrants issued, which have been executed upon them."
11. "Examination of Nicholas Biddle, and others, before Recorder
Vaux. Yesterday afternoon the crowd and excitement in and about the
court-room where the examination was to take place was even greater
than the day before. The court-room doors were kept closed up to
within a few minutes of four o'clock, the crowd outside blocking
up every avenue leading to the room. When the doors were thrown
open it was immediately filled to overflowing. At four the Recorder
took his seat, and announcing that he was ready to proceed, the
defendants were called, and severally answered to their names, &c."
12. "On Tuesday, the 18th, the examination of Nicholas Biddle and
others, was continued, and concluded; and the Recorder ordered, that
Nicholas Biddle, Thomas Dunlap, John Andrews, Samuel Jaudon, and
Joseph Cowperthwaite, each enter into a separate recognizance, with
two or more sufficient sureties, in the sum of $10,000, for their
appearance at the present session of the court of general sessions
for the city and county of Philadelphia, to answer the crime of
which they thus stand charged." 13. "Nicholas Biddle and those
indicted with him have been carried upon writs of _habeas corpus_
before the Judges Barton, Conrad, and Doran, and discharged from
the custody of the sheriff." 14. "The criminal proceedings against
these former officers of the Bank of the United States have been
brought to a close. To get rid of the charges against them without
trial of the facts against them, before a jury, they had themselves
surrendered by their bail, and sued out writs of _habeas corpus_
for the release of their persons. The opinions of the judges, the
proceedings having been concluded, were delivered yesterday. The
opinions of Judges Barton and Conrad was for their discharge; that
of Judge Doran was unfavorable. They were accordingly discharged.
The indignation of the community is intense against this escape from
the indictments without jury trials."
CHAPTER CXII.
DEATH OF JOHN RANDOLPH, OF ROANOAKE.
He died at Philadelphia in the summer of 1833--the scene of his
early and brilliant apparition on the stage of public life, having
commenced his parliamentary career in that city, under the first Mr.
Adams, when Congress sat there, and when he was barely of an age to
be admitted into the body. For more than thirty years he was the
political meteor of Congress, blazing with undiminished splendor
during the whole time, and often appearing as the "planetary plague"
which shed, not war and pestilence on nations, but agony and fear
on members. His sarcasm was keen, refined, withering--with a
great tendency to indulge in it; but, as he believed, as a lawful
parliamentary weapon to effect some desirable purpose. Pretension,
meanness, vice, demagogism, were the frequent subjects of the
exercise of his talent; and, when confined to them, he was the
benefactor of the House. Wit and genius all allowed him; sagacity
was a quality of his mind visible to all observers--and which
gave him an intuitive insight into the effect of measures. During
the first six years of Mr. Jefferson's administration, he was the
"Murat" of his party, brilliant in the charge, and always ready for
it; and valued in the council, as well as in the field. He was long
the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means--a place always
of labor and responsibility, and of more then than now, when the
elements of revenue were less abundant; and no man could have been
placed in that situation during Mr. Jefferson's time whose known
sagacity was not a pledge for the safety of his lead in the most
sudden and critical circumstances. He was one of those whom that
eminent statesman habitually consulted during the period of their
friendship, and to whom he carefully communicated his plans before
they were given to the public. On his arrival at Washington at the
opening of each session of Congress during this period, he regularly
found waiting for him at his established lodgings--then Crawford's,
Georgetown--the card of Mr. Jefferson, with an invitation for dinner
the next day; a dinner at which the leading measures of the ensuing
session were the principal topic. Mr. Jefferson did not treat in
that way a member in whose sagacity he had not confidence.
It is not just to judge such a man by ordinary rules, nor by
detached and separate incidents in his life. To comprehend him,
he must be judged as a whole--physically and mentally--and under
many aspects, and for his entire life. He was never well--a chronic
victim of ill health from the cradle to the grave. A letter from
his most intimate and valued friend, Mr. Macon, written to me after
his death, expressed the belief that he had never enjoyed during
his life one day of perfect health--such as well people enjoy.
Such life-long suffering must have its effect on the temper and
on the mind; and it had on his--bringing the temper often to the
querulous mood, and the state of his mind sometimes to the question
of insanity; a question which became judicial after his death, when
the validity of his will came to be contested. I had my opinion on
the point, and gave it responsibly, in a deposition duly taken,
to be read on the trial of the will; and in which a belief in his
insanity, at several specified periods, was fully expressed--with
the reasons for the opinion. I had good opportunities of forming an
opinion, living in the same house with him several years, having
his confidence, and seeing him at all hours of the day and night.
It also on several occasions became my duty to study the question,
with a view to govern my own conduct under critical circumstances.
Twice he applied to me to carry challenges for him. It would have
been inhuman to have gone out with a man not in his right mind,
and critical to one's self, as any accident on the ground might
seriously compromise the second. My opinion was fixed, of occasional
temporary aberrations of mind; and during such periods he would do
and say strange things--but always in his own way--not only method,
but genius in his fantasies: nothing to bespeak a bad heart, but
only exaltation and excitement. The most brilliant talk that I
ever heard from him came forth on such occasions--a flow for hours
(at one time seven hours), of copious wit and classic allusion--a
perfect scattering of the diamonds of the mind. I heard a friend
remark on one of these occasions, "he has wasted intellectual
jewelry enough here this evening to equip many speakers for great
orations." I once sounded him on the delicate point of his own
opinion of himself:--of course when he was in a perfectly natural
state, and when he had said something to permit an approach to
such a subject. It was during his last visit to Washington, two
winters before he died. It was in my room, in the gloom of the
evening light, as the day was going out and the lamps not lit--no
one present but ourselves--he reclining on a sofa, silent and
thoughtful, speaking but seldom, and I only in reply, I heard him
repeat, as if to himself, those lines from Johnson, (which in fact
I had often heard from him before), on "Senility and Imbecility,"
which show us life under its most melancholy form.
"In life's last scenes what prodigies surprise,
Fears of the brave, and follies of the wise!
From Marlborough's eyes the streams of dotage flow,
And Swift expires, a driveller and a show."
When he had thus repeated these lines, which he did with deep
feeling and in slow and measured cadence, I deemed it excusable
to make a remark of a kind which I had never ventured on before;
and said: Mr. Randolph I have several times heard you repeat these
lines, as if they could have an application to yourself, while no
person can have less reason to fear the fate of Swift. I said this
to sound him, and to see what he thought of himself. His answer was:
"I have lived in dread of insanity." That answer was the opening of
a sealed book--revealed to me the source of much mental agony that
I had seen him undergo. I did deem him in danger of the fate of
Swift, and from the same cause as judged by his latest and greatest
biographer, Sir Walter Scott.
His parliamentary life was resplendent in talent--elevated in moral
tone--always moving on the lofty line of honor and patriotism, and
scorning every thing mean and selfish. He was the indignant enemy of
personal and plunder legislation, and the very scourge of intrigue
and corruption. He reverenced an honest man in the humblest garb,
and scorned the dishonest, though plated with gold. An opinion was
propagated that he was fickle in his friendships. Certainly there
were some capricious changes; but far more instances of steadfast
adherence. His friendship with Mr. Macon was historic. Their names
went together in life--live together in death--and are honored
together, most by those who knew them best. With Mr. Tazewell, his
friendship was still longer than that with Mr. Macon, commencing
in boyhood, and only ending with life. So of many others; and
pre-eminently so of his neighbors and constituents--the people of
his congressional district--affectionate as well as faithful to him;
electing him as they did, from boyhood to the grave. No one felt
more for friends, or was more solicitous and anxious at the side
of the sick and dying bed. Love of wine was attributed to him; and
what was mental excitement, was referred to deep potations. It was
a great error. I never saw him affected by wine--not even to the
slightest departure from the habitual and scrupulous decorum of his
manners. His temper was naturally gay and social, and so indulged
when suffering of mind and body permitted. He was the charm of the
dinner-table, where his cheerful and sparkling wit delighted every
ear, lit up every countenance, and detained every guest. He was
charitable; but chose to conceal the hand that ministered relief. I
have often seen him send little children out to give to the poor.
He was one of the large slaveholders of Virginia, but disliked
the institution, and, when let alone, opposed its extension.
Thus, in 1803, when as chairman of the committee which reported
upon the Indiana memorial for a temporary dispensation from the
anti-slavery part of the ordinance of 1787, he puts the question
upon a statesman's ground; and reports against it, in a brief and
comprehensive argument:
"That the rapid population of the State of Ohio sufficiently
evinces, in the opinion of your committee, that the labor of
the slave is not necessary to promote the growth and settlement
of colonies in that region. That this labor, demonstrably
the dearest of any, can only be employed to advantage in the
cultivation of products more valuable than any known to
that quarter of the United States: and the committee deem it
highly dangerous and inexpedient to impair a provision wisely
calculated to promote the happiness and prosperity of the
northwestern country, and to give strength and security to that
extensive frontier. In the salutary operation of this sagacious
and benevolent restraint, it is believed that the inhabitants of
Indiana will, at no very distant day, find ample remuneration
for a temporary privation of labor and emigration."
He was against slavery; and by his will, both manumitted and
provided for the hundreds which he held. But he was against
foreign interference with his rights, his feelings, or his duties;
and never failed to resent and rebuke such interference. Thus,
he was one of the most zealous of the opposers of the proposed
Missouri restriction; and even voted against the divisional line
of "thirty-six thirty." In the House, when the term "slaveholder"
would be reproachfully used, he would assume it, and refer to a
member, not in the parliamentary phrase of colleague, but in the
complimentary title of "my fellow-slaveholder." And, in London,
when the consignees of his tobacco, and the slave factors of his
father, urged him to liberate his slaves, he quieted their intrusive
philanthropy, on the spot, by saying, "Yes: you buy and set free to
the amount of the money you have received from my father and his
estate for these slaves, and I will set free an equal number."
In his youth and later age, he fought duels: in his middle life, he
was against them; and, for a while, would neither give nor receive a
challenge. He was under religious convictions to the contrary, but
finally yielded (as he believed) to an argument of his own, that
a duel was private war, and rested upon the same basis as public
war; and that both were allowable, when there was no other redress
for insults and injuries. That was his argument; but I thought his
relapse came more from feeling than reason; and especially from
the death of Decatur, to whom he was greatly attached, and whose
duel with Barron long and greatly excited him. He had religious
impressions, and a vein of piety which showed itself more in
private than in external observances. He was habitual in his
reverential regard for the divinity of our religion; and one of his
beautiful expressions was, that, "If woman had lost us paradise,
she had gained us heaven." The Bible and Shakespeare were, in his
latter years, his constant companions--travelling with him on the
road--remaining with him in the chamber. The last time I saw him (in
that last visit to Washington, after his return from the Russian
mission, and when he was in full view of death) I heard him read the
chapter in the Revelations (of the opening of the seals), with such
power and beauty of voice and delivery, and such depth of pathos,
that I felt as if I had never heard the chapter read before. When
he had got to the end of the opening of the sixth seal, he stopped
the reading, laid the book (open at the place) on his breast, as he
lay on his bed, and began a discourse upon the beauty and sublimity
of the Scriptural writings, compared to which he considered all
human compositions vain and empty. Going over the images presented
by the opening of the seals, he averred that their divinity was in
their sublimity--that no human power could take the same images,
and inspire the same awe and terror, and sink ourselves into such
nothingness in the presence of the "wrath of the Lamb"--that he
wanted no proof of their divine origin but the sublime feelings
which they inspired.
CHAPTER CXIII.
DEATH OF MR. WIRT.
He died at the age of sixty-two, after having reached a place in
the first line at the Virginia bar, where there were such lawyers
as Wickham, Tazewell, Watkins Leigh; and a place in the front rank
of the bar of the Supreme Court, where there were such jurists as
Webster and Pinkney; and after having attained the high honor of
professional preferment in the appointment of Attorney General of
the United States under the administration of Mr. Monroe. His life
contains instructive lessons. Born to no advantages of wealth or
position, he raised himself to what he became by his own exertions.
In danger of falling into a fatal habit in early life, he retrieved
himself (touched by the noble generosity of her who afterwards
became his admired and beloved wife), from the brink of the abyss,
and became the model of every domestic virtue; with genius to shine
without labor, he yet considered genius nothing without labor,
and gave through life a laborious application to the study of the
law as a science, and to each particular case in which he was ever
employed. The elegant pursuits of literature occupied the moments
taken from professional studies and labors, and gave to the reading
public several admired productions, of which the long-desired and
beautiful "Life of Patrick Henry," was the most considerable: a
grateful commemoration of Virginia's greatest orator, which has been
justly repaid to one of her first class orators, by Mr. Kennedy of
Maryland, in his classic "Life of William Wirt." How grateful to see
citizens, thus engaged in laborious professions, snatching moments
from their daily labors to do justice to the illustrious dead--to
enlighten posterity by their history, and encourage it by their
example. Worthy of his political and literary eminence, and its
most shining and crowning ornament, was the state of his domestic
relations--exemplary in every thing that gives joy and decorum to
the private family, and rewarded with every blessing which could
result from such relations. But, why use this feeble pen, when the
voice of Webster is at hand? Mr. Wirt died during the term of the
Supreme Court, his revered friend, the Chief Justice Marshall, still
living to preside, and to give, in touching language, the order
to spread the proceedings of the bar (in relation to his death)
upon the records of the court. At the bar meeting, which adopted
these proceedings, Mr. Webster thus paid the tribute of justice and
affection to one with whom professional rivalry had been the source
and cement of personal friendship:
"It is announced to us that one of the oldest, one of the
ablest, one of the most distinguished members of this bar, has
departed this mortal life. William Wirt is no more! He has this
day closed a professional career, among the longest and the most
brilliant, which the distinguished members of the profession
in the United States have at any time accomplished. Unsullied
in every thing which regards professional honor and integrity,
patient of labor, and rich in those stores of learning, which
are the reward of patient labor and patient labor only; and
if equalled, yet certainly allowed not to be excelled, in
fervent, animated and persuasive eloquence, he has left an
example which those who seek to raise themselves to great
heights of professional eminence, will, hereafter emulously
study. Fortunate, indeed, will be the few, who shall imitate it
successfully!
"As a public man, it is not our peculiar duty to speak of
Mr. Wirt here. His character in that respect belongs to his
country, and to the history of his country. And, sir, if we
were to speak of him in his private life, and in his social
relations, all we could possibly say of his urbanity, his
kindness, the faithfulness of his friendships, and the warmth
of his affections, would hardly seem sufficiently strong and
glowing to do him justice, in the feeling and judgment of
those who, separated, now forever from his embraces can only
enshrine his memory in their bleeding hearts. Nor may we, sir,
more than allude to that other relation, which belonged to him,
and belongs to us all; that high and paramount relation, which
connects man with his Maker! It may be permitted us, however, to
have the pleasure of recording his name, as one who felt a deep
sense of religious duty, and who placed all his hopes of the
future, in the truth and in the doctrines of Christianity.
"But our particular ties to him were the ties of our profession.
He was our brother, and he was our friend. With talents powerful
enough to excite the strength of the strongest, with a kindness
both of heart and of manner capable of warming and winning
the coldest of his brethren, he has now completed the term of
his professional life, and of his earthly existence, in the
enjoyment of the high respect and cordial affections of us all.
Let us, then, sir, hasten to pay to his memory the well-deserved
tribute of our regard. Let us lose no time in testifying our
sense of our loss, and in expressing our grief, that one great
light of our profession is extinguished forever."
CHAPTER CXIV.
DEATH OF THE LAST OF THE SIGNERS OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
On the morning of July 4th, 1826--just fifty years after the
event--but three of the fifty-six members of the continental
Congress of 1776 who had signed the Declaration of Independence,
remained alive; on the evening of that day there remained but
one--Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, Maryland; then a full score
beyond the Psalmist's limit of manly life, and destined to a further
lease of six good years. It has been remarked of the "signers of
the Declaration" that a felicitous existence seems to have been
reserved for them; blessed with long life and good health, honored
with the public esteem, raised to the highest dignities of the
States and of the federal government, happy in their posterity, and
happy in the view of the great and prosperous country which their
labors had brought into existence. Among these, so felicitous and
so illustrious, he was one of the most happy, and among the most
distinguished. He enjoyed the honors of his pure and patriot life
in all their forms; age, and health, and mind, for sixteen years
beyond that fourscore which brings labor and sorrow and weakness to
man; ample fortune; public honors in filling the highest offices of
his State, and a seat in the Senate of the United States; private
enjoyment in an honorable and brilliant posterity. Born to fortune,
and to the care of wise and good parents, he had all the advantages
of education which the colleges of France and the "Inns of Court"
of London could give. With every thing to lose in unsuccessful
rebellion, he risked all from the first opening of the contest
with the mother country: and when he walked up to the secretary's
table to sign the paper, which might become a death-warrant to its
authors, the remark was made, "there go some millions." And his
signing was a privilege, claimed and granted. He was not present
at the declaration. He was not even a member of Congress on the
memorable Fourth of July. He was in Annapolis on that day, a
member of the Maryland Assembly, and zealously engaged in urging a
revocation of the instructions which limited the Maryland delegates
in the continental Congress to obtaining a redress of grievances
without breaking the connection with the mother country. He
succeeded--was appointed a delegate--flew to his post--and added his
name to the patriot list.
All history tells of the throwing overboard of the tea in Boston
harbor: it has not been equally attentive to the burning of the tea
in Annapolis harbor. It was the summer of 1774 that the brigantine
"Peggy Stewart" approached Annapolis with a cargo of the forbidden
leaves on board. The people were in commotion at the news. It was
an insult, and a defiance. Swift destruction was in preparation
for the vessel: instant chastisement was in search of the owners.
Terror seized them. They sent to Charles Carroll as the only man
that could moderate the fury of the people, and save their persons
and property from a sudden destruction. He told them there was but
one way to save their persons, and that was to burn their vessel
and cargo, instantly and in the sight of the people. It was done:
and thus the flames consumed at Annapolis, what the waves had buried
at Boston: and in both cases the spirit and the sacrifice was the
same--opposition to taxation without representation, and destruction
to its symbol.
CHAPTER CXV.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE SESSION 1834-'35: PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE.
Towards the close of the previous session, Mr. Stevenson had
resigned the place of speaker of the House of Representatives in
consequence of his nomination to be minister plenipotentiary and
envoy extraordinary to the court of St. James--a nomination then
rejected by the Senate, but subsequently confirmed. Mr. John Bell
of Tennessee, was elected speaker in his place, his principal
competitor being Mr. James K. Polk of the same State: and, with
this difference in its organization, the House met at the usual
time--the first Monday of December. The Cabinet then stood: John
Forsyth, Secretary of State, in place of Louis McLane, resigned;
Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury; Lewis Cass, Secretary at
War; Mahlon Dickerson, Secretary of the Navy; William T. Barry,
Post Master General; Benjamin Franklin Butler, Attorney General.
The condition of our affairs with France, was the prominent
feature of the message, and presented the relations of the United
States with that power under a serious aspect. The indemnity
stipulated in the treaty of 1831 had not been paid--no one of the
instalments;--and the President laid the subject before Congress for
its consideration, and action, if deemed necessary.
"I regret to say that the pledges made through the minister of
France have not been redeemed. The new Chambers met on the 31st
July last, and although the subject of fulfilling treaties was
alluded to in the speech from the throne, no attempt was made by
the King or his Cabinet to procure an appropriation to carry it
into execution. The reasons given for this omission, although
they might be considered sufficient in an ordinary case, are not
consistent with the expectations founded upon the assurances
given here, for there is no constitutional obstacle to entering
into legislative business at the first meeting of the Chambers.
This point, however, might have been overlooked, had not the
Chambers, instead of being called to meet at so early a day
that the result of their deliberations might be communicated
to me before the meeting of Congress, been prorogued to the
29th of the present month--a period so late that their decision
can scarcely be made known to the present Congress prior to
its dissolution. To avoid this delay, our minister in Paris,
in virtue of the assurance given by the French minister in the
United States, strongly urged the convocation of the Chambers
at an earlier day, but without success. It is proper to remark,
however, that this refusal has been accompanied with the most
positive assurances, on the part of the Executive government of
France, of their intention to press the appropriation at the
ensuing session of the Chambers.
"If it shall be the pleasure of Congress to await the further
action of the French Chambers, no further consideration of
the subject will, at this session, probably be required at
your hands. But if, from the original delay in asking for an
appropriation; from the refusal of the Chambers to grant it
when asked; from the omission to bring the subject before the
Chambers at their last session; from the fact that, including
that session, there have been five different occasions when
the appropriation might have been made; and from the delay in
convoking the Chambers until some weeks after the meeting of
Congress, when it was well known that a communication of the
whole subject to Congress at the last session was prevented by
assurances that it should be disposed of before its present
meeting, you should feel yourselves constrained to doubt whether
it be the intention of the French government in all its branches
to carry the treaty into effect, and think that such measures as
the occasion may be deemed to call for should be now adopted,
the important question arises, what those measures shall be."
The question then, of further delay, waiting on the action of
France, or of action on our own part, was thus referred to Congress;
but under the constitutional injunction, to recommend to that body
the measures he should deem necessary, and in compliance with his
own sense of duty, and according to the frankness of his temper, he
fully and categorically gave his own opinion of what ought to be
done; thus:
"It is my conviction that the United States ought to insist on
a prompt execution of the treaty; and, in case it be refused,
or longer delayed, take redress into their own hands. After
the delay, on the part of France, of a quarter of a century,
in acknowledging these claims by treaty, it is not to be
tolerated that another quarter of a century is to be wasted in
negotiating about the payment. The laws of nations provide
a remedy for such occasions. It is a well-settled principle
of the international code, that where one nation owes another
a liquidated debt, which it refuses or neglects to pay,
the aggrieved party may seize on the property belonging to
the other, its citizens or subjects, sufficient to pay the
debt, without giving just cause of war. This remedy has been
repeatedly resorted to, and recently by France herself towards
Portugal, under circumstances less unquestionable."
"Since France, in violation of the pledges given through her
minister here, has delayed her final action so long that her
decision will not probably be known in time to be communicated
to this Congress, I recommend that a law be passed authorizing
reprisals upon French property, in case provision shall not be
made for the payment of the debt at the approaching session of
the French Chambers. Such a measure ought not to be considered
by France as a menace. Her pride and power are too well known
to expect any thing from her fears, and preclude the necessity
of the declaration that nothing partaking of the character of
intimidation is intended by us. She ought to look upon it as the
evidence only of an inflexible determination on the part of the
United States to insist on their rights. That Government, by
doing only what it has itself acknowledged to be just, will be
able to spare the United States the necessity of taking redress
into their own hands, and save the property of French citizens
from that seizure and sequestration which American citizens
so long endured without retaliation or redress. If she should
continue to refuse that act of acknowledged justice, and, in
violation of the law of nations, make reprisals on our part the
occasion of hostilities against the United States, she would but
add violence to injustice, and could not fail to expose herself
to the just censure of civilized nations, and to the retributive
judgments of Heaven."
In making this recommendation, and in looking to its possible result
as producing war between the two countries, the President showed
himself fully sensible to all the considerations which should make
such an event deplorable between powers of ancient friendship, and
their harmony and friendship desirable for the sake of the progress
and maintenance of liberal political systems in Europe. And on this
point he said:
"Collision with France is the more to be regretted, on account
of the position she occupies in Europe in relation to liberal
institutions. But in maintaining our national rights and honor,
all governments are alike to us. If, by a collision with France,
in a case where she is clearly in the wrong, the march of
liberal principles shall be impeded, the responsibility for that
result, as well as every other, will rest on her own head."
This State of our relations with France gave rise to some animated
proceedings in our Congress, which will be noticed in their proper
place. The condition of the finances was shown to be good--not only
adequate for all the purposes of the government and the complete
extinguishment of the remainder of the public debt, but still
leaving a balance in the treasury equal to one fourth of the annual
income at the end of the year. Thus:
"According to the estimate of the Treasury Department, the
revenue accruing from all sources, during the present year, will
amount to twenty millions six hundred and twenty-four thousand
seven hundred and seventeen dollars, which, with the balance
remaining in the Treasury on the first of January last, of
eleven millions seven hundred and two thousand nine hundred and
five dollars, produces an aggregate of thirty-two millions three
hundred and twenty-seven thousand six hundred and twenty-three
dollars. The total expenditure during the year for all objects,
including the public debt, is estimated at twenty-five millions
five hundred and ninety-one thousand three hundred and ninety
dollars, which will leave a balance in the Treasury on the first
of January, 1835, of six millions seven hundred and thirty-six
thousand two hundred and thirty-two dollars. In this balance,
however, will be included about one million one hundred and
fifty thousand dollars of what was heretofore reported by the
department as not effective."
This unavailable item of above a million of dollars consisted of
local bank notes, received in payment of public lands during the
years of general distress and bank suspensions from 1819 to 1822;
and the banks which issued them having failed they became worthless;
and were finally dropt from any enumeration of the contents of the
treasury. The extinction of the public debt, constituting a marked
event in our financial history, and an era in the state of the
treasury, was looked to by the President as the epoch most proper
for the settlement of our doubtful points of future policy, and the
inauguration of a system of rigorous economy: to which effect the
message said:
"Free from public debt, at peace with all the world, and with no
complicated interests to consult in our intercourse with foreign
powers, the present may be hailed as the epoch in our history
the most favorable for the settlement of those principles
in our domestic policy, which shall be best calculated to
give stability to our republic, and secure the blessings of
freedom to our citizens. While we are felicitating ourselves,
therefore, upon the extinguishment of the national debt, and
the prosperous state of our finances, let us not be tempted to
depart from those sound maxims of public policy, which enjoin
a just adaptation of the revenue to the expenditures that are
consistent with a rigid economy, and an entire abstinence
from all topics of legislation that are not clearly within
the constitutional powers of the Government, and suggested
by the wants of the country. Properly regarded, under such a
policy, every diminution of the public burdens arising from
taxation, gives to individual enterprise increased power, and
furnishes to all the members of our happy confederacy, new
motives for patriotic affection and support. But, above all, its
most important effect will be found in its influence upon the
character of the Government, by confining its action to those
objects which will be sure to secure to it the attachment and
support of our fellow-citizens."
The President had a new cause of complaint to communicate
against the Bank of the United States, which was the seizure of
the dividends due the United States on the public stock in the
institution. The occasion was, the claim for damages which the bank
set up on a protested bill of exchange, sold to it on the faith of
the French treaty; and which was protested for non-payment. The case
is thus told by the President:
"To the needless distresses brought on the country during
the last session of Congress, has since been added the open
seizure of the dividends on the public stock, to the amount of
$170,041, under pretence of paying damages, cost, and interest,
upon the protested French bill. This sum constituted a portion
of the estimated revenues for the year 1834, upon which the
appropriations made by Congress were based. It would as soon
have been expected that our collectors would seize on the
customs, or the receivers of our land offices on the moneys
arising from the sale of public lands, under pretences of claims
against the United States, as that the bank would have retained
the dividends. Indeed, if the principle be established that any
one who chooses to set up a claim against the United States
may, without authority of law, seize on the public property or
money wherever he can find it, to pay such claim, there will
remain no assurance that our revenue will reach the treasury,
or that it will be applied after the appropriation to the
purposes designated in the law. The paymasters of our army, and
the pursers of our navy, may, under like pretences, apply to
their own use moneys appropriated to set in motion the public
force, and in time of war leave the country without defence.
This measure, resorted to by the Bank, is disorganizing and
revolutionary, and, if generally resorted to by private citizens
in like cases, would fill the land with anarchy and violence."
The money thus seized by the bank was retained until recovered
from it by due course of law. The corporation was sued, judgment
recovered against it, and the money made upon a writ of execution;
so that the illegality of its conduct in making this seizure
was judicially established. The President also communicated new
proofs of the wantonness of the pressure and distress made by the
bank during the preceding session--the fact coming to light that
it had shipped about three millions and a half of the specie to
Europe which it had squeezed out of the hands of the people during
the panic;--and also that, immediately after the adjournment of
Congress, the action of the bank was reversed--the curtailment
changed into extension; and a discount line of seventeen millions
rapidly ran out.
"Immediately after the close of the last session, the bank,
through its president, announced its ability and readiness
to abandon the system of unparalleled curtailment, and the
interruption of domestic exchanges, which it had practised upon
from the 1st of August, 1833, to the 30th of June, 1834, and to
extend its accommodations to the community. The grounds assumed
in this annunciation amounted to an acknowledgment that the
curtailment, in the extent to which it had been carried, was
not necessary to the safety of the bank, and had been persisted
in merely to induce Congress to grant the prayer of the bank
in its memorial relative to the removal of the deposits, and
to give it a new charter. They were substantially a confession
that all the real distresses which individuals and the country
had endured for the preceding six or eight months, had been
needlessly produced by it, with the view of effecting, through
the sufferings of the people, the legislative action of
Congress. It is a subject of congratulation that Congress and
the country had the virtue and firmness to bear the infliction;
that the energies of our people soon found relief from this
wanton tyranny, in vast importations of the precious metals from
almost every part of the world; and that, at the close of this
tremendous effort to control our government, the bank found
itself powerless, and no longer able to loan out its surplus
means. The community had learned to manage its affairs without
its assistance, and trade had already found new auxiliaries; so
that, on the 1st of October last, the extraordinary spectacle
was presented of a national bank, more than one half of whose
capital was either lying unproductive in its vaults, or in the
hands of foreign bankers."
Certainly this was a confession of the whole criminality of the bank
in making the distress; but even this confession did not prevent the
Senate's Finance Committee from making an honorable report in its
favor. But there is something in the laws of moral right above the
powers of man, or the designs and plans of banks and politicians.
The greatest calamity of the bank--the loss of thirty-five millions
of stock to its subscribers--chiefly dates from this period and
this conduct. Up to this time its waste and losses, though great,
might still have been remediable; but now the incurable course was
taken. Half its capital lying idle! Good borrowers were scarce; good
indorsers still more so; and a general acceptance of stocks in lieu
of the usual security was the fatal resort. First, its own stock,
then a great variety of stocks were taken; and when the bank went
into liquidation, its own stock was gone! and the others in every
imaginable degree of depreciation, from under par to nothing. The
government had directors in the bank at that time, Messrs. Charles
McAllister, Edward D. Ingraham, and ---- Ellmaker; and the President
was under no mistake in any thing he said. The message recurs to the
fixed policy of the President in selling the public stock in the
bank, and says:
"I feel it my duty to recommend to you that a law be passed
authorizing the sale of the public stock; that the provision
of the charter requiring the receipt of notes of the bank in
payment of public dues, shall, in accordance with the power
reserved to Congress in the 14th section of the charter, be
suspended until the bank pays to the treasury the dividends
withheld; and that all laws connecting the government or its
officers with the bank, directly or indirectly, be repealed; and
that the institution be left hereafter to its own resources and
means."
The wisdom of this persevering recommendation was, fortunately,
appreciated in time to save the United States from the fate of other
stockholders. The attention of Congress was again called to the
regulation of the deposits in State banks. As yet there was no law
upon the subject. The bill for that purpose passed in the House of
Representatives at the previous session, had been laid upon the
table in the Senate; and thus was kept open a head of complaint
against the President for the illegal custody of the public moneys.
It was not illegal. It was the custody, more or less resorted to,
under every administration of the federal government, and never
called illegal except under President Jackson; but it was a trust of
a kind to require regulation by law; and he, therefore, earnestly
recommended it. The message said:
"The attention of Congress is earnestly invited to the
regulation of the deposits in the State banks, by law. Although
the power now exercised by the Executive department in this
behalf is only such as was uniformly exerted through every
administration from the origin of the government up to the
establishment of the present bank, yet it is one which is
susceptible of regulation by law, and, therefore, ought so to
be regulated. The power of Congress to direct in what places
the Treasurer shall keep the moneys in the Treasury, and to
impose restrictions upon the Executive authority, in relation to
their custody and removal, is unlimited, and its exercise will
rather be courted than discouraged by those public officers and
agents on whom rests the responsibility for their safety. It is
desirable that as little power as possible should be left to the
President or Secretary of the Treasury over those institutions,
which, being thus freed from Executive influence, and without
a common head to direct their operations, would have neither
the temptation nor the ability to interfere in the political
conflicts of the country. Not deriving their charters from the
national authorities, they would never have those inducements
to meddle in general elections, which have led the Bank of the
United States to agitate and convulse the country for upwards of
two years."
The increase of the gold currency was a subject of congratulation,
and the purification of paper by the suppression of small notes a
matter of earnest recommendation with the President--the latter
addressed to the people of the States, and every way worthy of their
adoption. He said:
"The progress of our gold coinage is creditable to the officers
of the mint, and promises in a short period to furnish the
country with a sound and portable currency, which will much
diminish the inconvenience to travellers of the want of a
general paper currency, should the State banks be incapable of
furnishing it. Those institutions have already shown themselves
competent to purchase and furnish domestic exchange for the
convenience of trade, at reasonable rates; and not a doubt
is entertained that, in a short period, all the wants of the
country, in bank accommodations and exchange, will be supplied
as promptly and as cheaply as they have heretofore been by
the Bank of the United States. If the several States shall be
induced gradually to reform their banking systems, and prohibit
the issue of all small notes, we shall, in a few years, have a
currency as sound, and as little liable to fluctuations, as any
other commercial country."
The message contained the standing recommendation for reform in the
presidential election. The direct vote of the people, the President
considered the only safeguard for the purity of that election, on
which depended so much of the safe working of the government. The
message said:
"I trust that I may be also pardoned for renewing the
recommendation I have so often submitted to your attention in
regard to the mode of electing the President and Vice-President
of the United States. All the reflection I have been able to
bestow upon the subject, increases my conviction that the best
interests of the country will be promoted by the adoption
of some plan which will secure, in all contingencies, that
important right of sovereignty to the direct control of the
people. Could this be attained, and the terms of those officers
be limited to a single period of either four or six years, I
think our liberties would possess an additional safeguard."
CHAPTER CXVI.
REPORT OF THE BANK COMMITTEE.
Early in the session the Finance Committee of the Senate, which had
been directed to make an examination into the affairs of the Bank
of the United States, made their report--an elaborate paper, the
reading of which occupied two hours and a half,--for this report
was honored with a reading at the Secretary's table, while but few
of the reports made by heads of departments, and relating to the
affairs of the whole Union, received that honor. It was not only
read through, but by its author--Mr. Tyler, the second named of
the committee; the first named, or official chairman, Mr. Webster,
not having acted on the committee. The report was a most elaborate
vindication of the conduct of the bank at all points; but it did
not stop at the defence of the institution, but went forward to the
crimination of others. It dragged in the names of General Jackson,
Mr. Van Buren, and Mr. Benton, laying hold of the circumstance
of their having done ordinary acts of duty to their friends and
constituents in promoting their application for branch banks, to
raise false implications against them as having been in favor of the
institution. If such had been the fact, it did not come within the
scope of the committee's appointment, nor of the resolution under
which they acted, to have reported upon such circumstance: but the
implications were untrue; and Mr. Benton being the only one present
that had the right of speech, assailed the report the instant it was
read--declaring that such things were not to pass uncontradicted for
an instant--that the Senate was not to adjourn, or the galleries to
disperse without hearing the contradiction. And being thus suddenly
called up by a sense of duty to himself and his friends, he would
do justice upon the report at once, exposing its numerous fallacies
from the moment they appeared in the chamber. He commenced with the
imputations upon himself, General Jackson and Mr. Van Buren, and
scornfully repulsed the base and gratuitous assumptions which had
been made. He said:
"His own name was made to figure in that report--in very good
company to be sure, that of President Jackson, Vice-President
Van Buren and Mr. senator Grundy. It seems that we have all been
detected in something that deserves exposure--in the offence
of aiding our respective constituents, or fellow-citizens in
obtaining branch banks to be located in our respective States;
and upon this detection, the assertion is made that these
branches were not extended to these States for political effect,
when the charter was nearly run out, but in good faith, and
upon our application, to aid the business of the country. Mr.
B. said, it was true that he had forwarded a petition from the
merchants of St. Louis, about 1826 or '27, soliciting a branch
at that place: and he had accompanied it by a letter, as he had
been requested to do, sustaining and supporting their request;
and bearing the testimony to their characters as men of business
and property which the occasion and the truth required. He did
this for merchants who were his political enemies, and he did
it readily and cordially, as a representative ought to act for
his constituents, whether they are for him, or against him, in
the elections. So far so good; but the allegation of the report
is, that the branch at St. Louis was established upon this
petition and this letter, and therefore was not established with
political views, but purely and simply for business purposes.
Now, said Mr. B., I have a question to put to the senator from
Virginia (Mr. Tyler), who has made the report for the committee:
It is this: whether the president or directors of the bank had
informed him that General Cadwallader had been sent as an agent
to St. Louis, to examine the place, and to report upon its
ability to sustain a branch?
"Mr. Tyler rose, and said, that he had heard nothing at the bank
upon the subject of Gen. Cadwallader having been sent to St.
Louis, or any report upon the place being made."
"Then, said Mr. Benton, resuming his speech, the committee has
been treated unworthily,--scurvily,--basely,--by the bank! It
has been made the instrument to report an untruth to the Senate,
and to the American people; and neither the Senate, nor that
part of the American people who chance to be in this chamber,
shall be permitted to leave their places until that falsehood is
exposed.
"Sir, said Mr B., addressing the Vice-President, the president,
and directors of the Bank of the United States, upon receiving
the merchants' petition, and my letter, _did not send a branch
to St. Louis_! They sent an agent there, in the person of
General Cadwallader, to examine the place, and to report upon
its mercantile capabilities and wants; and upon that report,
the decision was made, and made against the request of the
merchants, and that upon the ground that the business of the
place would not justify the establishment of a branch. The
petition from the merchants came to Mr. B. while he was here, in
his seat; it was forwarded from this place to Philadelphia; the
agent made his visit to St. Louis before he (Mr. B.) returned;
and when he got home, in the spring, or summer, the merchants
informed him of what had occurred; and that they had received
a letter from the directory of the bank, informing them that a
branch could not be granted; and there the whole affair, so far
as the petition and the letter were concerned, died away. But,
said Mr. B., it happened just in that time, that I made my first
demonstration--struck my first blow--against the bank; and the
next news that I had from the merchants was, that another letter
had been received from the bank, without any new petition having
been sent, and without any new report upon the business of the
place, informing them that the branch was to come! And come it
did, and immediately went to work to gain men and presses, to
govern the politics of the State, to exclude him (Mr. B.) from
re-election to the Senate; and to oppose every candidate, from
governor to constable, who was not for the bank. The branch had
even furnished a list to the mother bank, through some of its
officers, of the names and residences of the active citizens
in every part of the State; and to these, and to their great
astonishment at the familiarity and condescension of the high
directory in Philadelphia, myriads of bank documents were sent,
with a minute description of name and place, postage free. At
the presidential election of 1832, the State was deluged with
these favors. At his own re-elections to the Senate, the two
last, the branch bank was in the field against him every where,
and in every form; its directors traversing the State, going
to the houses of the members of the General Assembly after they
were elected, in almost every county, over a State of sixty
thousand square miles; and then attending the legislature as
lobby members, to oppose him. Of these things Mr. B. had never
spoken in public before, nor should he have done it now, had
it not been for the falsehood attempted to be palmed upon the
Senate through the instrumentality of its committee. But having
been driven into it, he would mention another circumstance,
which also, he had never named in public before, but which would
throw light upon the establishment of the branch in St. Louis,
and the kind of business which it had to perform. An immense
edition of a review of his speech on the veto message, was
circulated through his State on the eve of his last election.
It bore the impress of the bank foundry in Philadelphia, and
was intended to let the people of Missouri see that he (Mr.
B.) was a very unfit person to represent them: and afterwards
it was seen from the report of the government directors to the
President of the United States, that seventy-five thousand
copies of that review were paid for by the Bank of the United
States!"
The committee had gone out of their way--departed from the business
with which they were charged by the Senate's resolution--to bring up
a stale imputation upon Gen. Jackson, for becoming inimical to Mr.
Biddle, because he could not make him subservient to his purposes.
The imputation was unfounded and gratuitous, and disproved by the
journals of the Senate, which bore Gen. Jackson's nomination of Mr.
Biddle for government director--and at the head of those directors,
thereby indicating him for president of the bank--three several
times, in as many successive years, after the time alleged for this
hostility and vindictiveness. This unjustifiable imputation became
the immediate, the next point of Mr. Benton's animadversion; and was
thus disposed of:
"Mr. B. said there was another thing which must be noticed
now, because the proof to confound it was written in our own
journals. He alluded to the 'hostility' of the President of the
United States to the bank, which made so large a figure in that
report. The 'vindictiveness' of the President,--the 'hostility'
of the President, was often pressed into the service of that
report--which he must be permitted to qualify as an elaborate
defence of the bank. Whether used originally, or by quotation,
it was the same thing. The quotation from Mr. Duane was made
to help out the argument of the committee--to sustain their
position--and thereby became their own. The 'vindictiveness'
of the President towards the bank, is brought forward with
imposing gravity by the committee; and no one is at a loss to
understand what is meant! The charge has been made too often
not to suggest the whole story as often as it is hinted. The
President became hostile to Mr. Biddle, according to this fine
story, because he could not manage him! because he could not
make him use the institution for political purposes! and hence
his revenge, his vindictiveness, his hatred of Mr. Biddle, and
his change of sentiment towards the institution. This is the
charge which has run through the bank presses for three years,
and is alleged to take date from 1829, when an application was
made to change the president of the Portsmouth branch. But how
stands the truth, recorded upon our own journals? It stands
thus: that for three consecutive years after the harboring
of this deadly malice against Mr. Biddle, for not managing
the institution to suit the President's political wishes--for
three years, one after another, with this 'vindictive' hate
in his bosom, and this diabolical determination to ruin
the institution, he nominates this same Mr. Biddle to the
Senate, as one of the government directors, and at the head
of those directors! Mr. Biddle and some of his friends with
him came in, upon every nomination for three successive years,
after vengeance had been sworn against him! For three years
afterwards he is not only named a director, but indicated for
the presidency of the bank, by being put at the head of those
who came recommended by the nomination of the President, and
the sanction of the Senate! Thus was he nominated for the
years 1830, 1831, and 1832; and it was only after the report
of Mr. Clayton's committee of 1832 that the President ceased
to nominate Mr. Biddle for government director! Such was the
frank, confiding and friendly conduct of the President; while
Mr. Biddle, conscious that he did not deserve a nomination
at his hands, had himself also elected during each of these
years, at the head of the stockholders' ticket. He knew what
he was meditating and hatching against the President, though
the President did not! What then becomes of the charge faintly
shadowed forth by the committee, and publicly and directly
made by the bank and its friends? False! False as hell! and no
senator can say it without finding the proof of the falsehood
recorded in our own journal!"
Mr. Benton next defended Mr. Taney from an unjustifiable and
gratuitous assault made upon him by the committee--the more
unwarrantable because that gentleman was in retirement--no more in
public life--having resigned his place of Secretary of the Treasury
the day he was rejected by the Senate. Mr. Taney, in his report
upon the removal of the deposits, had repeated, what the government
directors and a committee of the House of Representatives had first
reported, of the illegal conduct of the bank committee of exchange,
in making loans. The fact was true, and as since shown, to a far
higher degree than then detected; and the Senate's committee were
unjustifiable in defending it. But not satisfied with this defence
of a criminal institution against a just accusation, they took the
opportunity of casting censure upon Mr. Taney, and gaining a victory
over him by making a false issue. Mr. Benton immediately corrected
this injustice. He said:
"That he was not now going into a general answer to the report,
but he must do justice to an absent gentleman--one of the
purest men upon earth, both in public and private life, and
who, after the manner he had been treated in this chamber,
ought to be secure, in his retirement, from senatorial attack
and injustice. The committee have joined a conspicuous issue
with Mr. Taney; and they have carried a glorious bank victory
over him, by turning off the trial upon a false point. Mr.
Taney arraigned the legality of the conduct of the exchange
committee, which, overleaping the business of such a committee,
which is to buy and sell _real bills of exchange_, had become
invested with the power of the whole board; transacting that
business which, by the charter, could only be done by the
board of directors, and by a board of not less than seven, and
which they could not delegate. Yet this committee, of three,
selected by the President himself, was shown by the report
of the government directors to transact the most important
business; such as making immense loans, upon long credits, and
upon questionable security; sometimes covering its operations
under this simulated garb, and falsified pretext, _of buying
a bill of exchange_; sometimes using no disguise at all. It
was shown, by the same report, to have the exclusive charge of
conducting the curtailment last winter; a business of the most
important character to the country, having no manner of affinity
to the proper functions of an exchange committee; and which they
conducted in the most partial and iniquitous manner; and without
even reporting to the board. All this the government directors
communicated. All this was commented upon on this floor; yet
Mr. Taney is selected! He is the one pitched upon; as if nobody
but him had arraigned the illegal acts of this committee; and
then he is made to arraign the existence of the committee, and
not its misconduct! Is this right? Is it fair? Is it just thus
to pursue that gentleman, and to pursue him unjustly? Can the
vengeance of the bank never be appeased while he lives and moves
on earth?"
After having vindicated the President, the Vice-President, Mr.
Grundy, Mr. Taney, and himself, from the unfounded imputations of
the committee, so gratuitously presented, so unwarranted in fact,
and so foreign to the purpose for which they were appointed, Mr.
Benton laid hold of some facts which had come to light for the
purpose of showing the misconduct of the bank, and to invalidate the
committee's report. The first was the transportation of specie to
London while pressing it out of the community here. He said:
"He had performed a duty, which ought not to be delayed an hour,
in defending himself, the President, and Mr. Taney, from the
sad injustice of that report; the report itself, with all its
elaborate pleadings for the bank,--its errors of omission and
commission,--would come up for argument after it was printed;
and when, with God's blessing, and the help of better hands,
he would hope to show that it was the duty of the Senate to
recommit it, with instructions to examine witnesses upon oath,
and to bring out that secret history of the institution, which
seems to have been a sealed book to the committee. For the
present, he would bring to light two facts, detected in the
intricate mazes of the monthly statements, which would fix at
once, both the character of the bank and the character of the
report; the bank, for its audacity, wickedness and falsehood;
the report, for its blindness, fatuity, and partiality.
"The bank, as all America knows (said Mr. B.), filled the whole
country with the endless cry which had been echoed and re-echoed
from this chamber, that the removal of the deposits had laid her
under the necessity of curtailing her debts; had compelled her
to call in her loans, to fill the vacuum in her coffers produced
by this removal; and thus to enable herself to stand the
pressure which the 'hostility' of the government was bringing
upon her. This was the assertion for six long months; and now
let facts confront this assertion, and reveal the truth to an
outraged and insulted community.
"The first fact" (said Mr. B.), is the transfer of the moneys to
London, to lie there idle, while squeezed out of the people here
during the panic and pressure.
"The cry of distress was raised in December, at the meeting
of Congress; and during that month the sum of $129,764 was
transferred by the bank to its agents, the Barings. This cry
waxed stronger till July, and until that time the monthly
transfers were:
December, $129,764
February, 355,253
March, 261,543
May, 34,749
June, 2,142,054
July, 501,950
----------
$3,425,313
Making the sum of near three millions and a half transferred
to London, to lie idle in the hands of an agent, while that
very money was squeezed out of a few cities here; and the
whole country, and the halls of Congress, were filled with the
deafening din of the cry, that the bank was forced to curtail,
to supply the loss in her own coffers from the removal of the
deposits! And, worse yet! The bank had, in the hands of the
same agents, a large sum when the transfers of these panic
collections began; making in the whole, the sum of $4,261,201,
on the first day of July last, which was lying idle in her
agents' hands in London, drawing little or no interest there,
while squeezed out of the hands of those who were paying bank
interest here, near seven per cent.; and had afterwards to go
into brokers' hands to borrow at one or two per cent. a month.
Even now, at the last returns on the first day of this month,
about two millions and a half of this money ($2,678,006) was
still lying idle in the hands of the Barings! waiting till
foreign exchange can be put up again to eight or ten per cent.
The enormity of this conduct, Mr. B. said, was aggravated by
the notorious fact, that the transfers of this money were made
by sinking the price of exchange as low as five per cent. below
par, when shippers and planters had bills to sell; and raising
it eight per cent. above par when merchants and importers had
to buy; thus double taxing the commerce of the country--double
taxing the producer and consumer--and making a fluctuation of
thirteen per cent. in foreign exchange, in the brief space of
six months. And all this to make money scarce at home while
charging that scarcity upon the President! Thus combining
calumny and stock-jobbing with the diabolical attempt to ruin
the country, or to rule it."
The next glaring fact which showed the enormous culpability of the
bank in making the pressure and distress, was the abduction of about
a million and a quarter of hard dollars from New Orleans, while
distressing the business community there by refusal of discounts and
the curtailment of loans, under pretence of making up what she lost
there by the removal of the deposits. The fact of the abduction was
detected in the monthly reports still made to the Secretary of the
Treasury, and was full proof of the wantonness and wickedness of
the pressure, as the amount thus squeezed out of the community was
immediately transferred to Philadelphia or New-York; to be thence
shipped to London. Mr. Benton thus exposed this iniquity:
"The next fact, Mr. B. said, was the abduction of an immense
amount of specie from New Orleans, at the moment the Western
produce was arriving there; and thus disabling the merchants
from buying that produce, and thereby sinking its price nearly
one half; and all under the false pretext of supplying the loss
in its coffers, occasioned by the removal of the deposits.
"The falsehood and wickedness of this conduct will appear from
the fact, that, at the time of the removal of the deposits, in
October, the public deposits, in the New Orleans branch, were
far less than the amount afterwards curtailed, and sent off; and
that these deposits were not entirely drawn out, for many months
after the curtailment and abduction of the money. Thus, the
public deposits, in October, were:
"In the name of the Treasurer
of the United States, $294,228 62
"In the name of public officers, 173,764 64
-----------
$467,993 26
"In all, less than half a million of dollars.
"In March, there was still on hand:
"In the name of the Treasurer, $40,266 28
"In the name of public officers, 63,671 80
-----------
$103,938 08
"In all, upwards of one hundred thousand dollars; and making the
actual withdrawal of deposits, at that branch, but $360,000, and
that paid out gradually, in the discharge of government demands.
"Now, what was the actual curtailment, during the same
period? It is shown from the monthly statements, that these
curtailments, on local loans, were $788,904; being upwards of
double the amount of deposits, miscalled _removed_; for they
were not removed; but only paid out in the regular progress of
government disbursement, and actually remaining in the mass of
circulation, and much of it in the bank itself. But the specie
removed during the same time! that was the fact, the damning
fact, upon which he relied. This abduction was:
"In the month of November, $334,647 }
"In the month of March, 808,084 } _at the least_
---------
$1,142,731
"Making near a million and a quarter of dollars, at the least.
Mr. B. repeated, at the least; for a monthly statement does not
show the accumulation of the month which might also be sent
off; and the statement could only be relied on for so much as
appeared a month before the abduction was made. Probably the
sum was upwards of a million and a quarter of hard dollars,
thus taken away from New Orleans last winter, by stopping
accommodations, calling in loans, breaking up domestic exchange,
creating panic and pressure, and sinking the price of all
produce; that the mother bank might transfer funds to London,
gamble in foreign exchange, spread desolation and terror
through the land; and then charge the whole upon the President
of the United States; and end with the grand consummation of
bringing a new political party into power, and perpetuating its
own charter."
Mr. Benton commented on the barefacedness of running out an immense
line of discounts, so soon done after the rise of the last session
of Congress, and so suddenly, that the friends of the bank, in
remote places, not having had time to be informed of the "reversal
of the bank screws," were still in full chorus, justifying the
curtailment; and concluded with denouncing the report as _ex parte_,
and remarking upon the success of the committee in finding what they
were not sent to look for, and not finding what they ought to have
found. He said:
"These are some of the astounding iniquities which have escaped
the eyes of the committee, while they have been so successful
in their antiquarian researches into Andrew Jackson's and Felix
Grundy's letters, ten or twenty years ago, and into Martin Van
Buren's and Thomas H. Benton's, six or eight years ago; letters
which every public man is called upon to give to his neighbors,
or constituents; which no public man ought to refuse, or, in all
probability ever did refuse; and which are so ostentatiously
paraded in the report, and so emphatically read in this chamber,
with pause and gesture; and with such a sympathetic look for the
expected smile from the friends of the bank; letters which, so
far as he was concerned, had been used to make the committee the
organ of a falsehood. And now, Mr. B. would be glad to know, who
put the committee on the scent of those old musty letters; for
there was nothing in the resolution, under which they acted, to
conduct their footsteps to the silent covert of that small game."
Mr. Tyler made a brief reply, in defence of the report of the
committee, in which he said:
"The senator from Missouri had denominated the report 'an
elaborate defence of the bank.' He had said that it justified
the bank in its course of curtailment, during the last winter
and the early part of the summer. Sir, if the honorable senator
had paid more attention to the reading, or had waited to have
it in print, he would not have hazarded such a declaration. He
would have perceived that that whole question was submitted to
the decision of the Senate. The committee had presented both
sides of the question--the view most favorable, and that most
unfavorable, to the institution. It exhibited the measures of
the Executive and those of the bank consequent upon them, on the
one side, and the available resources of the bank on the other.
The fact that its circulation of $19,000,000 was protected by
specie to the amount of $10,000,000, and claims on the State
banks exceeding $2,000,000, which were equal to specie--that
its purchase of domestic exchange had so declined, from May
to October, as to place at its disposal more than $5,000,000;
something more than a doubt is expressed whether, under ordinary
circumstances, the bank would have been justified in curtailing
its discounts. So, too, in regard to a perseverance in its
measures of precaution as long as it did, a summary of facts is
given to enable the Senate to decide upon the propriety of the
course pursued by the bank. The effort of the committee has been
to present these subjects fairly to the Senate and the country.
They have sought 'nothing to extenuate,' nor have they 'set down
ought in malice.' The statements are presented to the senator,
for his calm and deliberate consideration--to each senator, to
be weighed as becomes his high station. And what is the course
of the honorable senator? The moment he (Mr. T.) could return
to his seat from the Clerk's table, the gentleman pounces upon
the report, and makes assertions which a careful perusal of it
would cause him to know it does not contain. On one subject, the
controversy relative to the bill of exchange, and the damages
consequent on its protest, the committee had expressed the
opinion, that the government was in error, and he, as a member
of that committee, would declare his own conviction that that
opinion was sound and maintainable before any fair and impartial
tribunal in the world. Certain persons started back with alarm,
at the mere mention of a court of justice. The trial by jury had
become hateful in their eyes. The great principles of _magna
charta_ are to be overlooked, and the declarations contained in
the bill of rights are become too old-fashioned to be valuable.
Popular prejudices are to be addressed, and instead of an appeal
to the calm judgment of mankind, every lurking prejudice is to
be awakened, because a corporation, or a set of individuals,
have believed themselves wronged by the accounting officers of
the treasury, and have had the temerity and impudence to take a
course calculated to bring their rights before the forum of the
courts. Let those who see cause to pursue this course rejoice as
they may please, and exult in the success which attends it. For
one, I renounce it as unworthy American statesmen. The committee
had addressed a sober and temperate but firm argument, upon this
subject, to the Senate; and, standing in the presence of that
august body, and before the whole American people, he rested
upon that argument for the truth of the opinion advanced. An
opinion, for the honesty of which, on his own part, he would
avouch, after the most solemn manner, under the unutterable
obligations he was under to his Creator.
"The senator had also spoken in strong language as to that part
of the report which related to the committee of exchange. He
had said that a false issue had been presented--that the late
Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Taney) had never contended that
the bank had no right to appoint a committee of exchange--that
such a committee was appointed by all banks. In this last
declaration the gentleman is correct. All banks have a committee
to purchase exchange. But Mr. T. would admonish the gentleman
to beware. He would find himself condemning him whom he wished
to defend. Mr. Taney's very language is quoted in the report.
He places the violation of the charter distinctly on the ground
that the business of the bank is intrusted to three members
on the exchange committee, when the charter requires that
not less than seven shall constitute a board to do business.
His very words are given in the report, so that he cannot be
misunderstood; and the commentary of the committee consists in a
mere narrative of facts. Little more is done than to give facts,
and the honorable senator takes the alarm; and, in his effort
to rescue the late Secretary from their influence, plunges him
still deeper into difficulty.
"The senator had loudly talked of the committee having been made
an instrument of, by the bank. For himself, he renounced the
ascription. He would tell the honorable senator that he could
not be made an instrument of by the bank, or by a still greater
and more formidable power, the administration. He stood upon
that floor to accomplish the purposes for which he was sent
there. In the consciousness of his own honesty, he stood firm
and erect. He would worship alone at the shrine of truth and of
honor. It was a precious thing, in the eyes of some men, to bask
in the sunshine of power. He rested only upon the support, which
had never failed him, of the high and lofty feelings of his
constituents. He would not be an instrument even in their hands,
if it were possible for them to require it of him, to gratify an
unrighteous motive."
CHAPTER CXVII.
FRENCH SPOLIATIONS BEFORE 1800.
These claims had acquired an imposing aspect by this time. They were
called "prior" to the year 1800; but how much prior was not shown,
and they might reach back to the establishment of our independence.
Their payment by the United States rested upon assumptions which
constituted the basis of the demand, and on which the bill was
framed. It assumed, _first_--That illegal seizures, detentions,
captures, condemnations, and confiscations were made of the vessels
and property of citizens of the United States before the period
mentioned. _Secondly_--That these acts were committed by such orders
and under such circumstances, as gave the sufferers a right to
indemnity from the French government. _Thirdly_--That these claims
had been annulled by the United States for public considerations.
_Fourthly_--That this annulment gave these sufferers a just claim
upon the United States for the amount of their losses. Upon these
four assumptions the bill rested--some of them disputable in
point of fact, and others in point of law. Of these latter was
the assumption of the liability of the United States to become
paymasters themselves in cases where failing, by war or negotiation,
to obtain redress they make a treaty settlement, surrendering or
abandoning claims. This is an assumption contrary to reason and law.
Every nation is bound to give protection to the persons and property
of their citizens; but the government is the judge of the measure
and degree of that protection; and is not bound to treat for ever,
or to fight for ever, to obtain such redress. After having done its
best for the indemnity of some individuals, it is bound to consider
what is due to the whole community--and to act accordingly; and the
unredressed citizens have to put up with their losses if abandoned
at the general settlement which, sooner or later, must terminate all
national controversies. All this was well stated by Mr. Bibb, of
Kentucky, in a speech on these French claims upon the bill of the
present year. He said:
"He was well aware that the interests of individuals ought to be
supported by their governments to a certain degree, but he did
not think that governments were bound to push such interest to
the extremity of war--he did not admit that the rights of the
whole were to be jeoparded by the claims of individuals--the
safety of the community was paramount to the claims of private
citizens. He would proceed to see if the interests of our
citizens had been neglected by this government. These claims
have been urged from year to year, with all the earnestness and
zeal due from the nation. But they went on from bad to worse,
till negotiations were in vain. We then assumed a hostile
position. During the year '98, more than twenty laws were
passed by Congress upon this very subject--some for raising
troops--some for providing arms and munitions of war--some for
fitting out a naval force, and so on. Was this neglecting the
claims of our citizens? We went as far as the interests of the
nation would permit. We prosecuted these claims to the very
verge of plunging into that dreadful war then desolating Europe.
The government then issued its proclamation of neutrality and
non-intercourse. Mr. B. next proceeded to show that France had
no just claims upon us, arising from the guaranty. This guaranty
against France was not considered binding, even by France
herself, any further than was consistent with our relations with
other nations; that it was so declared by her minister; and,
moreover, that she acknowledged the justice of our neutrality.
These treaties had been violated by France, and the United
States could not surely be bound by treaties which she had
herself violated; and consequently, we were under no obligation
on account of the guaranty. Mr. B. went on to show that, by the
terms of the treaty of 1800, the debts due to our citizens had
not been relinquished:--that as the guaranty did not exist, and
as the claims had not been abandoned, Mr. B. concluded that
these claims ought not to be paid by this government. He was
opposed to going back thirty-four years to sit in judgment on
the constituted authorities of that time. There should be a
stability in the government, and he was not disposed to question
the judgment of the man (Washington) who has justly been called
the first in war and the first in peace. We are sitting here to
rejudge the decisions of the government thirty-four years since."
This is well stated, and the conclusion just and logical, that we
ought not to go back thirty-four years to call in question the
judgment of Washington's administration. He was looking to the
latest date of the claims when he said thirty-four years, which
surely was enough; but Washington's decision in his proclamation
of neutrality was seven years before that time; and the claims
themselves have the year 1800 for their period of limitation--not
of commencement, which was many years before. This doctrine of
governmental liability when abandoning the claims of citizens
for which indemnity could not be obtained, is unknown in other
countries, and was unknown in ours in the earlier ages of the
government. There was a case of this abandonment in our early
history which rested upon no "assumption" of fact, but on the
fact itself; and in which no attempt was made to enforce the
novel doctrine. It was the case of the slaves carried off by the
British troops at the close of the Revolutionary War, and for which
indemnity was stipulated in the treaty of peace. Great Britain
refused that indemnity; and after vain efforts to obtain it by the
Congress of the confederation, and afterwards under Washington's
administration, this claim of indemnity, no longer resting upon
a claim of the sufferers, but upon a treaty stipulation--upon an
article in a treaty for their benefit--was abandoned to obtain a
general advantage for the whole community in the commercial treaty
with Great Britain. As these claims for French spoliations are still
continued (1850), I give some of the speeches for and against them
fifteen years ago, believing that they present the strength of the
argument on both sides. The opening speech of Mr. Webster presented
the case:
"He should content himself with stating very briefly an outline
of the grounds on which these claims are supposed to rest, and
then leave the subject to the consideration of the Senate. He,
however, should be happy, in the course of the debate, to make
such explanations as might be called for. It would be seen
that the bill proposed to make satisfaction, to an amount not
exceeding five millions of dollars, to such citizens of the
United States, or their legal representatives, as had valid
claims for indemnity on the French government, rising out
of illegal captures, detentions, and condemnations, made or
committed on their property prior to the 30th day of September,
1800. This bill supposed two or three leading propositions to be
true.
"It supposed, in the first place, that illegal seizures,
detentions, captures, condemnations, and confiscations, were
made, of the vessels and property of the citizens of the United
States, before the 30th September, 1800.
"It supposed, in the second place, that these acts of wrong were
committed by such orders and under such circumstances, as that
the sufferers had a just right and claim for indemnity from the
hands of the government of France.
"Going on these two propositions, the bill assumed one other,
and that was, that all such claims on France as came within
a prescribed period, or down to a prescribed period, had
been annulled by the United States, and that this gave them
a right to claim indemnity from this government. It supposed
a liability in justice, in fairness and equity, on the part
of this government, to make the indemnity. These were the
grounds on which the bill was framed. That there were many
such confiscations no one doubted, and many such acts of wrong
as were mentioned in the first section of the bill. That they
were committed by Frenchmen, and under such circumstances as
gave those who suffered wrong an unquestionable right to claim
indemnity from the French government, nobody, he supposed,
at this day, would question. There were two questions which
might be made the subject of discussion, and two only occurred
to him at that moment. The one was, 'On what ground was the
government of the United States answerable to any extent for
the injury done to these claimants?' The other, 'To what extent
was the government in justice bound?' And _first_--of the
first. 'Why was it that the government of the United States had
become responsible in law or equity to its citizens, for the
claims--for any indemnity for the wrongs committed on their
commerce by the subjects of France before 1800?'
"To this question there was an answer, which, whether
satisfactory or not, had at least the merit of being a very
short one. It was, that, by a treaty between France and the
United States, bearing date the 30th of September, 1800, in
a political capacity, the government of the United States
discharged and released the government of France from this
indemnity. It went upon the ground, which was sustained by
all the correspondence which had preceded the treaty of 1800,
that the disputes arising between the two countries should be
settled by a negotiation. And claims and pretensions having
been asserted on either side, commissioners on the part of the
United States were sent out to assert and maintain the claims of
indemnity which they demanded; while commissioners appointed on
the part of France asserted a claim to the full extent of the
stipulations made in '78, which they said the United States had
promised to fulfil, and in order to carry into effect the treaty
of alliance of the same date, viz.: February, 1778.
"The negotiation ultimately terminated, and a treaty was finally
ratified upon the terms and conditions of an offset of the
respective claims against each other, and for ever; so that the
United States government, by the surrender and discharge of
these claims of its citizens, had made this surrender to the
French government to obtain for itself a discharge from the
onerous liabilities imposed upon them by the treaty of 1778, and
in order to escape from fulfilling other stipulations proclaimed
in the treaty of commerce of that year, and which, if not
fulfilled, might have brought about a war with France. This was
the ground on which these claims rested.
"Heretofore, when the subject had been before Congress,
gentlemen had taken this view of the case; and he believed
there was a report presented to the Senate at the time, which
set forth that the claims of our citizens, being left open, the
United States had done these claimants no injury, and that it
did not exempt the government of France from liability."
Mr. Wright, of New-York, spoke fully against the bill, and upon
a close view of all the facts of the case and all the law of the
case as growing out of treaties or found in the law of nations.
His speech was not only a masterly argument, but an historical
monument, going back to the first treaty with France in 1778,
and coming down through our legislation and diplomacy on French
questions to the time of its delivery. A separate chapter is due to
this great speech; and it will be given entire in the next one.
CHAPTER CXVIII.
FRENCH SPOLIATIONS: SPEECH OF MR. WRIGHT, OF NEW-YORK.
"Mr. Wright understood the friends of this bill to put its
merits upon the single and distinct ground that the government
of the United States had released France from the payment of
the claims for a consideration, passing directly to the benefit
of our government, and fully equal in value to the claims
themselves. Mr. W. said he should argue the several questions
presented, upon the supposition that this was the extent to
which the friends of the bill had gone, or were disposed to go,
in claiming a liability on the part of the United States to pay
the claimants; and, thus understood, he was ready to proceed to
an examination of the strength of this position.
"His first duty, then, was to examine the relations existing
between France and the United States prior to the commencement
of the disturbances out of which these claims have arisen; and
the discharge of this duty would compel a dry and uninteresting
reference to the several treaties which, at that period,
governed those relations.
"The seventeenth article of the treaty of amity and commerce of
the 6th February, 1778, was the first of these references, and
that article was in the following words:
"'_Art. 17._ It shall be lawful for the ships of war of either
party, and privateers, freely to carry whithersoever they please
the ships and goods taken from their enemies, without being
obliged to pay any duty to the officers of the admiralty or any
other judges; nor shall such prizes be arrested or seized when
they come to or enter the ports of either party; nor shall the
searchers or other officers of those places search the same,
or make examination concerning the lawfulness of such prizes;
but they may hoist sail at any time and depart and carry their
prizes to the places expressed in their commissions, which the
commanders of such ships of war shall be obliged to show; on the
contrary, no shelter or refuge shall be given in their ports
to such as shall have made prize of the subjects, people, or
property of either of the parties; but if such shall come in,
being forced by stress of weather, or the danger of the sea,
all proper means shall be vigorously used, that they go out and
retire from thence as soon as possible.'
"This article, Mr. W. said, would be found to be one of the
most material of all the stipulations between the two nations,
in an examination of the diplomatic correspondence during the
whole period of the disturbances, from the breaking out of the
war between France and England, in 1793, until the treaty of
the 30th September, 1800. The privileges claimed by France,
and the exclusions she insisted on as applicable to the other
belligerent Powers, were fruitful sources of complaint on both
sides, and constituted many material points of disagreement
between the two nations through this entire interval. What
these claims were on the part of France, and how far they were
admitted by the United States, and how far controverted, will,
Mr. W. said, be more properly considered in another part of
the argument. As connected, however, with this branch of the
relations, he thought it necessary to refer to the twenty-second
article of the same treaty, which was in the following words:
"'_Art. 22._ It shall not be lawful for any foreign privateers,
not belonging to subjects of the Most Christian King, nor
citizens of the said United States, who have commissions from
any other prince or State in enmity with either nation, to fit
their ships in the ports of either the one or the other of the
aforesaid parties, to sell what they have taken, or in any other
manner whatsoever to exchange their ships, merchandises, or any
other lading; neither shall they be allowed even to purchase
victuals, except such as shall be necessary for their going
to the next port of that prince or State from which they have
commissions.'
"Mr. W. said he now passed to a different branch of the
relations between the two countries, as established by this
treaty of amity and commerce, which was the reciprocal right
of either to carry on a free trade with the enemies of the
other, restricted only by the stipulations of the same treaty in
relation to articles to be considered contraband of war. This
reciprocal right is defined in the twenty-third article of the
treaty, which is in the words following:
"'_Art. 23._ It shall be lawful for all and singular the
subjects of the Most Christian King, and the citizens, people,
and inhabitants of the said United States, to sail with their
ships with all manner of liberty and security, no distinction
being made who are the proprietors of the merchandises laden
thereon, from any port to the places of those who now are or
hereafter shall be at enmity with the Most Christian King,
or the United States. It shall likewise be lawful for the
subjects and inhabitants aforesaid to sail with the ships and
merchandises aforementioned, and to trade with the same liberty
and security from the places, ports, and havens of those who
are enemies of both or either party, without any opposition
or disturbance whatsoever, not only directly from the places
of the enemy aforementioned to neutral places, but also from
one place belonging to an enemy to another place belonging to
an enemy, whether they be under the jurisdiction of the same
prince, or under several. And it is hereby stipulated that free
ships shall also give a freedom to goods, and that every thing
shall be deemed to be free and exempt which shall be found on
board the ships belonging to the subjects of either of the
confederates, although the whole lading, or any part thereof,
should appertain to the enemies of either, contraband goods
being always excepted. It is also agreed, in like manner, that
the same liberty be extended to persons who are on board a free
ship, with this effect, that although they be enemies to both or
either party, they are not to be taken out of that free ship,
unless they are soldiers and in actual service of the enemies.'
"The restrictions as to articles to be held between the two
nations as contraband of war, Mr. W. said, were to be found
in the twenty-fourth article of this same treaty of amity and
commerce, and were as follows:
"'_Art._ 24. This liberty of navigation and commerce shall
extend to all kinds of merchandises, excepting those only which
are distinguished by the name of contraband, and under this
name of contraband, or prohibited goods, shall be comprehended
arms, great guns, bombs, with fuses and other things belonging
to them, cannon ball, gunpowder, match, pikes, swords, lances,
spears, halberds, mortars, petards, grenades, saltpetre,
muskets, musket ball, helmets, breastplates, coats of mail,
and the like kinds of arms proper for arming soldiers, musket
rests, belts, horses with their furniture, and all other warlike
instruments whatever. These merchandises which follow shall
not be reckoned among contraband or prohibited goods; that
is to say, all sorts of cloths, and all other manufactures
woven of any wool, flax, silk, cotton, or any other material
whatever; all kinds of wearing apparel, together with the
species whereof they are used to be made; gold and silver, as
well coined as uncoined: tin, iron, latten, copper, brass,
coals; as also wheat and barley, and any other kind of corn
and pulse: tobacco, and likewise all manner of spices; salted
and smoked flesh, salted fish, cheese, and butter, beer, oils,
wines, sugars, and all sorts of salts; and, in general, all
provisions which serve for the nourishment of mankind, and the
sustenance of life; furthermore, all kinds of cotton, hemp,
flax, tar, pitch, ropes, cables, sails, sail cloths, anchors,
and any part of anchors, also ships' masts, planks, boards, and
beams, of what trees soever; and all other things proper either
for building or repairing ships, and all other goods whatever
which have not been worked into the form of any instrument or
thing prepared for war by land or by sea, shall not be reputed
contraband, much less such as have been already wrought and
made up for any other use; all which shall be wholly reckoned
among free goods; as likewise all other merchandises and things
which are not comprehended and particularly mentioned in the
foregoing enumeration of contraband goods, so that they may be
transported and carried in the freest manner by the subjects of
both confederates, even to the places belonging to an enemy,
such towns or places being only excepted as are at that time
besieged, blocked up, or invested.'
"Mr. W. said this closed his references to this treaty, with
the remark, which he wished carefully borne in mind, that the
accepted public law was greatly departed from in this last
article. Provisions, in their broadest sense, materials for
ships, rigging for ships, and indeed almost all the articles
of trade mentioned in the long exception in the article of the
treaty, were articles contraband of war by the law of nations.
This article, therefore, placed our commerce with France upon
a footing widely different, in case of a war between France
and any third power, from the rules which would regulate that
commerce with the other belligerent, with whom we might not have
a similar commercial treaty. Such was its effect as compared
with our relations with England, with which power we had no
commercial treaty whatever, but depended upon the law of nations
as our commercial rule and standard of intercourse.
"Mr. W. said he now passed to the treaty of alliance between
France and the United States, of the same date with the treaty
of amity and commerce before referred to, and his first
reference was to the 11th article of this latter treaty. It was
in the following words:
"'_Art._ 11. The two parties guarantee mutually from the
present time, and for ever, against all other powers, to wit:
The United States to His Most Christian Majesty the present
possessions of the Crown of France in America, as well as those
which it may acquire by the future treaty of peace: And His
Most Christian Majesty guarantees on his part to the United
States, their liberty, sovereignty, and independence, absolute
and unlimited, as well in matters of government as commerce,
and also their possessions, and the additions or conquests
that their confederation may obtain during the war, from any
of the dominions now or heretofore possessed by Great Britain
in North America, conformable to the fifth and sixth articles
above written, the whole as their possessions shall be fixed and
assured to the said States at the moment of the cessation of
their present war with England.'
"This article, Mr. W. said, was the most important reference he
had made, or could make, so far as the claims provided for by
this bill were concerned, because he understood the friends of
the bill to derive the principal consideration to the United
States, which created their liability to pay the claims, from
the guaranty on the part of the United States contained in
it. The Senate would see that the article was a mutual and
reciprocal guaranty, 1st. On the part of the United States to
France, of her possessions in America; and 2d. On the part of
France to the United States, of their 'liberty, sovereignity,
and independence, absolute and unlimited, as well in matters
of government as commerce, and also their possessions,' &c.;
and that the respective guarantees were 'for ever.' It would
by-and-by appear in what manner this guaranty on the part of our
government was claimed to be the foundation for this pecuniary
responsibility for millions, but at present he must complete his
references to the treaties which formed the law between the two
nations, and the rule of their relations to and with each other.
He had but one more article to read, and that was important
only as it went to define the one last cited. This was the 12th
article of the treaty of alliance, and was as follows:
"'_Art._ 12. In order to fix more precisely the sense and
application of the preceding article, the contracting parties
declare that, in case of a rupture between France and England,
the reciprocal guaranty declared in the said article shall have
its full force and effect the moment such war shall break out;
and if such rupture shall not take place, the mutual obligations
of the said guaranty shall not commence until the moment of
the cessation of the present war between the United States and
England shall have ascertained their possessions.'
"These, said Mr. W., are the treaty stipulations between France
and the United States, existing at the time of the commencement
of the disturbances between the two countries, which gave rise
to the claims now the subject of consideration, and which seem
to bear most materially upon the points in issue. There were
other provisions in the treaties between the two governments
more or less applicable to the present discussion, but, in the
course he had marked out for himself, a reference to them was
not indispensable, and he was not disposed to occupy the time
or weary the patience of the Senate with more of these dry
documentary quotations than he found absolutely essential to
a full and clear understanding of the points he proposed to
examine.
"Mr. W. said he was now ready to present the origin of the
claims which formed the subject of the bill. The war between
France and England broke out, according to his recollection,
late in the year 1792, or early in the year 1793, and the
United States resolved upon preserving the same neutral
position between those belligerents, which they had assumed at
the commencement of the war between France and certain other
European powers. This neutrality on the part of the United
States seemed to be acceptable to the then French Republic, and
her minister in the United States and her diplomatic agents at
home were free and distinct in their expressions to this effect.
"Still that Republic made broad claims under the 17th article of
the treaty of amity and commerce before quoted, and her minister
here assumed the right to purchase ships, arm them as privateers
in our ports, commission officers for them, enlist our own
citizens to man them and, thus prepared, to send them from our
ports to cruise against English vessels upon our coast. Many
prizes were made, which were brought into our ports, submitted
to the admiralty jurisdiction conferred by the French Republic
upon her consuls in the United States, condemned, and the
captured vessels and cargoes exposed for sale in our markets.
These practices were immediately and earnestly complained of by
the British government as violations of the neutrality which
our government had declared, and which we assumed to maintain
in regard to all the belligerents, as favors granted to one of
the belligerents, not demandable of right under our treaties
with France, and as wholly inconsistent, according to the rules
of international law, with our continuance as a neutral power.
Our government so far yielded to these complaints as to prohibit
the French from fitting out, arming, equipping, or commissioning
privateers in our ports, and from enlisting our citizens to bear
arms under the French flag.
"This decision of the rights of France, under the treaty of
amity and commerce, produced warm remonstrances from her
minister in the United States, but was finally ostensibly
acquiesced in by the Republic, although constant complaints
of evasions and violations of the rule continued to harass
our government, and to occupy the attention of the respective
diplomatists.
"The exclusive privilege of our ports for her armed vessels,
privateers, and their prizes, granted to France by the treaty
of amity and commerce, as has before been seen, excited the
jealousy of England, and she was not slow in sending a portion
of her vast navy to line our coast and block up our ports and
harbors. The insolence of power induced some of her armed
vessels to enter our ports, and to remain, in violation of our
treaty with France, though not by the consent of our government,
or when we had the power to enforce the treaty by their
ejection. These incidents, however, did not fail to form the
subject of new charges from the French ministers, of bad faith
on our part, of partiality to England to the prejudice of our
old and faithful ally, of permitted violations of the treaties,
and of an inefficiency and want of zeal in the performance of
our duties as neutrals. To give point to these complaints,
some few instances occurred in which British vessels brought
their prizes into our ports, whether in all cases under those
casualties of stress of weather, or the dangers of the sea,
which rendered the act in conformity with the treaties and the
law of nations or not, is not perhaps very certain or very
material, inasmuch as the spirit of complaint seems to have
taken possession of the French negotiators, and these acts gave
colorable ground to their remonstrances.
"Contemporaneously with these grounds of misunderstanding and
these collisions of interest between the belligerents, and
between the interests of either of them and the preservation of
our neutrality, the French began to discover the disadvantages
to them, and the great advantages to the British, of the
different rules which governed the commerce between the two
nations and the United States. The rule between us and France
was the commercial treaty of which the articles above quoted
form a part, and the rule between us and Great Britain, was that
laid down by the law of nations. Mr. W. said he would detain
the Senate to point out but two of the differences between
these rules of commerce and intercourse, because upon these
two principally depended the difficulties which followed. The
first was, that, by the treaty between us and France, 'free
ships shall also give a freedom to the goods; and every thing
shall be deemed to be free and exempt which shall be found on
board the ships belonging to the subjects of either of the
confederates, although the whole lading, or any part thereof,
should appertain to the enemy of either, contraband goods being
always excepted;' while the law of nations, which was the rule
between us and England, made the goods of an enemy a lawful
prize, though found in the vessel of a friend. Hence it followed
that French property on board of an American vessel was subject
to capture by British cruisers without indignity to our flag,
or a violation to international law, while British property on
board of an American vessel could not be captured by a French
vessel without an insult to the flag of the United States, and
a direct violation of the twenty-third article of the treaty of
amity and commerce between us and France, before referred to.
"Mr. W. said the second instance of disadvantage to France which
he proposed to mention, was the great difference between the
articles made contraband of war by the twenty-fourth article of
the treaty of amity and commerce, before read to the Senate, and
by the law of nations. By the treaty, provisions of all kinds,
ship timber, ship tackle (guns only excepted), and a large list
of other articles of trade and commerce, were declared not to be
contraband of war, while the same articles are expressly made
contraband by the law of nations. Hence an American vessel,
clearing for a French port with a cargo of provisions or ship
stores, was lawful prize to a British cruiser, as, by the law
of nations, carrying articles contraband of war to an enemy,
while the same vessel, clearing for a British port, with the
same cargo, could not be captured by a French vessel, because
the treaty declared that the articles composing the cargo
should not be contraband as between the United States and
France. Mr. W. said the Senate would see, at a single glance,
how eminently these two advantages on the part of Great Britain
were calculated to turn our commerce to her ports, where, if the
treaty between us and France was observed, our vessels could
go in perfect safety, while, laden with provisions, our only
considerable export, and destined for a French port, they were
liable to capture, as carrying to an enemy contraband articles.
Upon their return, too, they were equally out of danger from
French cruisers, as, by the treaty, free ships made free the
goods on board; while, if they cleared from a port in France
with a French cargo, they were lawful prize to the British, upon
the principle of the law of nations, that the goods of an enemy
are lawful prize, even when found in the vessel of a friend.
"Both nations were in constant and urgent want of provisions
from the United States; and this double advantage to England
of having her ports open and free to our vessels, and of
possessing the right to capture those bound to French ports,
exasperated the French Republic beyond endurance. Her ministers
remonstrated with our government, controverted our construction
of British rights, again renewed the accusations of partiality,
and finally threw off the obligations of the treaty; and, by
a solemn decree of their authorities at home, established the
rule which governed the practice of the British cruisers.
France, assuming to believe that the United States permitted the
neutrality of her flag to be violated by the British, without
resistance, declared that she would treat the flag of all
neutral vessels as that flag should permit itself to be treated
by the other belligerents. This opened our commerce to the
almost indiscriminate plunder and depredation of all the powers
at war, and but for the want of the provisions of the United
States, which was too strongly felt both in England and France
not to govern, in a great degree, the policy of the two nations,
it would seem probable, from the documentary history of the
period, that it must have been swept from the ocean. Impelled by
this want, however, the British adopted the rule, at an early
day, that the provisions captured, although in a strict legal
sense forfeited, as being by the law of nations contraband,
should not be confiscated, but carried into English ports, and
paid for, at the market price of the same provisions, at the
port of their destination. The same want compelled the French,
when they came to the conclusion to lay aside the obligations
of the treaty, and to govern themselves, not by solemn compacts
with friendly powers, but by the standards of wrong adopted
by their enemies, to adopt also the same rule, and instead of
confiscating the cargo as contraband of war, if provisions, to
decree a compensation graduated by the market value at the port
of destination.
"Such, said Mr. W., is a succinct view of the disturbances
between France and the United States, and between France and
Great Britain, out of which grew what are now called the French
claims for spoliations upon our commerce, prior to the 30th of
September, 1800. Other subjects of difference might have had
a remote influence; but, Mr. W. said, he believed it would be
admitted by all, that those he had named were the principal,
and might be assumed as having given rise to the commercial
irregularities in which the claims commenced. This state of
things, without material change, continued until the year 1798,
when our government adopted a course of measures intended to
suspend our intercourse with France, until she should be brought
to respect our rights. These measures were persevered in by the
United States, up to September, 1800, and were terminated by the
treaty between the two nations of the 30th of that month. Here,
too, terminated claims which now occupy the attention of the
Senate.
"As it was the object of the claimants to show a liability, on
the part of our government, to pay their claims, and the bill
under discussion assumed that liability, and provided, in part
at least, for the payment, Mr. W. said it became his duty to
inquire what the government had done to obtain indemnity for
these claimants from France, and to see whether negligence
on its part had furnished equitable or legal ground for the
institution of this large claim upon the national treasury.
The period of time covered by the claims, as he understood the
subject, was from the breaking out of the war between France and
England, in 1793, to the signing of the treaty between France
and the United States, in September, 1800; and he would consider
the efforts the government had made to obtain indemnity:
"1st. From 1793 to 1798.
"2d. From 1798 to the treaty of the 30th September, 1800.
"During the first period, Mr. W. said, these efforts were
confined to negotiation, and he felt safe in the assertion
that, during no equal period in the history of our government,
could there be found such untiring and unremitted exertions
to obtain justice for citizens who had been injured in their
properties by the unlawful acts of a foreign power. Any one who
would read the mass of diplomatic correspondence between this
government and France, from 1793 to 1798, and who would mark
the frequent and extraordinary missions, bearing constantly in
mind that the recovery of these claims was the only ground upon
our part for the whole negotiation, would find it difficult to
say where negligence towards the rights and interests of its
citizens is imputable to the government of the United States,
during this period. He was not aware that such an imputation
had been or would be made; but sure he was that it could not be
made with justice, or sustained by the facts upon the record. No
liability, therefore, equitable or legal, had been incurred, up
to the year 1798.
"And if, said Mr. W., negligence is not imputable, prior to
1798, and no liability had then been incurred, how is it for
the second period, from 1798 to 1800? The efforts of the former
period were negotiation--constant, earnest, extraordinary
negotiation. What were they for the latter period? His answer
was, war; actual, open war; and he believed the statute book
of the United States would justify him in the position. He was
well aware that this point would be strenuously controverted,
because the friends of the bill would admit that, if a state of
war between the two countries did exist, it put an end to claims
existing prior to the war, and not provided for in the treaty of
peace, as well as to all pretence for claims to indemnity for
injuries to our commerce, committed by our enemy in time of war.
Mr. W. said he had found the evidences so numerous, to establish
his position that a state of actual war did exist, that he
had been quite at a loss from what portion of the testimony
of record to make his selections, so as to establish the fact
beyond reasonable dispute, and at the same time not to weary
the Senate by tedious references to laws and documents. He had
finally concluded to confine himself exclusively to the statute
book, as the highest possible evidence, as in his judgment
entirely conclusive, and as being susceptible of an arrangement
and condensation which would convey to the Senate the whole
material evidence, in a satisfactory manner, and in less compass
than the proofs to be drawn from any other source. He had,
therefore, made a very brief abstract of a few statutes, which
he would read in his place:
"By an act of the 28th May, 1798, Congress authorized the
capture of all armed vessels of France which had committed
depredations upon our commerce, or which should be found
hovering upon our coast for the purpose of committing such
depredations.
"By an act of the 13th June, 1798, only sixteen days after the
passage of the former act, Congress prohibited all vessels of
the United States from visiting any of the ports of France or
her dependencies, under the penalty of forfeiture of vessel and
cargo; required every vessel clearing for a foreign port to
give bonds (the owner, or factor and master) in the amount of
the vessel and cargo, and good sureties in half that amount,
conditioned that the vessel to which the clearance was to be
granted, would not, voluntarily, visit any port of France or
her dependencies; and prohibited all vessels of France, armed
or unarmed, or owned, fitted, hired, or employed, by any person
resident within the territory of the French Republic, or its
dependencies, or sailing or coming therefrom, from entering or
remaining in any port of the United States, unless permitted by
the President, by special passport, to be granted by him in each
case.
"By an act of the 25th June, 1798, only twelve days after the
passage of the last-mentioned act, Congress authorized the
merchant vessels of the United States to arm, and to defend
themselves against any search, restraint, or seizure, by vessels
sailing under French colors, to repel force by force to capture
any French vessel attempting a search, restraint, or seizure,
and to recapture any American merchant vessel which had been
captured by the French.
"Here, Mr. W. said, he felt constrained to make a remark upon
the character of these several acts of Congress, and to call
the attention of the Senate to their peculiar adaptation to the
measures which speedily followed in future acts of the national
legislature. The first, authorizing the capture of French armed
vessels, was peculiarly calculated to put in martial preparation
all the navy which the United States then possessed, and to
spread it upon our coast. The second, establishing a perfect
non-intercourse with France, was sure to call home our merchant
vessels from that country and her dependencies, to confine
within our own ports those vessels intended for commerce with
France, and thus to withdraw from the reach of the French
cruisers a large portion of the ships and property of our
citizens. The third, authorizing our merchantmen to arm, was the
greatest inducement the government could give to its citizens
to arm our whole commercial marine, and was sure to put in
warlike preparation as great a portion of our merchant vessels
as a desire of self-defence, patriotism, or cupidity, would arm.
Could measures more eminently calculated to prepare the country
for a state of war have been devised or adopted? Was this the
intention of those measures, on the part of the government, and
was that intention carried out into action? Mr. W. said he would
let the subsequent acts of the Congress of the United States
answer; and for that purpose, he would proceed to read from his
abstract of those acts:
"By an act of the 28th June, 1798, three days after the passage
of the act last referred to, Congress authorized the forfeiture
and condemnation of all French vessels captured in pursuance of
the acts before mentioned, and provided for the distribution of
the prize money, and for the confinement and support, at the
expense of the United States, of prisoners taken in the captured
vessels.
"By an act of the 7th July, 1798, nine days after the passage
of the last-recited act, Congress declared 'that the United
States are of right freed and exonerated from the stipulations
of the treaties and of the consular convention heretofore
concluded between the United States and France; and that the
same shall not henceforth be regarded as legally obligatory on
the government or citizens of the United States.'
"By an act of the 9th July, 1798, two days after the passage
of the act declaring void the treaties, Congress authorized
the capture, by the public armed vessels of the United States,
of all armed French vessels, whether within the jurisdictional
limits of the United States or upon the high seas, their
condemnation as prizes, their sale, and the distribution of the
prize money; empowered the President to grant commissions to
private armed vessels to make the same captures, and with the
same rights and powers, as public armed vessels; and provided
for the safe keeping and support of the prisoners taken, at the
expense of the United States.
"By an act of the 9th February, 1799, Congress continued the
non-intercourse between the United States and France for one
year, from the 3d of March, 1799.
"By an act of the 28th February, 1799, Congress provided for an
exchange of prisoners with France, or authorized the President,
at his discretion, to send to the dominions of France, without
an exchange, such prisoners as might remain in the power of the
United States.
"By an act of the 3d March, 1799, Congress directed the
President, in case any citizens of the United States, taken on
board vessels belonging to any of the powers at war with France,
by French vessels, should be put to death, corporally punished,
or unreasonably imprisoned, to retaliate promptly and fully upon
any French prisoners in the power of the United States.
"By an act of the 27th February, 1800, Congress again continued
the non-intercourse between us and France, for one year, from
the 3d of March, 1800.
"Mr. W. said he had now closed the references he proposed
to make to the laws of Congress, to prove that war--actual
war--existed between the United States and France, from July,
1798, until that war was terminated by the treaty of the 30th
of September, 1800. He had, he hoped, before shown that the
measures of Congress, up to the passage of the act of Congress
of the 25th of June, 1798, and including that act, were
appropriate measures preparatory to a state of war; and he had
now shown a total suspension of the peaceable relations between
the two governments, by the declaration of Congress that the
treaties should no longer be considered binding and obligatory
upon our government or its citizens. What, then, but war could
be inferred from an indiscriminate direction to our public armed
vessels, put in a state of preparation, by preparatory acts, to
capture all armed French vessels upon the high seas, and from
granting commissions to our whole commercial marine, also armed
by the operation of previous acts of Congress, authorizing them
to make the same captures, with regulations applicable to both,
for the condemnation of the prizes, the distribution of the
prize money, and the detention, support, and exchange of the
prisoners taken in the captured vessels? Will any man, said Mr.
W., call this a state of peace?
"[Here Mr. Webster, chairman of the select committee which
reported the bill, answered, 'Certainly.']
"Mr. W. proceeded. He said he was not deeply read in the
treatises upon national law, and he should never dispute with
that learned gentleman upon the technical definitions of peace
and war, as given in the books; but his appeal was to the plain
sense of every senator and every citizen of the country. Would
either call that state of things which he had described, and
which he had shown to exist from the highest of all evidence,
the laws of Congress alone, peace? It was a state of open and
undisguised hostility, of force opposed to force, of war upon
the ocean, as far as our government were in command of the
means to carry on a maritime war. If it was peace, he should
like to be informed, by the friends of the bill, what would
be war. This was violence and bloodshed, the power of the one
nation against the power of the other, reciprocally exhibited by
physical force.
"Couple with this the withdrawal by France of her minister
from this government, and her refusal to receive the American
commission, consisting of Messrs. Marshall, Pinckney, and Gerry,
and the consequent suspension of negotiations between the two
governments, during the period referred to; and Mr. W. said, if
the facts and the national records did not show a state of war,
he was at a loss to know what state of things between nations
should be called war.
"If, however, the Senate should think him wrong in this
conclusion, and that the claims were not utterly barred by war,
he trusted the facts disclosed in this part of his argument
would be considered sufficient at least to protect the faith
of the government in the discharge of its whole duty to its
citizens; and that after it had carried on these two years of
war, or, if not war, of actual force and actual fighting, in
which the blood of its citizens had been shed, and their lives
sacrificed to an unknown extent, for the single and sole purpose
of enforcing these claims of individuals, the imputation of
negligence, and hence of liability to pay the claims, would not
be urged as growing out of this portion of the conduct of the
government.
"Mr. W. said he now came to consider the treaty of the 30th
September, 1800, and the reasons which appeared plainly to his
mind to have induced the American negotiators to place that
negotiation upon the basis, not of an existing war, but of a
continued peace. That such was assumed to be the basis of the
negotiation, he believed to be true, and this fact, and this
fact only, so far as he had heard the arguments of the friends
of the bill, was depended upon to prove that there had been no
war. He had attempted to show that war in fact had existed, and
been carried on for two years; and if he could now show that the
inducement, on the part of the American ministers, to place the
negotiation which was to put an end to the existing hostilities
upon a peace basis, arose from no considerations of a national
or political character, and from no ideas of consistency with
the existing state of facts, but solely from a desire still
to save, as far as might be in their power, the interests of
these claimants, he should submit with great confidence that it
did not lay in the mouths of the same claimants to turn round
and claim this implied admission of an absence of war, thus
made by the agents of the government out of kindness to them,
and an excess of regard for their interests, as the basis of
a liability to pay the damages which they had sustained, and
which this diplomatic untruth, like all the previous steps of
the government, failed to recover for them. What, then, Mr.
President, said Mr. W., was the subject on our part, of the
constant and laborious negotiations carried on between the two
governments from 1793 to 1798? The claims. What, on our part,
was the object of the disturbances from 1798 to 1800--of the
non-intercourse--of the sending into service our navy, and
arming our merchant vessels--of our raising troops and providing
armies on the land--of the expenditure of the millions taken
from the treasury and added to our public debt, to equip and
sustain these fleets and armies? The claims. Why were our
citizens sent to capture the French, to spill their blood, and
lay down their lives upon the high seas? To recover the claims.
These were the whole matter. We had no other demand upon France,
and, upon our part, no other cause of difference with her.
"What public, or national, or political object had we in the
negotiation of 1800, which led to the treaty of the 30th
September of that year? None, but to put an end to the existing
hostilities, and to restore relations of peace and friendship.
These could have been as well secured by negotiating upon a
war as a peace basis. Indeed, as there were in our former
treaties stipulations which we did not want to revive, a
negotiation upon the basis of existing war was preferable, so
far as the interests of the government were concerned, because
that would put all questions, growing out of former treaties
between the parties, for ever at rest. Still our negotiators
consented to put the negotiation upon the basis of continued
peace, and why? Because the adoption of a basis of existing war
would have barred effectually and for ever all classes of the
claims. This, Mr. W. said, was the only possible assignable
reason for the course pursued by the American negotiators;
it was the only reason growing out of the existing facts,
or out of the interests, public or private, involved in the
difficulties between the two nations. He therefore felt himself
fully warranted in the conclusion, that the American ministers
preferred and adopted a peace basis for the negotiation which
resulted in the treaty of the 30th of September, 1800, solely
from a wish, as far as they might be able, to save the interests
of our citizens holding claims against France.
"Did they, Mr. President, said Mr. W., succeed by this artifice
in benefiting the citizens who had sustained injuries? He would
let the treaty speak for itself. The following are extracts from
the 4th and 5th articles:
"'_Art._ 4. Property captured, and not yet definitively
condemned, or which may be captured before the exchange of
ratifications (contraband goods destined to an enemy's port
excepted), shall be mutually restored on the following proof of
ownership.'
"[Here follows the form of proof, when the article proceeds:]
"'This article shall take effect from the date of the signature
of the present convention. And if, from the date of the said
signature, any property shall be condemned contrary to the
intent of the said convention, before the knowledge of this
stipulation shall be obtained, the property so condemned shall,
without delay, be restored or paid for.'
"'_Art._ 5. The debts contracted for by one of the two nations
with individuals of the other, or by individuals of the one
with individuals of the other, shall be paid, or the payment
may be prosecuted in the same manner as if there had been no
misunderstanding between the two States. But this clause shall
not extend to indemnities claimed on account of captures or
confiscations.'
"Here, Mr. W. said, was evidence from the treaty itself, that,
by assuming a peace basis for the negotiation, the property of
our merchants captured and not condemned was saved to them, and
that certain classes of claimants against the French government
were provided for, and their rights expressly reserved. So much,
therefore, was gained by our negotiators by a departure from the
facts, and negotiating to put an end to existing hostilities
upon the basis of a continued peace. Was it, then, generous
or just to permit these merchants, because our ministers did
not succeed in saving all they claimed, to set up this implied
admission of continued peace as the foundation of a liability
against their own government to pay what was not recovered
from France? He could not so consider it, and he felt sure the
country never would consent to so responsible an implication
from an act of excessive kindness. Mr. W. said he must not be
understood as admitting that all was not, by the effect of
this treaty, recovered from France, which she ever recognized
to be due, or ever intended to pay. On the contrary, his best
impression was, from what he had been able to learn of the
claims, that the treaty of Louisiana provided for the payment of
all the claims which France ever admitted, ever intended to pay,
or which there was the most remote hope of recovering in any
way whatever. He should, in a subsequent part of his remarks,
have occasion to examine that treaty, the claims which were paid
under it, and to compare the claims paid with those urged before
the treaty of September, 1800.
"Mr. W. said he now came to the consideration of the liability
of the United States to these claimants, in case it shall be
determined by the Senate that a war between France and the
United States had not existed to bar all ground of claim either
against France or the United States. He understood the claimants
to put this liability upon the assertion that the government of
the United States had released their claims against France by
the treaty of the 30th of September, 1800, and that the release
was made for a full and valuable consideration passing to the
United States, which in law and equity made it their duty to
pay the claims. The consideration passing to the United States
is alleged to be their release from the onerous obligations
imposed upon them by the treaties of amity and commerce and
alliance of 1778, and the consular convention of 1778, and
especially and principally by the seventeenth article of the
treaty of amity and commerce, in relation to armed vessels,
privateers, and prizes, and by the eleventh article of the
treaty of alliance containing the mutual guarantees.
"The release, Mr. W. said, was claimed to have been made in the
striking out, by the Senate of the United States, of the second
article of the treaty of 30th September, 1800, as that article
was originally inserted and agreed upon by the respective
negotiators of the two powers, as it stood at the time the
treaty was signed. To cause this point to be clearly understood,
it would be necessary for him to trouble the Senate with a
history of the ratification of this treaty. The second article,
as inserted by the negotiators, and as standing at the time of
the signing of the treaty, was in the following words:
"'_Art._ 2. The ministers plenipotentiary of the two powers
not being able to agree, at present, respecting the treaty of
alliance of 6th February, 1778, the treaty of amity and commerce
of the same date, and the convention of 14th of November, 1788,
nor upon the indemnities mutually due or claimed, the parties
will negotiate further upon these subjects at a convenient
time; and, until they may have agreed upon these points, the
said treaties and convention shall have no operation, and the
relations of the two countries shall be regulated as follows:'
"The residue of the treaty, Mr. W. said, was a substantial copy
of the former treaties of amity and commerce, and alliance
between the two nations, with such modifications as were
desirable to both, and as experience under the former treaties
had shown to be for the mutual interests of both.
"This second article was submitted to the Senate by the
President as a part of the treaty, as by the constitution of the
United States the President was bound to do, to the end that
the treaty might be properly ratified on the part of the United
States, the French government having previously adopted and
ratified it as it was signed by the respective negotiators, the
second article being then in the form given above. The Senate
refused to advise and consent to this article, and expunged it
from the treaty, inserting in its place the following:
"'It is agreed that the present convention shall be in force for
the term of eight years from the time of the exchange of the
ratifications.'
"In this shape, and with this modification the treaty was duly
ratified by the President of the United States, and returned to
the French government for its dissent or concurrence. Bonaparte,
then First Consul, concurred in the modification made by the
Senate, in the following language, and upon the condition
therein expressed:
"'The government of the United States having added to its
ratification that the convention should be in force for the
space of eight years, and having omitted the second article,
the government of the French Republic consents to accept,
ratify, and confirm the above convention, with the addition,
purporting that the convention shall be in force for the space
of eight years, and with the retrenchment of the second article:
_Provided_, That, by this retrenchment, the two States renounce
the respective pretensions which are the object of the said
article.'
"This ratification by the French Republic, thus qualified,
was returned to the United States, and the treaty, with the
respective conditional ratifications, was again submitted by
the President of the United States to the Senate. That body
'resolved that they considered the said convention as fully
ratified, and returned the same to the President for the usual
promulgation;' whereupon he completed the ratification in the
usual forms and by the usual publication.
"This, Mr. W. said, was the documentary history of this treaty
and of its ratification, and here was the release of their
claims relied upon by the claimants under the bill before the
Senate. They contend that this second article of the treaty, as
originally inserted by the negotiators, reserved their claims
for future negotiation, and also reserved the subjects of
disagreement under the treaties of amity and commerce, and of
alliance, of 1778, and the consular convention of 1788; that
the seventeenth article of the treaty of amity and commerce,
and the eleventh article of the treaty of alliance, were
particularly onerous upon the United States; that, to discharge
the government from the onerous obligations imposed upon it
in these two articles of the respective treaties, the Senate
was induced to expunge the second article of the treaty of
the 30th September above referred to, and, by consequence, to
expunge the reservation of their claims as subjects of future
negotiation between the two nations; that, in thus obtaining a
discharge from the onerous obligations of these treaties, and
especially of the two articles above designated, the United
States was benefited to an amount beyond the whole value of the
claims discharged, and that this benefit was the inducement to
the expunging of the second article of the treaty, with a full
knowledge that the act did discharge the claims, and create a
legal and equitable obligation on the part of the government to
pay them.
"These, Mr. W. said, he understood to be the assumptions of
the claimants, and this their course of reasoning to arrive at
the conclusion that the United States were liable to them for
the amount of their claims. He must here raise a preliminary
question, which he had satisfied himself would show which
assumptions of the claimants to be wholly without foundation, so
far as the idea of benefit to the United States was supposed to
be derived from expunging this second article of the treaty of
1800. What, he must be permitted to ask, would have been the
liability of the United States under the 'onerous obligations'
referred to, in case the Senate had ratified the treaty,
retaining this second article? The binding force of the treaties
of amity and commerce, and of alliance, and of the consular
convention, was released, and the treaties and convention were
themselves suspended by the very article in question; and the
subjects of disagreement growing out of them were merely made
matters of future negotiation 'at a convenient time.' What
was the value or the burden of such an obligation upon the
United States? for this was the only obligation from which our
government was released by striking out the article. The value,
Mr. W. said, was the value of the privilege, being at perfect
liberty, in the premises, of assenting to or dissenting from a
bad bargain, in a matter of negotiation between ourselves and a
foreign power. This was the consideration passing to the United
States, and, so far as he was able to view the subject, this
was all the consideration the government had received, if it be
granted (which he must by no means be understood to admit), that
the striking out of the article was a release of the claims,
and that such release was intended as a consideration for the
benefits to accrue to the government from the act.
"Mr. W. said he felt bound to dwell, for a moment, upon this
point. What was the value of an obligation to negotiate 'at a
convenient time?' Was it any thing to be valued? The 'convenient
time' might never arrive, or if it did arrive, and negotiations
were opened, were not the government as much at liberty as in
any other case of negotiation, to refuse propositions which were
deemed disadvantageous to itself? The treaties were suspended,
and could not be revived without the consent of the United
States; and, of consequence, the 'onerous obligations' comprised
in certain articles of these treaties were also suspended until
the same consent should revive them. Could he, then, be mistaken
in the conclusion that, if the treaty of 1800 had been ratified
with the second article forming a part of it, as originally
agreed by the negotiators, the United States would have been as
effectually released from the onerous obligations of the former
treaties, until those obligations should again be put in force
by their consent, as they were released when that article was
stricken out, and the treaty ratified without it? In short,
could he be mistaken in the position that all the inducement, of
a national character, to expunge that article from the treaty,
was to get rid of an obligation to negotiate 'at a convenient
time?' And could it be possible that such an inducement would
have led the Senate of the United States, understanding this
consequence, to impose upon the government a liability to
the amount of $5,000,000? He could not adopt so absurd a
supposition; and he felt himself compelled to say that this view
of the action of the government in the ratification of the
treaty of 1800, in his mind, put an end to the pretence that the
striking out of this article relieved the United States from
obligations so onerous as to form a valuable consideration for
the payments provided for in this bill. He could not view the
obligation released--a mere obligation to negotiate--as onerous
at all, or as forming any consideration whatever for a pecuniary
liability, much less for a liability for millions.
"Mr. W. said he now proposed to consider whether the effect
of expunging the second article of the treaty of 1800 was to
release any claim of value--any claim which France had ever
acknowledged, or ever intended to pay. He had before shown, by
extracts from the fourth and fifth articles of the treaty of
1800, that certain classes of claims were saved by that treaty,
as it was ratified. The claims so reserved and provided for were
paid in pursuance of provisions contained in the treaty between
France and the United States, of the 30th of April, 1803; and to
determine what claims were thus paid, a reference to some of the
articles of that treaty was necessary. The purchase of Louisiana
was made by the United States for the sum of 80,000,000 of
francs, 60,000,000 of which were to be paid into the French
treasury, and the remaining 20,000,000 were to be applied to
the payment of these claims. Three separate treaties were made
between the parties, bearing all the same date, the first
providing for the cession of the territory, the second for the
payment of the 60,000,000 of francs to the French treasury, and
the third for the adjustment and payment of the claims.
"Mr. W. said the references proposed were to the last-named
treaty, and were the following:
"'_Art._ 1. The debts due by France to citizens of the United
States, contracted before the 8th of Vendemiaire, ninth year
of the French Republic (30th September, 1800), shall be paid
according to the following regulations, with interest at six
per cent., to commence from the period when the accounts and
vouchers were presented to the French government.'
"'_Art._ 2. The debts provided for by the preceding article
are those whose result is comprised in the conjectural note
annexed to the present convention, and which, with the interest,
cannot exceed the sum of twenty millions of francs. The claims
comprised in the said note, which fall within the exceptions of
the following articles, shall not be admitted to the benefit of
this provision.'
"'_Art._ 4. It is expressly agreed that the preceding articles
shall comprehend no debts but such as are due to citizens of the
United States, who have been and are yet creditors of France,
for supplies, for embargoes, and prizes made at sea, in which
the appeal has been properly lodged within the time mentioned
in the said convention of the 8th Vendemiaire, ninth year (30th
September, 1800).'
"'_Art._ 5. The preceding articles shall apply only, 1st, to
captures of which the council of prizes shall have ordered
restitution, it being well understood that the claimant cannot
have recourse to the United States otherwise than he might have
had to the government of the French Republic, and only in case
of the insufficiency of the captors; 2d, the debts mentioned
in the said fifth article of the convention, contracted before
the 8th Vendemiaire, and 9 (30th September, 1800), the payment
of which has been heretofore claimed of the actual government
of France, and for which the creditors have a right to the
protection of the United States; the said fifth article does
not comprehend prizes whose condemnation has been or shall
be confirmed; it is the express intention of the contracting
parties not to extend the benefit of the present convention to
reclamations of American citizens, who shall have established
houses of commerce in France, England, or other countries than
the United States, in partnership with foreigners, and who
by that reason and the nature of their commerce, ought to be
regarded as domiciliated in the places where such houses exist.
All agreements and bargains concerning merchandise, which shall
not be the property of American citizens, are equally excepted
from the benefit of the said convention, saving, however, to
such persons their claims in like manner as if this treaty had
not been made.
"From these provisions of the treaty, Mr. W. said, it would
appear that the claims to be paid were of three descriptions, to
wit:
"1. Claims for supplies.
"2. Claims for embargoes.
"3. Claims for captures made at sea, of a description defined
in the last clause of the 4th and the first clause of the 5th
article.
"How far these claims embraced all which France ever
acknowledged, or ever intended to pay, Mr. W. said he was unable
to say, as the time allowed him to examine the case had not
permitted him to look sufficiently into the documents to make
up his mind with precision upon this point. He had found, in a
report made to the Senate on the 14th of January, 1831, in favor
of this bill, by the honorable Mr. Livingston, then a Senator
from the State of Louisiana, the following Classification of the
French claims, as insisted on at a period before the making of
the treaty of 1800, to wit:
"'1. From the capture and detention of about fifty vessels.
"'2. The detention, for a year, of eighty other vessels, under
the Bordeaux embargo.
"'3. The non-payment of supplies to the West India islands, and
to continental France.
"'4. For depredations committed on our commerce in the West
Indies.
"Mr. W. said the comparison of the two classifications of
claims would show, at a single view, that Nos. 2 and 3 in Mr.
Livingston's list were provided for by the treaty of 1803, from
which he had read. Whether any, and if any, what portions of
Nos. 1 and 4 in Mr. Livingston's list were embraced in No 3 of
the provisions of the treaty, as he had numbered them he was
unable to say; but this much he could say, that he had found
nothing to satisfy his mind that parts of both those classes
of claims were not so included, and therefore provided for and
paid under the treaty; nor had he been able to find any thing to
show that this treaty of 1803 did not provide for and pay all
the claims which France ever acknowledged or ever intended to
pay. He was, therefore, unprepared to admit, and did not admit,
that any thing of value to any class of individual claimants
was released by expunging the second original article from
the treaty of the 30th September, 1800. On the contrary, he
was strongly impressed with the belief that the adjustment of
claims provided for in the treaty of 1803 had gone to the whole
extent to which the French government had, at any period of the
negotiations, intended to go.
"Mr. W. said this impression was greatly strengthened by the
circumstance that the claims under the Bordeaux embargo were
expressly provided for in this treaty, while he could see
nothing in the treaty of 1800 which seemed to him to authorize
the supposition that this class of claims was more clearly
embraced within the reservations in that treaty than any class
which had been admitted by the French government.
"Another fact, Mr. W. said, was material to this subject, and
should be borne carefully in mind by every senator. It was, that
not a cent was paid by France, even upon the claims reserved
and admitted by the treaty of 1800, until the sale of Louisiana
to the United States, for a sum greater by thirty millions of
francs than that for which the French minister was instructed
to sell it. Yes, Mr. President, said Mr. W., the only payment
yet made upon any portion of these claims has been virtually
made by the United States; for it has been made out of the
consideration money paid for Louisiana, after paying into the
French treasury ten millions of francs beyond the price France
herself placed upon the territory. It is a singular fact that
the French negotiator was instructed to make the sale for fifty
millions, if he could get no more; and when he found that, by
yielding twenty millions to pay the claims, he could get eighty
millions for the territory, and thus put ten millions more into
the treasury of his nation than she had instructed him to ask
for the whole, he yielded to the claims and closed the treaty.
It was safe to say that, but for this speculation in the sale
of Louisiana, not one dollar would have been paid upon the
claims to this day. All our subsequent negotiations with France
of a similar character, and our present relations with that
country, growing out of private claims, justify this position.
What, then, would have been the value of claims, if such fairly
existed, which were not acknowledged and provided for by the
treaty of 1800, but were left for future negotiation 'at a
convenient time?' Would they have been worth the five millions
of dollars you propose to appropriate by this bill? Would they
have been worth further negotiation? He thought they would not.
"Mr. W. said he would avail himself of this occasion, when
speaking of the treaty of Louisiana and of its connection with
these claims, to explain a mistake into which he had fallen, and
which he found from conversation with several gentlemen, who
had been for some years members of Congress, had been common to
them and to himself. The mistake to which he alluded was, the
supposition that the claimants under this bill put their case
upon the assumption that their claims had constituted part of
the consideration for which Louisiana had been ceded to the
United States; and that the consideration they contended the
government had received, and upon which its liability rested,
was the cession of that territory for a less sum, in money, than
was considered to be its value, on account of the release of
the French government from those private claims. He had rested
under this misapprehension until the opening of the present
debate, and until he commenced an examination of the case. He
then found that it was an entire misapprehension; that the
United States had paid, in money, for Louisiana, thirty millions
of francs beyond the price which France had set upon it; that
the claimants under this bill did not rest their claims at all
upon this basis, and that the friends of the bill in the Senate
did not pretend to derive the liability of the government from
this source. Mr. W. said he was induced to make this explanation
in justice to himself, and because there might be some person
within the hearing of his voice who might still be under the
same misapprehension.
"He had now, Mr. W. said, attempted to establish the following
propositions, viz.:
"1. That a state of actual war, by which he meant a state of
actual hostilities and of force, and an interruption of all
diplomatic or friendly intercourse between the United States and
France, had existed from the time of the passage of the acts
of the 7th and 9th of July, 1798, before referred to, until
the sending of the negotiators, Ellsworth, Davie, and Murray,
in 1800, to make a treaty which put an end to the hostilities
existing, upon the best terms that could be obtained; and
that the treaty of the 30th of September, 1800, concluded by
these negotiators, was, in fact, and so far as private claims
were concerned, to be considered as a treaty of peace, and
to conclude all such claims, not reserved by it, as finally
ratified by the two powers.
"2. That the treaty of amity and commerce, and the treaty of
alliance of 1778, as well as the consular convention of 1788,
were suspended by the 2d article of the treaty of 1800, and
from that time became mere matters for negotiation between the
parties at a convenient time; that, therefore, the desire to
get rid of these treaties, and of any 'onerous obligations'
contained in them, was only the desire to get rid of an
obligation to negotiate 'at a convenient time;' and that such a
consideration could not have induced the Senate of the United
States to expunge that article from the treaty, if thereby that
body had supposed it was imposing upon the country a liability
to pay to its citizens the sum of five millions of dollars--a
sum much larger than France had asked, in money, for a full
discharge from the 'onerous obligations' relied upon.
"3. That the treaty of 1800 reserved and provided for certain
portions of the claims; that payment, according to such
reservations, was made under the treaty of 1803; and that it is
at least doubtful whether the payment thus made did not cover
all the claims ever admitted, or ever intended to be paid by
France; for which reason the expunging of the second article of
the treaty of 1800, by the Senate of the United States, in all
probability, released nothing which ever had, or which was ever
likely to have value.
"Mr. W. said, if he had been successful in establishing either
of these positions, there was an end of the claims, and, by
consequence, a defeat of the bill.
"The advocates of the bill conceded that two positions must be
established, on their part, to sustain it, to wit:
"1. That the claims were valid claims against France, and had
never been paid. And
"2. That they were released by the government of the United
States for a full and valuable consideration passing to its
benefit by means of the release.
"If, then, a state of war had existed, it would not be contended
that any claims of this character, not reserved or provided
for in the treaty of peace, were valid claims after the
ratification of such a treaty. His first proposition, therefore,
if sustained, would defeat the bill, by establishing the fact
that the claims, if not reserved in the treaty of 1800, were not
valid claims.
"The second proposition, if sustained, would establish the
fact that, inasmuch as the valuable consideration passing to
the United States was alleged to grow out of the 'onerous
obligations' in the treaty of amity and commerce, the treaty
of alliance, and the consular convention; and inasmuch as
these treaties, and all obligations, past, present, or future,
'onerous' or otherwise, growing out of them, were suspended
and made inoperative by the second article of the treaty of
the 30th of September, 1800, until further negotiation, by the
common consent of both powers, should revive them, the Senate of
the United States could not have expected, when they expunged
this article from the treaty, that, by thus discharging the
government from an obligation to negotiate 'at a convenient
time,' they were incurring against it a liability of millions;
in other words, the discharge of the government from an
obligation to negotiate upon any subject 'at a convenient time,'
could not have been considered by the Senate of the United
States as a good and valuable consideration for the payment of
private claims to the amount of five millions of dollars.
"The third proposition, if sustained, would prove that all the
claims ever acknowledged, or ever intended to be paid by France,
were paid under the treaty of 1803, and that, therefore, as
claims never admitted or recognized by France would scarcely be
urged as valid claims against her, no valid claims remained;
and, consequently, the expunging of the second article of the
treaty of the 30th of September, 1800, released nothing which
was valid, and nothing remained to be paid by the United States
as a liability incurred by that modification of that treaty.
Here Mr. W. said he would rest his reasoning as to these three
propositions.
"But if the Senate should determine that he had been wrong in
them all, and had failed to sustain either, he had still another
proposition, which he considered conclusive and unanswerable, as
to any valuable consideration for the release of these claims
having passed to the United States in consequence of their
discharge from the 'onerous obligations' said to have been
contained in the former treaties. These 'onerous obligations,'
and the only ones of which he had heard any thing in the course
of the debate, or of which he had found any thing in the
documents, arose under the 17th article of the treaty of amity
and commerce, and the 11th article of the treaty of alliance;
and, in relation to both, he laid down this broad proposition,
which would be fully sustained by the treaties themselves, and
by every act and every expression on the part of the American
negotiators, and the government of the United States, viz.:
"'The obligations, liabilities, and responsibilities, imposed
upon the government of the United States and upon France by the
17th article of the treaty of amity and commerce of 1778, and
by the 11th article of the treaty of alliance of 1778, where
mutual, reciprocal, and equal: each formed the consideration,
and the only consideration, for the other; and, therefore, any
release which discharged both powers from those liabilities,
responsibilities, and obligations, must have been mutual,
reciprocal, and equal; and the release of either must have
formed a full and valuable consideration for the release of the
other.'
"Mr. W. said he would not trouble the Senate by again reading
the articles from the respective treaties. They would be
recollected, and no one would controvert the fact that, when
the treaties were made, these articles were intended to contain
mutual, reciprocal, and equal obligations. By the first we
gave to France the liberty of our ports for her armed vessels,
privateers, and prizes, and prohibited all other powers from
the enjoyment of the same privilege; and France gave to us the
liberty of her ports for our armed vessels, privateers, and
prizes, and guarded the privilege by the same prohibition to
other powers; and by the second we guaranteed to France, for
ever, her possessions in America, and France guaranteed to us,
for ever, 'our liberty, sovereignty, and independence, absolute
and unlimited, as well in matters of government as commerce.'
Such were the obligations in their original inception. Will
it be contended that they were not mutual, reciprocal, and
equal, and that, in each instance, the one did not form the
consideration for the other? Surely no one will take this ground.
"If, then, said Mr. W., the obligations imposed upon each
government by these articles of the respective treaties were
mutual, reciprocal, and equal, when undertaken, they must have
remained equal until abrogated by war, or changed by treaty
stipulation. No treaty, subsequent to those which contain the
obligations, had affected them in any manner whatever. If, as
he had attempted to show, war had existed from July, 1778, to
1800, that would not have rendered the obligations unequal,
but would have abrogated them altogether. If, as the friends
of the bill contend, there had been no war, and the treaties
were in full force up to the signing of the convention of the
30th of September, 1800, what was the effect of that treaty,
as originally signed by the negotiators, upon these mutual,
reciprocal, and equal obligations? The second original article
of that treaty will answer. It did not attempt to disturb their
mutuality, reciprocity, or equality, but suspended them as they
were, past, present, or future, and made all the subject of
future negotiation 'at a convenient time.'
"But, Mr. W. said, the Senate of the United States expunged
this article of the treaty of 1800, and refused to advise and
consent to ratify it as a part of the treaty; and hence it was
contended the United States had discharged themselves from
the 'onerous obligations' of these articles in the respective
treaties, and had, by that act, incurred, to the claimants
under this bill, the heavy liability which it recognizes. If
the expunging of that article discharged the United States from
obligations thus onerous, did it not discharge France from
the fellow obligations? Was not the discharge, made in that
manner, as mutual, reciprocal, and equal, as the obligations
in their inception, and in all their subsequent stages up to
that act? How, then, could it be contended that the discharge
of the one was not a full and adequate consideration for the
discharge of the other? Nothing upon the face of the treaties
authorized the introduction of this inequality at this step
in the official proceedings. Nothing in the record of the
proceedings of the Senate, when acting upon the article,
indicates that they intended to pay five millions of dollars to
render this mutual release equal between the two powers. The
obligations and responsibilities were reserved as subjects of
future negotiation, upon terms of equality, and the striking out
of that reservation was but a mutual and reciprocal and equal
release from the obligation further to negotiate. This much for
the reciprocity of these obligations as derived from the action
of the sovereign powers themselves.
"What was to be learned from the action of their respective
negotiators? He did not doubt but that attempts had been
made on the part of France to exhibit an inequality in the
obligations under the treaty, and to set up that inequality
against the claims of our citizens; but had our negotiators
ever admitted the inequality to exist, or ever attempted to
compromise the rights of the claimants under this bill for
such a consideration? He could not find that they had. He did
not hear it contended that they had: and, from the evidence of
their acts, remaining upon record, as a part of the diplomatic
correspondence of the period, he could not suppose they had ever
entertained the idea. He had said that the American negotiators
had always treated these obligations as mutual, reciprocal, and
equal; and he now proposed to read to the Senate a part of a
letter from Messrs. Ellsworth, Davie, and Murray, addressed to
the French negotiators, and containing the project of a treaty,
to justify his assertion. The letter was dated 20th August,
1800, and it would be recollected that its authors were the
negotiators, on the part of the United States, of the treaty of
the 30th of September, 1800. The extract is as follows:
"'1. Let it be declared that the former treaties are renewed
and confirmed, and shall have the same effect as if no
misunderstanding between the two powers had intervened, except
so far as they are derogated from by the present treaty.
"'2. It shall be optional with either party to pay to the
other, within seven years, three millions of francs, in money
or securities which may be issued for indemnities, and thereby
to reduce the rights of the other as to privateers and prizes,
to those of the most favored nation, And during the said term
allowed for option, the right of both parties shall be limited
by the line of the most favored nation.
"'3. The mutual guaranty in the treaty of alliance shall be so
specified and limited, that its future obligation shall be, on
the part of France, when the United States shall be attacked,
to furnish and deliver at her own ports military stores to
the amount of one million of francs; and, on the part of the
United States, when the French possessions in America, in any
future war, shall be attacked, to furnish and deliver at their
own ports a like amount in provisions. It shall, moreover, be
optional for either party to exonerate itself wholly of its
obligation, by paying to the other, within seven years, a gross
sum of five millions of francs, in money or such securities as
may be issued for indemnities.'
"Mr. W. asked if he needed further proofs that not only the
American government, but the American negotiators, treated
these obligations under the treaty as, in all respects, mutual,
reciprocal, and equal; and if the fallacy of the argument
that the United States had obtained to itself a valuable
consideration for the release of these private claims in the
release of itself from these obligations, was not utterly and
entirely disproved by these facts? Was not the release of the
obligations on the one side the release of them on the other?
And was not the one release the necessary consideration for the
other? How, then, could it be said, with any justice, that we
sought our release at the expense of the claimants? There was no
reasonable ground for such an allegation, either from the acts
of our government or of our negotiators. When the latter fixed
a value upon our obligations as to the privateers and prizes,
and as to the guaranty, in the same article they fixed the same
price, to a franc, upon the reciprocal obligations of France;
and when the former discharged our liability, by expunging the
second article of the treaty of 1800, the same act discharged
the corresponding liability of the French government.
"Here, then, Mr. W. said, must end all pretence of a valuable
consideration for these claims passing to the United States from
this source. The onerous obligations were mutual, reciprocal,
and equal, and the respective releases were mutual, reciprocal,
and equal, and simultaneous, and nothing could be fairly drawn
from the act which operated these mutual releases to benefit
these claimants.
"Mr. W. said he was, then, necessarily brought back to the
proposition with which he started in the commencement of his
argument, that, if the United States were liable to pay these
claimants, that liability must rest upon the broad ground of
a failure by the government, after ordinary, and, in this
instance, extraordinary efforts to collect the money. The idea
of a release of the claims for a valuable consideration passing
to the government had been exploded, and, if a liability was to
be claimed on account of a failure to collect the money, upon
what ground did it rest? What had the government done to protect
the rights of these claimants? It had negotiated from 1793 to
1798, with a vigilance and zeal and talent almost unprecedented
in the history of diplomacy. It had sent to France minister
after minister, and, upon several occasions, extraordinary
missions composed of several individuals. Between 1798 and 1800,
it had equipped fleets and armies, expended millions in warlike
preparation, and finally sent forth its citizens to battle and
death, to force the payment of the claims. Were we now to be
told, that our failure in these efforts had created a liability
against us to pay the money? That the same citizens who had been
taxed to pay the expenses of these long negotiations, and of
this war for the claims, were to be further taxed to pay such of
the claims as we had failed to collect? He could never consent
to such a deduction from such premises.
"But, Mr. President, said Mr. W., there is another view of
this subject, placed upon this basis, which renders this bill
of trifling importance in the comparison. If the failure to
collect these claims has created the liability to pay them,
that liability goes to the extent of the claims proved, and the
interest upon them, not to a partial, and perhaps trifling,
dividend. Who, then, would undertake to say what amount of
claims might not be proved during the state of things he had
described, from the breaking out of the war between France and
England, in 1793, to the execution of the treaty, in 1800? For
a great portion of the period, the municipal regulations of
France required the captured cargoes to be not confiscated, but
paid for at the market value at the port to which the vessel was
destined. Still the capture would be proved, the value of the
cargo ascertained, before the commission which the bill proposes
to establish; and who would adduce the proof that the same cargo
was paid for by the French government?
"This principle, however, Mr. W. said, went much further than
the whole subject of the old French claims. It extended to all
claims for spoliations upon our commerce, since the existence of
the government, which we had failed to collect. Who could say
where the liability would end? In how many cases had claims of
this character been settled by treaty, what had been collected
in each case, and what amount remained unpaid, after the release
of the foreign government? He had made an unsuccessful effort
to answer these inquiries, so far as the files of the state
department would furnish the information, as he had found that
it could only be collected by an examination of each individual
claim; and this would impose a labor upon the department of
an unreasonable character, and would occupy more time than
remained to furnish the information for his use upon the present
occasion. He had, however, been favored by the Secretary of
State with the amounts allowed by the commissioners, the
amounts paid, and the rate of pay upon the principal, in two
recent cases, the Florida treaty, and the treaty with Denmark.
In the former instance, the payment was ninety-one and two
thirds per centum upon the principal, while in the latter it
was but thirty-one and one eighth per centum. Assume that these
two cases are the maximum and minimum of all the cases where
releases have been given for partial payments; and he begged the
Senate to reflect upon the amounts unpaid which might be called
from the national treasury, if the principle were once admitted
that a failure to collect creates a liability to pay.
"That in his assumption that a liability of this sort must go
to the whole amount of the claims, he only took the ground
contended for by the friends of this bill, he would trouble the
Senate with another extract from the report of Mr. Livingston,
from which he had before read. In speaking of the amount which
should be appropriated, Mr. Livingston says:
"'The only remaining inquiry is the amount; and on this point
the committee have had some difficulty. Two modes of measuring
the compensation suggested themselves:
"'1. The actual loss sustained by the petitioners.
"'2. The value of the advantages received, as the consideration,
by the United States.
"'The first is the one demanded by strict justice; and is the
only one that satisfies the word used by the constitution,
which requires just compensation, which cannot be said to have
been made when any thing less than the full value is given.
But there were difficulties which appeared insurmountable, to
the adoption of this rule at the present day, arising from the
multiplicity of the claims, the nature of the depredations which
occasioned them, the loss of documents, either by the lapse of
time, or the wilful destruction of them by the depredators. The
committee, therefore, could not undertake to provide a specific
relief for each of the petitioners. But they have recommended
the institution of a board, to enter into the investigation,
and apportion a sum which the committee have recommended to be
appropriated, _pro rata_, among the several claimants.'
"'The committee could not believe that the amount of
compensation to the sufferers should be calculated by the
advantages secured to the United States, because it was not,
according to their ideas, the true measure. If the property
of an individual be taken for public use, and the government
miscalculate, and find that the object to which they have
applied it has been injurious rather than beneficial, the
value of the property is still due to the owner, who ought not
to suffer for the false speculations which have been made. A
turnpike or canal may be very unproductive; but the owner of the
land which has been taken for its construction is not the less
entitled to its value. On the other hand, he can have no manner
of right to more than the value of his property, be the object
to which it has been applied ever so beneficial.'
"Here, Mr. W. said, were two proposed grounds of estimating the
extent of the liability of the government to the claimants; and
that which graduated it by the value received by the government
was distinctly rejected, while that making the amount of the
claims the measure of liability, was as distinctly asserted
to be the true and just standard. He hoped he had shown, to
the satisfaction of the Senate, that the former rule of value
received by the government would allow the claimants nothing
at all, while he was compelled to say that, upon the broad
principle that a failure to collect creates a liability to
pay, he could not controvert the correctness of the conclusion
that the liability must be commensurate with the claim. He
could controvert, he thought, successfully, the principle,
but he could not the measure of damages when the principle was
conceded. He would here conclude his remarks upon the points
he had noticed, by the earnest declaration that he believed
the passage of this bill would open more widely the doors of
the public treasury than any legislation of which he had any
knowledge, or to which Congress had ever yielded its assent.
"Mr. W. said he had a few observations to offer relative to the
mode of legislation proposed, and to the details of the bill,
and he would trouble the Senate no further.
"His first objection, under this head, was to the mode of
legislation. If the government be liable to pay these claims,
the claimants are citizens of the country, and Congress is
as accessible to them as to other claimants who have demands
against the treasury. Why were they not permitted, individually,
to apply to Congress to establish their respective claims, as
other claimants were bound to do, and to receive such relief, in
each case, as Congress, in its wisdom, should see fit to grant?
Why were these claims, more than others, grouped together,
and attempted to be made a matter of national importance?
Why was a commission to be established to ascertain their
validity, a duty in ordinary cases discharged by Congress
itself? Were the Senate sure that much of the importance given
to those claims had not proceeded from this association, and
from the formidable amount thus presented at one view? Would
any gentleman be able to convince himself that, acting upon
a single claim in this immense mass, he should have given it
his favorable consideration? For his part, he considered the
mode of legislation unusual and objectionable. His principal
objections to the details were, that the second section of the
bill prescribed the rules which should govern the commission
in deciding upon the claims, among which 'the former treaties
between the United States and France' were enumerated; and that
the bill contained no declaration that the payments made under
it were in full of the claims, or that the respective claimants
should execute a release, as a condition of receiving their
dividends.
"The first objection was predicated upon the fact that the bill
covered the whole period from the making of the treaties of
1778, to that of the 30th September, 1800, and made the former
treaties the rule of adjudication, when Congress on the 7th
July, 1798, by a deliberate legislative act, declared those
treaties void, and no longer binding upon the United States or
their citizens. It is a fact abundantly proved by the documents,
that a large portion of the claims now to be paid, arose within
the period last alluded to; and that treaties declared to be
void should be made the law in determining what were and what
were not illegal captures, during the time that they were held
to have no force, and when our citizens were authorized by
law to go upon the high seas, regardless of their provisions,
Mr. W. said, would seem to him to be an absurdity which the
Senate would not legalize. He was fully aware that the first
section of the bill purported to provide for 'valid claims to
indemnity upon the French government, arising out of illegal
captures, detentions, forcible seizures, illegal condemnations,
and confiscations;' but it could not be overlooked that illegal
captures, condemnations, and confiscations, must relate entirely
to the law which was to govern the adjudication; and if that
law was a void treaty which the claimants were not bound to
observe, and did not observe, was it not more than possible that
a capture, condemnation, or confiscation, might, by compulsion,
be adjudged illegal under the rule fixed by the bill, while that
same capture, condemnation, or confiscation, was strictly legal
under the laws which governed the commerce of the claimant when
the capture was made? He must say that it appeared clear to his
mind that the rule of adjudication upon the validity of claims
of this description, should, in all cases, be the same rule
which governed the commerce out of which the claims have arisen.
"His second objection, Mr. W. said, was made more as a wish
that a record of the intentions of the present Congress should
be preserved upon the face of the bill, than from any idea that
the provision suggested would afford the least protection to the
public treasury. Every day's legislation showed the futility of
the insertion in an act of Congress of a declaration that the
appropriation made should be in full of a claim; and in this, as
in other like cases, should this bill pass, he did not expect
that it would be, in practice, any thing more than an instalment
upon the claims which would be sustained before the commission.
The files of the state department would contain the record
evidence of the balance, with the admission of the government,
in the passage of this bill, that an equal liability remained
to pay that balance, whatever it might be. Even a release from
the respective claimants he should consider as likely to have
no other effect than to change their future applications from
a demand of legal right, which they now assume to have, to one
of equity and favor; and he was yet to see that the latter
would not be as successful as the former. He must give his vote
against the bill, whether modified in that particular or not,
and he should do so under the most full and clear conviction,
that it was a proposition fraught with greater dangers to the
public treasury, than any law which had ever yet received the
assent of Congress."
CHAPTER CXIX.
FRENCH SPOLIATIONS--MR. WEBSTER'S SPEECH.
"The question, sir, involved in this case, is essentially a
judicial question. It is not a question of public policy, but a
question of private right; a question between the government and
the petitioners: and, as the government is to be judge in its
own case, it would seem to be the duty of its members to examine
the subject with the most scrupulous good faith, and the most
solicitous desire to do justice.
"There is a propriety in commencing the examination of these
claims in the Senate, because it was the Senate which, by its
amendment of the treaty of 1800, and its subsequent ratification
of that treaty, and its recognition of the declaration of the
French government, effectually released the claims as against
France, and for ever cut off the petitioners from all hopes of
redress from that quarter. The claims, as claims against our own
government, have their foundation in these acts of the Senate
itself; and it may certainly be expected that the Senate will
consider the effects of its own proceedings, on private rights
and private interests, with that candor and justice which belong
to its high character.
"It ought not to be objected to these petitioners, that their
claim is old, or that they are now reviving any thing which has
heretofore been abandoned. There has been no delay which is not
reasonably accounted for. The treaty by which the claimants say
their claims on France for these captures and confiscations were
released was concluded in 1800. They immediately applied to
Congress for indemnity, as will be seen by the report made in
1802, in the House of Representatives, by a committee of which a
distinguished member from Virginia, not now living [Mr. Giles],
was chairman.
"In 1807, on the petition of sundry merchants and others,
citizens of Charleston, in South Carolina, a committee of the
House of Representatives, of which Mr. Marion, of that State,
was chairman, made a report, declaring that the committee was of
opinion that the government of the United States was bound to
indemnify the claimants. But at this time our affairs with the
European powers at war had become exceedingly embarrassed; our
government had felt itself compelled to withdraw our commerce
from the ocean; and it was not until after the conclusion of the
war of 1812, and after the general pacification of Europe, that
a suitable opportunity occurred of presenting the subject again
to the serious consideration of Congress. From that time the
petitioners have been constantly before us, and the period has
at length arrived proper for a final decision of their case.
"Another objection, sir, has been urged against these claims,
well calculated to diminish the favor with which they might
otherwise be received, and which is without any substantial
foundation in fact. It is, that a great portion of them has been
bought up, as a matter of speculation, and it is now holden by
these purchasers. It has even been said, I think, on the floor
of the Senate, that nine tenths, or ninety hundredths, of all
the claims are owned by speculators.
"Such unfounded statements are not only wholly unjust towards
these petitioners themselves, but they do great mischief to
other interests. I have observed that a French gentleman of
distinction, formerly a resident in this country, is represented
in the public newspapers as having declined the offer of a seat
in the French administration, on the ground that he could not
support the American treaty; and he could not support the treaty
because he had learned, or heard, while in America, that the
claims were no longer the property of the original sufferers,
but had passed into unworthy hands. If any such thing has
been learned in the United States, it has been learned from
sources entirely incorrect. The general fact is not so; and
this prejudice, thus operating on a great national interest--an
interest in regard to which we are in danger of being seriously
embroiled with a foreign state--was created, doubtless, by the
same incorrect and unfounded assertions which have been made
relative to this other class of claims.
"In regard to both classes, and to all classes of claims of
American citizens on foreign governments, the statement is at
variance with the facts. Those who make it have no proof of
it. On the contrary, incontrovertible evidence exists of the
truth of the very reverse of this statement. The claims against
France, since 1800, are now in the course of adjudication. They
are all, or very nearly all, presented to the proper tribunal.
Proofs accompany them, and the rules of the tribunal require
that, in each case, the true ownership should be fully and
exactly set out, on oath; and be proved by the papers, vouchers,
and other evidence. Now, sir, if any man is acquainted, or will
make himself acquainted, with the proceedings of this tribunal,
so far as to see who are the parties claiming the indemnity, he
will see the absolute and enormous error of those who represent
these claims to be owned, in great part, by speculators.
"The truth is, sir, that these claims, as well those since
1800 as before, are owned and possessed by the original
sufferers, with such changes only as happen in regard to all
other property. The original owner of ship and cargo; his
representative, where such owner is dead; underwriters who
have paid losses on account of captures and confiscations; and
creditors of insolvents and bankrupts who were interested in
the claims--these are the descriptions of persons who, in all
these cases, own vastly the larger portion of the claims. This
is true of the claims on Spain, as is most manifest from the
proceedings of the commissioners under the Spanish treaty.
It is true of the claims on France arising since 1800, as is
equally manifest by the proceedings of the commissioners now
sitting; and it is equally true of the claims which are the
subject of this discussion, and provided for in this bill. In
some instances claims have been assigned from one to another, in
the settlement of family affairs. They have been transferred,
in other instances, to secure or to pay debts; they have
been transferred, sometimes, in the settlement of insurance
accounts; and it is probable there are a few cases in which the
necessities of the holders have compelled them to sell them. But
nothing can be further from the truth than that they have been
the general subjects of purchase and sale, and that they are
now holden mainly by purchasers from the original owners. They
have been compared to the unfunded debt. But that consisted in
scrip, of fixed amount, and which passed from hand to hand by
delivery. These claims cannot so pass from hand to hand. In each
case, not only the value but the amount is uncertain. Whether
there be any claim, is in each case a matter for investigation
and proof; and so is the amount, when the justice of the claim
itself is established. These circumstances are of themselves
quite sufficient to prevent the easy and frequent transfer of
the claims from hand to hand. They would lead us to expect
that to happen which actually has happened; and that is, that
the claims remain with their original owners, and their legal
heirs and representatives, with such exceptions as I have
already mentioned. As to the portion of the claims now owned by
underwriters, it can hardly be necessary to say that they stand
on the same equity and justice as if possessed and presented by
the owners of ships and goods. There is no more universal maxim
of law and justice, throughout the civilized and commercial
world, than that an underwriter, who has paid a loss on ships
or merchandise to the owner, is entitled to whatever may be
received from the property. His right accrues by the very act
of payment; and if the property, or its proceeds, be afterwards
recovered, in whole or in part, whether the recovery be from the
sea, from captors, or from the justice of foreign states, such
recovery is for the benefit of the underwriter. Any attempt,
therefore, to prejudice these claims, on the ground that many of
them belong to insurance companies, or other underwriters, is at
war with the first principles of justice.
"A short, but accurate, general view of the history and
character of these claims is presented in the report of the
Secretary of State, on the 20th of May, 1826, in compliance
with a resolution of the Senate. Allow me, sir, to read the
paragraphs:
"'The Secretary can hardly suppose it to have been the intention
of the resolution to require the expression of an argumentative
opinion as to the degree of responsibility to the American
sufferers from French spoliations, which the convention of 1800
extinguished, on the part of France, or devolved on the United
States, the Senate itself being most competent to decide that
question. Under this impression, he hopes that he will have
sufficiently conformed to the purposes of the Senate, by a brief
statement, prepared in a hurried moment, of what he understands
to be the question.
"'The second article of the convention of 1800 was in the
following words: "The ministers plenipotentiary of the two
parties, not being able to agree, at present, respecting the
treaty of alliance of the 6th of February, 1778, the treaty
of amity and commerce of the same date, and the convention of
the 14th of November, 1788, nor upon the indemnities mutually
due or claimed, the parties will negotiate further on these
subjects, at a convenient time; and, until they may have agreed
upon these points, the said treaties and convention shall have
no operation, and the relations of the two countries shall be
regulated as follows."
"'When that convention was laid before the Senate, it gave its
consent and advice that it should be ratified, provided that
the second article be expunged, and that the following article
be added or inserted: "It is agreed that the present convention
shall be in force for the term of eight years from the time of
the exchange of the ratifications;" and it was accordingly so
ratified by the President of the United States, on the 18th day
of February, 1801. On the 31st of July of the same year, it was
ratified by Bonaparte, First Consul of the French Republic, who
incorporated in the instrument of his ratification the following
clause as part of it: "The government of the United States,
having added to its ratification that the convention should be
in force for the space of eight years, and having omitted the
second article, the government of the French Republic consents
to accept, ratify, and confirm the above convention, with the
addition, importing that the convention shall be in force for
the space of eight years, and with the retrenchment of the
second article: _Provided_, That, by this retrenchment, the two
states renounce the respective pretensions which are the object
of the said article."
"'The French ratification being thus conditional, was,
nevertheless, exchanged against that of the United States, at
Paris, on the same 31st of July. The President of the United
States considering it necessary again to submit the convention,
in this state, to the Senate, on the 19th day of December, 1801,
it was resolved by the Senate that they considered the said
convention as fully ratified, and returned it to the President
for the usual promulgation. It was accordingly promulgated, and
thereafter regarded as a valid and binding compact. The two
contracting parties thus agreed, by the retrenchment of the
second article, mutually to renounce the respective pretensions
which were the object of that article. The pretensions of the
United States, to which allusion is thus made, arose out of the
spoliations under color of French authority, in contravention
of law and existing treaties. Those of France sprung from the
treaty of alliance of the 6th of February, 1778, the treaty of
amity and commerce of the same date, and the convention of the
14th of November, 1788. Whatever obligations or indemnities,
from these sources, either party had a right to demand, were
respectively waived and abandoned; and the consideration which
induced one party to renounce his pretensions, was that of
renunciation by the other party of his pretensions. What was
the value of the obligations and indemnities, so reciprocally
renounced, can only be matter of speculation. The amount of the
indemnities due to the citizens of the United States was very
large; and, on the other hand, the obligation was great (to
specify no other French pretensions), under which the United
States were placed, in the eleventh article of the treaty of
alliance of the 6th of February, 1778, by which they were bound
for ever to guarantee from that time the then possessions of
the Crown of France in America, as well as those which it might
acquire by the future treaty of peace with Great Britain; all
these possessions having been, it is believed, conquered at,
or not long after, the exchange of the ratifications of the
convention of September, 1800, by the arms of Great Britain,
from France.
"'The fifth article of the amendments to the constitution
provides: "Nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation." If the indemnities to which citizens
of the United States were entitled for French spoliations prior
to the 30th of September, 1800, have been appropriated to
absolve the United States from the fulfilment of an obligation
which they had contracted, or from the payment of indemnities
which they were bound to make to France, the Senate is most
competent to determine how far such an appropriation is a public
use of private property within the spirit of the constitution,
and whether equitable considerations do not require some
compensation to be made to the claimants. The Senate is also
best able to estimate the probability which existed of an
ultimate recovery from France of the amount due for those
indemnities, if they had not been renounced; in making which
estimate, it will, no doubt, give just weight to the painful
consideration that repeated and urgent appeals have been, in
vain, made to the justice of France for satisfaction of flagrant
wrongs committed upon property of other citizens of the United
States, subsequent to the period of the 30th of September, 1800.'
"Before the interference of our government with these claims,
they constituted just demands against the government of
France. They were not vague expectations of possible future
indemnity for injuries received, too uncertain to be regarded
as valuable, or be esteemed property. They were just demands,
and, as such, they were property. The courts of law took notice
of them as property. They were capable of being devised, of
being distributed among heirs and next of kin, and of being
transferred and assigned, like other legal and just debts. A
claim or demand for a ship unjustly seized and confiscated
is property, as clearly as the ship itself. It may not be so
valuable, or so certain; but it is as clear a right, and has
been uniformly so regarded by the courts of law. The papers show
that American citizens had claims against the French government
for six hundred and fifteen vessels unlawfully seized and
confiscated. If this were so, it is difficult to see how the
government of the United States can release these claims for
its own benefit, with any more propriety than it could have
applied the money to its own use, if the French government had
been ready to make compensation, in money, for the property thus
illegally seized and confiscated; or how the government could
appropriate to itself the just claims which the owners of these
six hundred and fifteen vessels held against the wrong-doers,
without making compensation, any more than it could appropriate
to itself, without making compensation, six hundred and fifteen
ships which had not been seized. I do not mean to say that the
rate of compensation should be the same in both cases; I do
not mean to say that a claim for a ship is of as much value as
a ship; but I mean to say that both the one and the other are
property, and that government cannot, with justice, deprive
a man of either, for its own benefit, without making a fair
compensation.
"It will be perceived at once, sir, that these claims do not
rest on the ground of any neglect or omission, on the part of
the government of the United States, in demanding satisfaction
from France. That is not the ground. The government of the
United States, in that respect, performed its full duty. It
remonstrated against these illegal seizures; it insisted on
redress; it sent two special missions to France, charged
expressly, among other duties, with the duty of demanding
indemnity. But France had her subjects of complaint, also,
against the government of the United States, which she pressed
with equal earnestness and confidence, and which she would
neither postpone nor relinquish, except on the condition that
the United States would postpone or relinquish these claims. And
to meet this condition, and to restore harmony between the two
nations, the United States did agree, first to postpone, and
afterwards to relinquish, these claims of its own citizens. In
other words, the government of the United States bought off the
claims of France against itself, by discharging claims of our
own citizens against France.
"This, sir, is the ground on which these citizens think they
have a claim for reasonable indemnity against their own
government. And now, sir, before proceeding to the disputed
part of the case, permit me to state what is admitted.
"In the first place, then, it is universally admitted that these
petitioners once had just claims against the government of
France, on account of these illegal captures and condemnations.
"In the next place, it is admitted that these claims no longer
exist against France; that they have, in some way, been
extinguished or released, as to her; and that she is for ever
discharged from all duty of paying or satisfying them, in whole
or in part.
"These two points being admitted, it is then necessary, in order
to support the present bill, to maintain four propositions:
"1. That these claims subsisted against France up to the time
of the treaty of September, 1800, between France and the United
States.
"2. That they were released, surrendered, or extinguished by
that treaty, its amendment in the Senate, and the manner of its
final ratification.
"3. That they were thus released, surrendered, or extinguished,
for political and national considerations, for objects and
purposes deemed important to the United States, but in which
these claimants had no more interest than any other citizens.
"4. That the amount or measure of indemnity proposed by this
bill is no more than a fair and reasonable compensation, so far
as we can judge by what has been done in similar cases.
"1. Were these subsisting claims against France up to the time
of the treaty? It is a conclusive answer to this question, to
say that the government of the United States insisted that they
did exist, up to the time of the treaty, and demanded indemnity
for them, and that the French government fully admitted their
existence, and acknowledged its obligation to make such
indemnity.
"The negotiation, which terminated in the treaty, was opened by
a direct proposition for indemnity, made by our ministers, the
justice and propriety of which was immediately acceded to by the
ministers of France.
"On the 7th of April, 1800, in their first letter to the
ministers of France, Messrs. Ellsworth, Davie, and Murray, say:
"'Citizen ministers:--The undersigned, appreciating the value
of time, and wishing by frankness to evince their sincerity,
enter directly upon the great object of their mission--an object
which they believe may be best obtained by avoiding to retrace
minutely the too well-known and too painful incidents which have
rendered a negotiation necessary.
"'To satisfy the demands of justice, and render a reconciliation
cordial and permanent, they propose an arrangement, such
as shall be compatible with national honor and existing
circumstances, to ascertain and discharge the equitable claims
of the citizens of either nation upon the other, whether founded
on contract, treaty, or the law of nations. The way being thus
prepared, the undersigned will be at liberty to stipulate for
that reciprocity and freedom of commercial intercourse between
the two countries which must essentially contribute to their
mutual advantage.
"'Should this general view of the subject be approved by the
ministers plenipotentiary to whom it is addressed, the details,
it is presumed, may be easily adjusted, and that confidence
restored which ought never to have been shaken.'
"To this letter the French ministers immediately returned the
following answer:
"'The ministers plenipotentiary of the French Republic have read
attentively the proposition for a plan of negotiation which was
communicated to them by the envoys extraordinary and ministers
plenipotentiary of the United States of America.
"'They think that the first object of the negotiation ought to
be the determination of the regulations, and the steps to be
followed for the estimation and indemnification of injuries for
which either nation may make claim for itself, or for any of its
citizens. And that the second object is to assure the execution
of treaties of friendship and commerce made between the two
nations, and the accomplishment of the views of reciprocal
advantages which suggested them.'
"It is certain, therefore, that the negotiation commenced in the
recognition, by both parties, of the existence of individual
claims, and of the justice of making satisfaction for them; and
it is equally clear that, throughout the whole negotiation,
neither party suggested that these claims had already been
either satisfied or extinguished; and it is indisputable that
the treaty itself, in the second article, expressly admitted
their existence, and solemly recognized the duty of providing
for them at some future period.
"It will be observed, sir, that the French negotiators, in
their first letter, while they admit the justice of providing
indemnity for individual claims, bring forward, also, claims
arising under treaties; taking care, thus early, to advance
the pretensions of France on account of alleged violations by
the United States of the treaties of 1778. On that part of the
case, I shall say something hereafter; but I use this first
letter of the French ministers at present only to show that,
from the first, the French government admitted its obligation to
indemnify individuals who had suffered wrongs and injuries.
"The honorable member from New-York [Mr. Wright] contends, sir,
that, at the time of concluding the treaty, these claims had
ceased to exist. He says that a war had taken place between the
United States and France, and by the war the claims had become
extinguished. I differ from the honorable member, both as to the
fact of war, and as to the consequences to be deduced from it,
in this case, even if public war had existed. If we admit, for
argument sake, that war had existed, yet we find that, on the
restoration of amity, both parties admit the justice of these
claims and their continued existence, and the party against
which they are preferred acknowledges her obligation, and
expresses her willingness to pay them. The mere fact of war can
never extinguish any claim. If, indeed, claims for indemnity be
the professed ground of a war, and peace be afterwards concluded
without obtaining any acknowledgment of the right, such a peace
may be construed to be a relinquishment of the right, on the
ground that the question has been put to the arbitration of the
sword, and decided. But, if a war be waged to enforce a disputed
claim, and it be carried on till the adverse party admit the
claim, and agree to provide for its payment, it would be
strange, indeed, to hold that the claim itself was extinguished
by the very war which had compelled its express recognition.
Now, whatever we call that state of things which existed between
the United States and France from 1798 to 1800, it is evident
that neither party contended or supposed that it had been such
a state of things as had extinguished individual claims for
indemnity for illegal seizures and confiscations.
"The honorable member, sir, to sustain his point, must prove
that the United States went to war to vindicate these claims;
that they waged that war unsuccessfully; and that they were
therefore glad to make peace, without obtaining payment of the
claims, or any admission of their justice. I am happy, sir, to
say that, in my opinion, facts do not authorize any such record
to be made up against the United States. I think it is clear,
sir, that whatever misunderstanding existed between the United
States and France, it did not amount, at any time, to open and
public war. It is certain that the amicable relations of the two
countries were much disturbed; it is certain that the United
States authorized armed resistance to French captures, and the
captures of French vessels of war found hovering on our coast;
but it is certain, also, not only that there was no declaration
of war, on either side, but that the United States, under all
their provocations, did never authorize general reprisals on
French commerce. At the very moment when the gentleman says war
raged between the United States and France, French citizens
came into our courts, in their own names, claimed restitution
for property seized by American cruisers, and obtained decrees
of restitution. They claimed as citizens of France and obtained
restoration, in our courts, as citizens of France. It must have
been a singular war, sir, in which such proceedings could take
place. Upon a fair view of the whole matter, Mr. President, it
will be found, I think, that every thing done by the United
States was defensive. No part of it was ever retaliatory. The
United States do not take justice into their own hands.
"The strongest measure, perhaps, adopted by Congress, was the
act of May 28, 1798. The honorable member from New-York has
referred to this act, and chiefly relies upon it, to prove the
existence, or the commencement, of actual war. But does it prove
either the one or the other?
"It is not an act declaring war; it is not an act authorizing
reprisals; it is not an act which, in any way, acknowledges the
actual existence of war. Its whole implication and import is the
other way. Its title is, 'An act more effectually to protect the
commerce and coasts of the United States.'
"This is its preamble:
"'Whereas armed vessels, sailing under authority, or pretence
of authority, from the Republic of France, have committed
depredations on the commerce of the United States, and have
recently captured the vessels and property of citizens thereof,
on and near the coasts, in violation of the law of nations,
and treaties between the United States and the French nation:
therefore'--
"And then follows its only section, in these words:
"'SEC. 1. _Be it enacted, &c._, That it shall be lawful for the
President of the United States, and he is hereby authorized,
to instruct and direct the commanders of the armed vessels
belonging to the United States, to seize, take, and bring into
any port of the United States, to be proceeded against according
to the laws of nations, any such armed vessel which shall have
committed, or which shall be found hovering on the coasts of the
United States for the purpose of committing, depredations on
the vessels belonging to citizens thereof; and also retake any
ship or vessel, of any citizen or citizens of the United States,
which may have been captured by any such armed vessel.'
"This act, it is true, authorized the use of force, under
certain circumstances, and for certain objects, against French
vessels. But there may be acts of authorized force, there may be
assaults, there may be battles, there may be captures of ships
and imprisonment of persons, and yet no general war. Cases of
this kind may occur under that practice of retortion which is
justified, when adopted for just cause, by the laws and usages
of nations, and which all the writers distinguish from general
war.
"The first provision in this law is purely preventive and
defensive; and the other hardly goes beyond it. Armed vessels
hovering on our coast, and capturing our vessels, under
authority, or pretence of authority, from a foreign state,
might be captured and brought in, and vessels already seized
by them retaken. The act is limited to armed vessels; but why
was this, if general war existed? Why was not the naval power
of the country let loose at once, if there were war, against
the commerce of the enemy? The cruisers of France were preying
on our commerce; if there was war, why were we restrained from
general reprisals on her commerce? This restraining of the
operation of our naval marine to armed vessels of France, and to
such of them only as should be found hovering on our coast, for
the purpose of committing depredations on our commerce, instead
of proving a state of war, proves, I think, irresistibly, that
a state of general war did not exist. But even if this act of
Congress left the matter doubtful, other acts passed at and
near the same time demonstrate the understanding of Congress
to have been, that although the relations between the two
countries were greatly disturbed, yet that war did not exist. On
the same day (May 28, 1798) in which this act passed, on which
the member from New-York lays so much stress, as proving the
actual existence of war with France, Congress passed another
act, entitled 'An act authorizing the President of the United
States to raise a provisional army;' and the first section
declared that the President should be authorized, 'in the event
of a declaration of war against the United States, or of actual
invasion of their territory by a foreign power, or of imminent
danger of such invasion, to cause to be enlisted,' &c., ten
thousand men.
"On the 16th of July following, Congress passed the law for
augmenting the army, the second section of which authorized the
President to raise twelve additional regiments of infantry, and
six troops of light dragoons, 'to be enlisted for and during
the continuance of the existing differences between the United
States and the French Republic, unless sooner discharged,' &c.
"The following spring, by the act of the 2d of March, 1799,
entitled 'An act giving eventual authority to the President of
the United States to augment the army,' Congress provided that
it should be lawful for the President of the United States,
in case war should break out between the United States and a
foreign European power, &c., to raise twenty-four regiments of
infantry, &c. And in the act for better organizing the army,
passed the next day, Congress repeats the declaration, contained
in a former act, that certain provisions shall not take effect
unless war shall break out between the United States and some
European prince, potentate, or state.
"On the 20th of February, 1800, an act was passed to suspend
the act for augmenting the army; and this last act declared
that further enlistments should be suspended until the further
order of Congress, unless in the recess of Congress and during
the continuance of the existing differences between the United
States and the French Republic, war should break out between the
United States and the French Republic, or imminent danger of
an invasion of their territory by the said Republic should be
discovered.
"On the 14th of May, 1800, four months before the conclusion of
the treaty, Congress passed an act authorizing the suspension
of military appointments, and the discharge of troops under the
provisions of the previous laws. No commentary is necessary,
sir, on the texts of these statutes, to show that Congress never
recognized the existence of war between the United States and
France. They apprehended war might break out; and they made
suitable provision for that exigency, should it occur; but it is
quite impossible to reconcile the express and so often repeated
declarations of these statutes, commencing in 1798, running
through 1799, and ending in 1800, with the actual existence of
war between the two countries at any period within those years.
"The honorable member's second principal source of argument,
to make out the fact of a state of war, is the several
non-intercourse acts. And here again it seems to me an exactly
opposite inference is the true one. In 1798, 1799, and 1800,
acts of Congress were passed suspending the commercial
intercourse between the United States, each for one year. Did
any government ever pass a law of temporary non-intercourse
with a public enemy? Such a law would be little less than an
absurdity. War itself effectually creates non-intercourse.
It renders all trade with the enemy illegal, and, of course,
subjects all vessels found so engaged, with their cargoes, to
capture and condemnation as enemy's property. The first of these
laws was passed June 13, 1798, the last, February 27, 1800.
Will the honorable member from New-York tell us when the war
commenced? When did it break out? When did those 'differences,'
of which the acts of Congress speak, assume a character of
general hostility? Was there a state of war on the 13th of June,
1798, when Congress passed the first non-intercourse act; and
did Congress, in a state of public war, limit non-intercourse
with the enemy to one year? Or was there a state of peace in
June, 1798? and, if so, I ask again, at what time after that
period, and before September, 1800, did the war break out?
Difficulties of no small magnitude surround the gentleman, I
think, whatever course he takes through these statutes, while
he attempts to prove from them a state of war. The truth
is, they prove, incontestably, a state of peace; a state of
endangered, disturbed, agitated peace; but still a state of
peace. Finding themselves in a state of great misunderstanding
and contention with France, and seeing our commerce a daily
prey to the rapacity of her cruisers, the United States
preferred non-intercourse to war. This is the ground of the
non-intercourse acts. Apprehending, nevertheless, that war might
break out, Congress made prudent provision for it by augmenting
the military force of the country. This is the ground of the
laws for raising a provisional army. The entire provisions of
all these laws necessarily suppose an existing state of peace;
but they imply also an apprehension that war might commence. For
a state of actual war they were all unsuited; and some of them
would have been, in such a state, preposterous and absurd. To a
state of present peace, but disturbed, interrupted, and likely
to terminate in open hostilities, they were all perfectly well
adapted. And as many of these acts, in express terms, speak of
war as not actually existing, but as likely or liable to break
out, it is clear, beyond all reasonable question, that Congress
never, at any time, regarded the state of things existing
between the United States and France as being a state of war.
"As little did the executive government so regard it, as must be
apparent from the instructions given to our ministers, when the
mission was sent to France. Those instructions, having recurred
to the numerous acts of wrong committed on the commerce of the
United States, and the refusal of indemnity by the government
of France, proceed to say: 'This conduct of the French Republic
would well have justified an immediate declaration of war on the
part of the United States; but, desirous of maintaining peace,
and still willing to leave open the door of reconciliation with
France, the United States contented themselves with preparations
for defence, and measures calculated to protect their commerce.'
"It is equally clear, on the other hand, that neither the French
government nor the French ministers acted on the supposition
that war had existed between the two nations. And it was for
this reason that they held the treaties of 1778 still binding.
Within a month or two of the signature of the treaty, the
ministers plenipotentiary of the French Republic write thus to
Messrs. Ellsworth, Davie, and Murray: 'In the first place, they
will insist upon the principle already laid down in their former
note, viz.: that the treaties which united France and the United
States are not broken; that even war could not have broken them;
but that the state of misunderstanding which existed for some
time between France and the United States, by the act of some
agents rather than by the will of the respective governments,
has not been a state of war, at least on the side of France.'
"Finally, sir, the treaty itself, what is it? It is not called
a treaty of peace; it does not provide for putting an end to
hostilities. It says not one word of any preceding war; but it
does say that 'differences' have arisen between the two states,
and that they have, therefore, respectively, appointed their
plenipotentiaries, and given them full powers to treat upon
those 'differences,' and to terminate the same.
"But the second article of the treaty, as negotiated and agreed
on by the ministers of both governments, is, of itself, a
complete refutation of the whole argument which is urged against
this bill, on the ground that the claims had been extinguished
by war, since that article distinctly and expressly acknowledges
the existence of the claims, and contains a solemn pledge that
the two governments, not being able to agree on them at present,
will negotiate further on them, at convenient time thereafter.
Whether we look, then, to the decisions of the American courts,
to the acts of Congress, to the instructions of the American
executive government, to the language of our ministers, to the
declarations of the French government and the French ministers,
or to the unequivocal language of the treaty itself, as
originally agreed to, we meet irresistible proof of the truth of
the declaration, that the state of misunderstanding which had
existed between the two countries was not war.
"If the treaty had remained as the ministers on both sides
agreed upon it, the claimants, though their indemnity was
postponed, would have had no just claim on their own government.
But the treaty did not remain in this state. This second article
was stricken out by the Senate; and, in order to see the obvious
motive of the Senate in thus striking out the second article,
allow me to read the whole article. It is in these words:
"'The ministers plenipotentiary of the two parties not being
able to agree, at present, respecting the treaty of alliance
of the 6th of February, 1778, the treaty of amity and commerce
of the same date, and the convention of the 14th of November,
1788, nor upon the indemnities mutually due or claimed, the
parties will negotiate further on these subjects at a convenient
time, and until they may have agreed upon these points, the
said treaties and convention shall have no operation, and the
relations of the two countries shall be regulated as follows.'
"The article thus stipulating to make the claims of France,
under the old treaties, matter of further negotiation, in
order to get rid of such negotiation, and the whole subject,
the Senate struck out the entire article, and ratified the
treaty in this corrected form. France ratified the treaty,
as thus amended, with the further declaration that, by thus
retrenching the second article, the two nations renounce the
respective pretensions which were the object of the article.
In this declaration of the French government, the Senate
afterwards acquiesced; so that the government of France, by this
retrenchment, agreed to renounce her claims under the treaties
of 1778, and the United States, in like manner, renounced the
claims of their citizens for indemnities due to them.
"And this proves, sir, the second proposition which I stated
at the commencement of my remarks, viz.: that these claims
were released, relinquished, or extinguished, by the amendment
of the treaty, and its ratification as amended. It is only
necessary to add, on this point, that these claims for captures
before 1800 would have been good claims under the late treaty
with France, and would have come in for a dividend in the fund
provided by that treaty, if they had not been released by the
treaty of 1800. And they are now excluded from all participation
in the benefit of the late treaty, because of such release or
extinguishment by that of 1800.
"In the third place, sir, it is to be proved, if it be not
proved already, that these claims were surrendered, or
released by the government of the United States, on national
considerations, and for objects in which these claimants had no
more interest than any other citizens.
"Now, sir, I do not feel called on to make out that the claims
and complaints of France against the government of the United
States were well founded. It is certain that she put forth such
claims and complaints, and insisted on them to the end. It is
certain that, by the treaty of alliance of 1778, the United
States did guaranty to France her West India possessions. It is
certain that, by the treaty of commerce of the same date, the
United States stipulated that French vessels of war might bring
their prizes into the ports of the United States, and that the
enemies of France should not enjoy that privilege; and it is
certain that France contended that the United States had plainly
violated this article, as well by their subsequent treaty with
England as by other acts of the government. For the violation
of these treaties she claimed indemnity from the government
of the United States. Without admitting the justice of these
pretensions, the government of the United States found them
extremely embarrassing, and they authorized our ministers in
France to buy them off by money.
"For the purpose of showing the justice of the present bill,
it is not necessary to insist that France was right in these
pretensions. Right or wrong, the United States were anxious to
get rid of the embarrassments which they occasioned. They were
willing to compromise the matter. The existing state of things,
then, was exactly this:
"France admitted that citizens of the United States had just
claims against her; but she insisted that she, on the other
hand, had just claims against the government of the United
States.
"She would not satisfy our citizens, till our government agreed
to satisfy her. Finally, a treaty is ratified, by which the
claims on both sides are renounced.
"The only question is, whether the relinquishment of these
individual claims was the price which the United States paid
for the relinquishment, by France, of her claims against our
government? And who can doubt it? Look to the negotiation;
the claims on both sides were discussed together. Look to the
second article of the treaty, as originally agreed to; the
claims on both sides are there reserved together. And look to
the Senate's amendment, and to the subsequent declaration of
the French government, acquiesced in by the Senate; and there
the claims on both sides are renounced together. What stronger
proof could there be of mutuality of consideration? Sir, allow
me to put this direct question to the honorable member from
New-York. If the United States did not agree to renounce these
claims, in consideration that France would renounce hers, what
was the reason why they surrendered thus the claims of their
own citizens? Did they do it without any consideration at all?
Was the surrender wholly gratuitous? Did they thus solemnly
renounce claims for indemnity, so just, so long insisted on by
themselves, the object of two special missions, the subjects of
so much previous controversy, and at one time so near being the
cause of open war--did the government surrender and renounce
them gratuitously, or for nothing? Had it no reasonable motive
in the relinquishment? Sir, it is impossible to maintain any
such ground.
"And, on the other hand, let me ask, was it for nothing that
France relinquished, what she had so long insisted on, the
obligation of the United States to fulfil the treaties of 1778?
For the extinguishment of this obligation we had already offered
her a large sum of money, which she had declined. Was she now
willing to give it up without any equivalent?
"Sir, the whole history of the negotiation is full of proof that
the individual claims of our citizens, and the government claims
of France against the United States, constituted the respective
demands of the two parties. They were brought forward together,
discussed together, insisted on together. The French ministers
would never consent to disconnect them. While they admitted, in
the fullest manner, the claims on our side, they maintained,
with persevering resolution, the claims on the side of France.
It would fatigue the Senate were I to go through the whole
correspondence, and show, as I could easily do, that, in every
stage of the negotiation, these two subjects were kept together.
I will only refer to some of the more prominent and decisive
parts.
"In the first place, the general instructions which our
ministers received from our own government, when they undertook
the mission, directed them to insist on the claims of
American citizens against France, to propose a joint board of
commissioners to state those claims, and to agree to refer the
claims of France for infringements of the treaty of commerce to
the same board. I will read, sir, so much of the instructions as
comprehend these points:
"'1. At the opening of the negotiation you will inform the
French ministers that the United States expect from France, as
an indispensable condition of the treaty, a stipulation to make
to the citizens of the United States full compensation for all
losses and damages which they shall have sustained by reason of
irregular or illegal captures or condemnations of their vessels
and other property, under color of authority or commissions
from the French Republic or its agents. And all captures and
condemnations are deemed irregular or illegal when contrary
to the law of nations, generally received and acknowledged in
Europe, and to the stipulations in the treaty of amity and
commerce of the 6th of February, 1778, fairly and ingenuously
interpreted, while that treaty remained in force.'
"'2. If these preliminaries should be satisfactorily arranged,
then, for the purpose of examining and adjusting all the
claims of our citizens, it will be necessary to provide for
the appointment of a board of commissioners, similar to that
described in the sixth and seventh articles of the treaty of
amity and commerce between the United States and Great Britain.'
"'As the French government have heretofore complained of
infringements of the treaty of amity and commerce, by the United
States or their citizens, all claims for injuries, thereby
occasioned to France or its citizens, are to be submitted to the
same board; and whatever damages they award will be allowed by
the United States, and deducted from the sums awarded to be paid
by France.'
"Now, sir, suppose this board had been constituted, and suppose
that it had made awards against France, in behalf of citizens
of the United States, and had made awards also in favor of
the government of France against the government of the United
States; and then these last awards had been deducted from the
amount of the former, and the property of citizens thus applied
to discharge the public obligations of the country, would any
body doubt that such citizens would be entitled to indemnity?
And are they less entitled, because, instead of being first
liquidated and ascertained, and then set off, one against the
other, they are finally agreed to be set off against each other,
and mutually relinquished in the lump?
"Acting upon their instructions, it will be seen that the
American ministers made an actual offer to suspend the claim for
indemnities till France should be satisfied as to her political
rights under the treaties. On the 15th of July they made this
proposition to the French negotiators:
"'Indemnities to be ascertained and secured in the manner
proposed in our project of a treaty, but not to be paid until
the United States shall have offered to France an article
stipulating free admission, in the ports of each, for the
privateers and prizes of the other, to the exclusion of their
enemies.'
"This, it will be at once seen, was a direct offer to suspend
the claims of our own citizens till our government should be
willing to renew to France the obligation of the treaty of 1778.
Was not this an offer to make use of private property for public
purposes?
"On the 11th of August, the French plenipotentiaries thus write
to the ministers of the United States:
"'The propositions which the French ministers have the honor
to communicate to the ministers plenipotentiary of the United
States are reduced to this simple alternative:
"'Either the ancient treaties, with the privileges resulting
from priority, and a stipulation of reciprocal indemnities;
"'Or a new treaty, assuring equality without indemnity.'
"In other words, this offer is, 'if you will acknowledge or
renew the obligation of the old treaties, which secure to us
privileges in your ports which our enemies are not to enjoy,
then we will make indemnities for the losses of your citizens;
or, if you will give up all claim for such indemnities, then
we will relinquish our especial privileges under the former
treaties, and agree to a new treaty which shall only put us on a
footing of equality with Great Britain, our enemy.'
"On the 20th of August our ministers propose that the former
treaties, so far as they respect the rights of privateers,
shall be renewed; but that it shall be optional with the United
States, by the payment, within seven years, of three millions
of francs, either in money or in securities issued by the
French government for indemnities to our citizens, to buy off
this obligation, or to buy off all its political obligations,
under both the old treaties, by payment in like manner of five
millions of francs.
"On the 4th of September the French ministers submit these
propositions.
"'A commission shall regulate the indemnities which either of
the two nations may owe to the citizens of the other.
"'The indemnities which shall be due by France to the citizens
of the United States shall be paid for by the United States,
and in return for which France yields the exclusive privilege
resulting from the 17th and 22d articles of the treaty of
commerce, and from the rights of guaranty of the 11th article of
the treaty of alliance.'
"The American ministers considered these propositions as
inadmissible. They, however, on their part, made an approach
to them, by proposing, in substance, that it should be left
optional with the United States, on the exchange of the
ratification, to relinquish the indemnities, and in that case,
the old treaties not to be obligatory on the United States, so
far as they conferred exclusive privileges on France. This will
be seen in the letter of the American ministers of the 5th of
September.
"On the 18th of September the American ministers say to those of
France;
"'It remains only to consider the expediency of a temporary
arrangement. Should such an arrangement comport with the views
of France, the following principles are offered as the basis of
it:
"'1st. The ministers plenipotentiary of the respective
parties not being able at present to agree respecting the
former treaties and indemnities, the parties will, in due and
convenient time, further treat on those subjects; and, until
they shall have agreed respecting the same, the said treaties
shall have no operation.'
"This, the Senate will see, is substantially the proposition
which was ultimately accepted, and which formed the second
article of the treaty. By that article, these claims, on both
sides, were postponed for the present, and afterwards, by other
acts of the two governments, they were mutually and for ever
renounced and relinquished.
"And now, sir, if any gentleman can look to the treaty, look
to the instructions under which it was concluded, look to the
correspondence which preceded it, and look to the subsequent
agreement of the two governments to renounce claims, on both
sides, and not admit that the property of these private citizens
has been taken to buy off embarrassing claims of France on
the government of the United States, I know not what other or
further evidence could ever force that conviction on his mind.
"I will conclude this part of the case by showing you how
this matter was understood by the American administration
which finally accepted the treaty, with this renouncement of
indemnities. The treaty was negotiated in the administration of
Mr. Adams. It was amended in the Senate, as already stated, and
ratified on the third day of February, 1801, Mr. Adams being
still in office. Being thus ratified, with the amendment, it
was sent back to France, and on the thirty-first day of July,
the first Consul ratified the treaty, as amended by striking
out the second article, but accompanied the ratification with
this declaration, 'provided that, by this retrenchment, the two
states renounce their respective pretensions, which are the
object of the said article.'
"With this declaration appended, the treaty came back to
the United States. Mr. Jefferson had now become President,
and Mr. Madison was Secretary of State. In consequence of
the declaration of the French government, accompanying its
ratification of the treaty and now attached to it, Mr. Jefferson
again referred the treaty to the Senate, and on the 19th of
December, 1801, the Senate resolved that they considered the
treaty as duly ratified. Now, sir, in order to show what Mr.
Jefferson and his administration thought of this treaty, and the
effect of its ratification, in its then existing form, I beg
leave to read an extract of an official letter from Mr. Madison
to Mr. Pinckney, then our minister in Spain. Mr. Pinckney was at
that time negotiating for the adjustment of our claims on Spain;
and, among others, for captures committed within the territories
of Spain, by French subjects. Spain objected to these claims, on
the ground that the United States had claimed redress of such
injuries from France. In writing to Mr. Pinckney (under date of
February 6th, 1804), and commenting on this plea of Spain, Mr.
Madison says:
"'The plea on which it seems the Spanish government now
principally relies, is the erasure of the second article from
our late convention with France, by which France was released
from the indemnities due for spoliations committed under her
immediate responsibility to the United States. This plea did not
appear in the early objections of Spain to our claims. It was an
afterthought, resulting from the insufficiency of every other
plea, and is certainly as little valid as any other.'
"'The injuries for which indemnities are claimed from Spain,
though committed by Frenchmen, took place under Spanish
authority. Spain, therefore, is answerable for them. To her we
have looked, and continue to look for redress. If the injuries
done to us by her resulted in any manner from injuries done to
her by France, she may, if she pleases, resort to France as we
resort to her. But whether her resort to France would be just
or unjust is a question between her and France, not between
either her and us, or us and France. We claim against her, not
against France. In releasing France, therefore, we have not
released her. The claims, again, from which France was released,
were admitted by France, and the release was for a valuable
consideration, in a correspondent release of the United States
from certain claims on them. The claims we make on Spain were
never admitted by France, nor made on France by the United
States; they made, therefore, no part of the bargain with her,
and could not be included in the release.'
"Certainly, sir, words could not have been used which should
more clearly affirm that these individual claims, these private
rights of property, had been applied to public uses. Mr.
Madison here declares, unequivocally, that these claims had
been admitted by France; that they were relinquished by the
government of the United States; that they were relinquished
for a valuable consideration; that that consideration was a
correspondent release of the United States from certain claims
on them; and that the whole transaction was a bargain between
the two governments. This, sir, be it remembered, was little
more than two years after the final promulgation of the treaty;
it was by the Secretary of State under that administration which
gave effect to the treaty in its amended form, and it proves,
beyond mistake and beyond doubt, the clear judgment which that
administration had formed upon the true nature and character of
the whole transaction."
CHAPTER CXX.
FRENCH SPOLIATIONS--MR. BENTON'S SPEECH.
"The whole stress of the question lies in a few simple facts, which,
if disembarrassed from the confusion of terms and conditions, and
viewed in their plain and true character, render it difficult not
to arrive at a just and correct view of the case. The advocates of
this measure have no other grounds to rest their case upon than an
assumption of facts; they assume that the United States lay under
binding and onerous stipulations to France; that the claims of this
bill were recognized by France; and that the United States made
herself responsible for these claims, instead of France; took them
upon herself, and became bound to pay them, in consideration of
getting rid of the burdens which weighed upon her. It is assumed
that the claims were good when the United States abandoned them;
and that the consideration, which it is pretended the United States
received, was of a nature to make her fully responsible to the
claimants, and to render it obligatory upon her to satisfy the
claims.
"The measure rests entirely upon these assumptions; but I shall show
that they are nothing more than assumptions; that these claims were
not recognized by France, and could not be, by the law of nations;
they were good for nothing when they were made; they were good for
nothing when we abandoned them. The United States owed nothing to
France, and received no consideration whatever from her, to make
us responsible for payment. What I here maintain, I shall proceed
to prove, not by any artful chain of argument, but by plain and
historical facts.
"Let me ask, sir, on what grounds is it maintained that the United
States received a valuable consideration for these claims? Under
what onerous stipulations did she lie? In what did her debt consist,
which it is alleged France gave up in payment for these claims? By
the treaty of '78, the United States was bound to guarantee the
French American possessions to France; and France, on her part,
guaranteed to the United States her sovereignty and territory. In
'93, the war between Great Britain and France broke out; and this
rupture between those nations immediately gave rise to the question
how far this guaranty was obligatory upon the United States? Whether
we were bound by it to protect France on the side of her American
possessions against any hostile attack of Great Britain; and thus
become involved as subalterns in a war in which we had no concern
or interest whatever? Here we come to the point at once; for if it
should appear that we were not bound by this guaranty to become
parties to a distant European war, then, sir, it will be an evident,
a decided result and conclusion, that we were under no obligation
to France--that we owed her no debt on account of this guaranty;
and, plainly enough, it will follow, we received no valuable
consideration for the claims of this bill, when France released
us from an obligation which it will appear we never owed. Let us
briefly see how the case stands.
"France, to get rid of claims made by us, puts forward counter
claims under this guaranty; proposing by such a diplomatic manoeuvre
to get rid of our demand, the injustice of which she protested
against. She succeeded, and both parties abandoned their claims.
And is it now to be urged upon us that, on the grounds of this
astute diplomacy, we actually received a valuable consideration
for claims which were considered good for nothing? France met our
claims, which were good for nothing, by a counter claim, which was
good for nothing; and when we found ourselves thus encountered,
we abandoned our previous claim, in order to be released from
the counter one opposed to it. After this, is it, I would ask, a
suitable return for our over-wrought anxiety to obtain satisfaction
for our citizens, that any one of them should, some thirty years
after this, turn round upon us and say: "now you have received a
valuable consideration for our claims; now, then, you are bound
to pay us!" But this is in fact, sir, the language of this bill.
I unhesitatingly say that the guaranty (a release from which is
the pretended consideration by which the whole people of the
United States are brought in debtors to a few insurance offices to
the amount of millions), this guaranty, sir, I affirm, was good
for nothing. I speak on no less authority, and in no less a name
than that of the great father of his country, Washington himself,
when I affirm that this guaranty imposed upon us no obligations
towards France. How, then, shall we be persuaded that, in virtue
of this guaranty, we are bound to pay the debts and make good the
spoliations of France?
"When the war broke out between Great Britain and France in 1793,
Washington addressed to his cabinet a series of questions, inquiring
their opinions on this very question--how far the treaty of
guaranty of 1778 was obligatory upon the United States--intending
to take their opinions as a guidance for his conduct in such a
difficult situation. [Here the honorable Senator read extracts from
Washington's queries to his cabinet, with some of the opinions
themselves.]
"In consequence of the opinions of his cabinet concurring with
his own sentiments, President Washington issued a proclamation of
neutrality, disregarding the guaranty, and proclaiming that we
were not bound by any preceding treaties to defend American France
against Great Britain. The wisdom of this measure is apparent. He
wisely thought it was not prudent our infant Republic should become
absorbed in the vortex of European politics; and therefore, sir, not
without long and mature deliberation how far this treaty of guaranty
was obligatory upon us, he pronounced against it; and in so doing
he pronounced against the very bill before us; for the bill has
nothing to stand upon but this guaranty; it pretends that the United
States is bound to pay for injuries inflicted by France, because
of a release from a guaranty by which the great Washington himself
solemnly pronounced we were not bound! What do we now behold, sir?
We behold an array in this House, and on this floor, against the
policy of Washington! They seek to undo his deed; they condemn his
principles; they call in question the wisdom and justice of his wise
and paternal counsels; they urge against him that the guaranty bound
us, and what for? What is the motive of this opposition against
his measures? Why, sir, that this bill may pass; and the people,
the burden-bearing people, be made to pay away a few millions, in
consideration of obligations which, after mature deliberation,
Washington pronounced not to lie upon us!
"I think, sir, enough has been said to put to rest for ever the
question of our obligations under this guaranty. Whatever the
claims may be, it must be evident to the common sense of every
individual, that we are not, and cannot be, bound to pay them in
the stead of France, because of a pretended release from a guaranty
which did not bind us; I say did not bind us, because, to have
observed it, would have led to our ruin and destruction; and it
is a clear principle of the law of nations, that a treaty is not
obligatory when it is impossible to observe it. But, sir, leaving
the question whether we were made responsible for the debts of
France, whether we were placed under an obligation to atone to our
own citizens for injuries which a foreign power had committed;
leaving this question as settled (and I trust settled for ever), I
come to consider the claims themselves, their justice, and their
validity. And here the principle of this bill will prove, on this
head, as weak and untenable--nay, more--as outrageous to every
idea of common sense, as it was on the former head. With what
reason, I would ask, can gentlemen press the American people to
pay these claims, when it would be unreasonable to press France
herself to pay them? If France, who committed the wrong, could not
justly be called upon to atone for it, how can the United States
now be called upon for this money? In 1798, the treaty of peace
with France was virtually abolished by various acts of Congress
authorizing hostilities, and by proclamation of the President to
the same effect; it was abolished on account of its violation by
France; on account of those depredations which this bill calls upon
us to make good. By those acts of Congress we sought satisfaction
for these claims; and, having done so, it was too late afterwards to
seek fresh satisfaction by demanding indemnity. There was war, sir,
as the gentleman from Georgia has clearly shown--war on account of
these spoliations--and when we sought redress, by acts of warfare,
we precluded ourselves from the right of demanding redress by
indemnity. We could not, therefore, justly urge these claims against
France; and I therefore demand, how can they be urged against us?
What are the invincible arguments by which gentlemen establish the
justice and validity of these claims? For, surely, before we consent
to sweep away millions from the public treasury, we ought to hear
at least some good reasons. Let me examine their good reasons. The
argument to prove the validity of these claims, and that we are
bound to pay them, is this: France acknowledged them, and the United
States took them upon herself; that is, they were paid by way of
offset, and the valuable consideration the United States received
was a release from her pretended obligations! Now, sir, let us
see how France acknowledged them. These very claims were denied,
resisted, and rejected, by every successive government of France!
The law of nations was urged against them; because, having engaged
in a state of war, on the account of them, we had no right to a
double redress--first by reprisals, and afterwards by indemnity!
Besides, France justified her spoliations, on the ground that we
violated our neutrality; that the ships seized were laden with goods
belonging to the English, the enemies of France; and it is well
known, that, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, this was the
fact--that American citizens lent their names to the English, and
were ready to risk all the dangers of French spoliation, for sake
of the great profits, which more than covered the risk. And, in the
face of all these facts, we are told that the French acknowledged
the claims, paid them by a release, and we are now bound to satisfy
them! And how is this proved? Where are the invincible arguments
by which the public treasury is to be emptied? Hear them, if it
is possible even to hear them with patience! When we urged these
claims, the French negotiators set up a counter claim; and, to
obtain a release from this, we abandoned them! Thus it is that the
French acknowledged these claims; and, on this pretence, because
of this diplomatic cunning and ingenuity, we are now told that the
national honor calls on us to pay them! Was ever such a thing heard
of before? Why, sir, if we pass this bill, we shall deserve eternal
obloquy and disgrace from the whole American people. France, after
repeatedly and perseveringly denying and resisting these claims,
at last gets rid of them for ever by an ingenious trick, and by
pretending to acknowledge them; and now her debt (if it was a debt)
is thrown upon us; and, in consequence of this little trick, the
public treasury is to be tricked out of several millions! Sir,
this is monstrous! I say it is outrageous! I intend no personal
disrespect to any gentleman by these observations; but I must do my
duty to my country, and I repeat it, sir, this is outrageous!
"It is strenuously insisted upon, and appears to be firmly relied
upon by gentlemen who have advocated this measure, that the United
States has actually received from France full consideration for
these claims; in a word, that France has paid them! I have already
shown, by historical facts, by the law of nations, and, further, by
the authority and actions of Washington himself, the father of his
country, that we were placed under no obligations to France by the
treaty of guaranty; and that, therefore, a release from obligations
which did not exist, is no valuable consideration at all! But, sir,
how can it be urged upon us that France actually paid us for claims
which were denied and resisted, when we all know very well that, for
undisputed claims, for claims acknowledged by treaty, for claims
solemnly engaged to be paid, we could never succeed in getting one
farthing. I thank the senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Hill), for
the enlightened view he has given on this case. What, sir, was the
conduct of Napoleon, with respect to money? He had bound himself to
pay us twenty millions of francs, and he would not pay one farthing!
And yet, sir, we are confidently assured by the advocates of this
bill that these claims were paid to us by Napoleon! When Louisiana
was sold, he ordered Marbois to get fifty millions, and did not
even then, intend to pay us out of that sum the twenty millions he
had bound himself by treaty to pay. Marbois succeeded in getting
thirty millions of francs more from us, and from this the twenty
millions due was deducted; thus, sir, we were made to pay ourselves
our own due, and Napoleon escaped the payment of a farthing. I mean
to make no reflection upon our negotiators at that treaty; we may
be glad that we got Louisiana at any amount; for, if we had not
obtained it by money, we should soon have possessed it by blood:
the young West, like a lion, would have sprung upon the delta of
the Mississippi, and we should have had an earlier edition of the
battle of New Orleans. It is not to be regretted, therefore, that
we gained Louisiana by negotiation, although we paid our debts
ourselves in that bargain. But Napoleon absolutely scolded Marbois
for allowing the deduction of twenty millions out of the sum we paid
for Louisiana, forgetting that his minister had got thirty millions
more than he ordered him to ask, and that we had paid ourselves the
twenty millions due to us under treaty. Having such a man to deal
with, how can it be maintained on this floor that the United States
has been paid by him the claims in this bill, and that, therefore,
the treasury is bound to satisfy them? Let senators, I entreat them,
but ask themselves the question, what these claims were worth in
the view of Napoleon, that they may not form such an unwarranted
conclusion as to think he ever paid them. Every government of France
which preceded him had treated them as English claims, and is it
likely that he who refused to pay claims subsequent to these, under
treaty signed by himself, would pay old claims anterior to 1800?
The claims were not worth a straw; they were considered as lawful
spoliations; that by our proclamation we had broken the neutrality;
and, after all, that they were incurred by English enterprises,
covered by the American flag. It is pretended he acknowledged them!
Would he have inserted two lines in the treaty to rescind them,
to get rid of such claims, when he would not pay those he had
acknowledged?
To recur once more, sir, to the valuable consideration which it
is pretended we received for these claims. It is maintained that
we were paid by receiving a release from onerous obligations
imposed upon us by the treaty of guaranty, which obligations I have
already shown that the great Washington himself pronounced to be
nothing; and therefore, sir, it plainly follows that this valuable
consideration was--nothing!
What, sir! Is it said we were released from obligations? From what
obligations, I would ask, were we relieved? From the obligation of
guaranteeing to France her American possessions; from the obligation
of conquering St. Domingo for France! From an impossibility, sir!
for do we not know that this was impossible to the fleets and armies
of France, under Le Clerc, the brother-in-law of Napoleon himself?
Did they not perish miserably by the knives of infuriated negroes
and the desolating ravages of pestilence? Again, we were released
from the obligation of restoring Guadaloupe to the French; which
also was not possible, unless we had entered into a war with Great
Britain! And thus, sir, the valuable consideration, the release by
which these claims are said to be fully paid to the United States,
turns out to be a release from nothing! a release from absolute
impossibilities; for it was not possible to guarantee to France her
colonies; she lost them, and there was nothing to guarantee; it was
a one-sided guaranty! She surrendered them by treaty, and there is
nothing for the guaranty to operate on.
The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. King], has given a vivid and able
picture of the exertions of the United States government in behalf
of these claims. He has shown that they have been paid, and more
than paid, on our part, by the invaluable blood of our citizens!
Such, indeed, is the fact. What has not been done by the United
States on behalf of these claims? For these very claims, for the
protection of those very claimants, we underwent an incredible
expense both in military and naval armaments.
[Here the honorable senator read a long list of military and naval
preparations made by Congress for the protection of these claims,
specifying the dates and the numbers.]
Nor did the United States confine herself solely to these strenuous
exertions and expensive armaments; besides raising fleets and
armies, she sent across the Atlantic embassies and agents; she gave
letters of marque, by which every injured individual might take
his own remedy and repay himself his losses. For these very claims
the people were laden at that period with heavy taxes, besides the
blood of our people which was spilt for them. Loans were raised at
eight per cent. to obtain redress for these claims; and what was the
consequence? It overturned the men in power at that period; this it
was which produced that result, more than political differences.
The people were taxed and suffered for these same claims in that
day; and now they are brought forward again to exhaust the public
treasury and to sweep away more millions yet from the people, to
impose taxes again upon them, for the very same claims for which the
people have already once been taxed; reviving the system of '98,
to render loans and debts and encumbrances again to be required;
to embarrass the government, entangle the State, to impoverish the
people; to dig, in a word, by gradual measures of this description,
a pit to plunge the nation headlong into inextricable difficulty and
ruin!
The government, in those days, performed its duty to the citizens in
the protection of their commerce; and by vindicating, asserting, and
satisfying these claims, it left nothing undone which now is to be
done; the pretensions of this bill are therefore utterly unfounded!
Duties are reciprocal; the duty of government is protection, and
that of citizens allegiance. This bill attempts to throw upon the
present government the duties and expenses of a former government,
which have been already once acquitted. On its part, government
has fulfilled, with energy and zeal, its duty to the citizens; it
has protected and now is protecting their rights, and asserting
their just claims. Witness our navy, kept up in time of peace, for
the protection of commerce and for the profit of our citizens;
witness our cruisers on every point of the globe, for the security
of citizens pursuing every kind of lawful business. But, there are
limits to the protection of the interests of individual citizens;
peace must, at one time or other, be obtained, and sacrifices are to
be made for a valuable consideration. Now, sir, peace is a valuable
consideration, and claims are often necessarily abandoned to obtain
it. In 1814, we gave up claims for the sake of peace; we gave up
claims for Spanish spoliations, at the treaty of Florida; we gave up
claims to Denmark. These claims also were given up, long anterior to
others I have mentioned. When peace is made, the claims take their
chance; some are given up for a gross sum, and some, such as these,
when they are worth nothing, will fetch nothing. How monstrous,
therefore, that measure is, which would transfer abandoned and
disputed claims from the country, by which they were said to be due,
to our own country, to our own government, upon our own citizens,
requiring us to pay what others owed (nay, what it is doubtful if
they did owe); requiring us to pay what we have never received one
farthing for, and for which, if we had received millions, we have
paid away more than those millions in arduous exertions on their
behalf!
I should not discharge the duty I owe to my country, if I did not
probe still deeper into these transactions. What were the losses
which led to these claims? Gentlemen have indulged themselves in all
the flights and raptures of poetry on this pathetic topic; we have
heard of "ships swept from the ocean, families plunged in want and
ruin;" and such like! What is the fact, sir? It is as the gentleman
from New Hampshire has said: never, sir, was there known, before or
since, such a flourishing state of commerce as the very time and
period of these spoliations. At that time, men made fortunes if they
saved one ship only, out of every four or five, from the French
cruisers! Let us examine the stubborn facts of sober arithmetic,
in this case, and not sit still and see the people's money charmed
out of the treasury by the persuasive notes of poetry. [Mr. B here
referred to public documents showing that, in the years 1793,
'94, '95, '96, '97, '98, '99, up to 1800, the exports, annually
increased at a rapid rate, till, in 1800 they amounted to more than
$91,000,000].
It must be taken into consideration that, at this period, our
population was less than it is now, our territory was much more
limited, we had not Louisiana and the port of New Orleans, and yet
our commerce was far more flourishing than it ever has been since;
and at a time, too, when we had no mammoth banking corporation to
boast of its indispensable, its vital necessity to commerce! These
are the facts of numbers, of arithmetic, which blow away the edifice
of the gentlemen's poetry, as the wind scatters straws.
With respect to the parties in whose hands these claims are. They
are in the hands of insurance offices, assignees, and jobbers;
they are in the hands of the knowing ones who have bought them up
for two, three, five, ten cents in the dollar! What has become of
the screaming babes that have been held up after the ancient Roman
method, to excite pity and move our sympathies? What has become of
the widows and original claimants? They have been bought out long
ago by the knowing ones. If we countenance this bill, sir, we shall
renew the disgraceful scenes of 1793, and witness a repetition of
the infamous fraud and gambling, and all the old artifices which
the certificate funding act gave rise to. (Mr. B. here read several
interesting extracts, describing the scenes which then took place.)
One of the most revolting features of this bill is its relation
to the insurers. The most infamous and odious act ever passed by
Congress was the certificate funding act of 1793, an act passed in
favor of a crowd of speculators; but the principle of this bill
is more odious than even it; I mean that of paying insurers for
their losses. The United States, sir, insure! Can any thing be
conceived more revolting and atrocious than to direct the funds of
the treasury, the property of the people, to such iniquitous uses?
On what principle is this grounded? Their occupation is a safe one;
they make calculations against all probabilities; they make fortunes
at all times; and especially at this very time when we are called
upon to refund their losses, they made immense fortunes. It would be
far more just and equitable if Congress were to insure the farmers
and planters, and pay them their losses on the failure of the cotton
crop; they, sir, are more entitled to put forth such claims than
speculators and gamblers, whose trade and business it is to make
money by losses. This bill, if passed, would be the most odious and
unprincipled ever passed by Congress.
Another question, sir, occurs to me: what sum of money will this
bill abstract from the treasury? It says five millions, it is true;
but it does not say "and no more;" it does not say that they will
be in full. If the project of passing this bill should succeed, not
only will claims be made, but next will come interest upon them!
Reflect, sir, one moment: interest from 1798 and 1800 to this day!
Nor is there any limitation of the amount of claims; no, sir, it
would not be possible for the imagination of man, to invent more
cunning words than the wording of this bill. It is made to cover
all sorts of claims; there is no kind of specification adequate to
exclude them; the most illegal claims will be admitted by its loose
phraseology!
Again suffer me to call your attention to another feature of this
atrocious measure; let me warn my country of the abyss which it is
attempted to open before it, by this and other similar measures of
draining and exhausting the public treasury!
These claims rejected and spurned by France; these claims for which
we have never received one cent, all the payment ever made for them
urged upon us by their advocates being a metaphysical and imaginary
payment; these claims which, under such deceptive circumstances as
these, we, sir, are called upon to pay, and to pay to insurers,
usurers, gamblers, and speculators; these monstrous claims which are
foisted upon the American people, let me ask, how are they to be
adjudged by this bill? Is it credible, sir? They are to be tried by
an _ex parte_ tribunal! Commissioners are to be appointed, and then,
once seated in this berth, they are to give away and dispose of the
public money according to the cases proved! No doubt sir, they will
be all honorable men. I do not dispute that! No doubt it will be
utterly impossible to prove corruption, or bribery, or interested
motives, or partialities against them; nay, sir, no doubt it will be
dangerous to suspect such honorable men; we shall be replied to at
once by the indignant question, "are they not all honorable men?"
But to all intents and purposes this tribunal will be an _ex parte_,
a one-sided tribunal and passive to the action of the claimants.
Again, look at the species of evidence which will be invited to
appear before these commissioners; of what description will it be?
Here is not a thing recent and fresh upon which evidence, may be
gained. Here are transactions of thirty or forty years ago. The
evidence is gone, witnesses dead, memories failing, no testimony
to be procured, and no lack of claimants, notwithstanding. Then,
sir, the next best evidence, that suspicious and worthless sort of
evidence, will have to be restored to; and this will be ready at
hand to suit every convenience in any quantity. There could not be
a more effective and deeper plan than this devised to empty the
treasury! Here will be sixty millions exhibited as a lure for false
evidence, and false claims; an awful, a tremendous temptation for
men to send their souls to hell for the sake of money. On the behalf
of the moral interests of my country, while it may yet not be too
late, I denounce this bill, and warn Congress not to lend itself to
a measure by which it will debauch the public morals, and open a
wide gulf of wrong-doing and not-to-be-imagined evil!
The bill proposes the amount of only five millions, while, by the
looseness of its wording, it will admit old claims of all sorts
and different natures; claims long since abandoned for gross sums;
all will come in by this bill! One hundred millions of dollars
will not pay all that will be patched up under the cover of this
bill! In bills of this description we may see a covert attempt to
renew the public debt, to make loans and taxes necessary, and the
engine of loans necessary with them! There are those who would
gladly overwhelm the country in debt; that corporations might be
maintained which thrive by debt, and make their profits out of the
misery and encumbrances of the people. Shall the people be denied
the least repose from taxation? Shall all the labor and exertions
of government to extinguish the public debt be in vain? Shall its
great exertions to establish economy in the State, and do away
with a system of loans and extravagance, be thwarted and resisted
by bills of this insidious aim and character? Shall the people be
prevented from feeling in reality that we have no debt: shall they
only know it by dinners and public rejoicings? Shall such a happy
and beneficial result of wise and wholesome measures be rendered
all in vain by envious efforts to destroy the whole, and render it
impossible for the country to go on without borrowing and being in
debt?
* * * * *
The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 25 to 20; but failed in the
House of Representatives. It still continues to importune the two
Houses; and though baffled for fifty years, is as pertinacious as
ever. Surely there ought to be some limit to these presentations
of the same claim. It is a game in which the government has no
chance. No number of rejections decides any thing in favor of the
government; a single decision in their favor decides all against
them. Renewed applications become incessant, and endless; and
eventually must succeed. Claims become stronger upon age--gain
double strength upon time--often directly, by newly discovered
evidence--always indirectly, by the loss of adversary evidence, and
by the death of contemporaries. Two remedies are in the hands of
Congress--one, to break up claim agencies, by allowing no claim to
be paid to an agent; the other, to break up speculating assignments,
by allowing no more to be received by an assignee than he has
actually paid for the claim. Assignees and agents are now the great
prosecutors of claims against the government. They constitute a
profession--a new one--resident at Washington city. Their calling
has become a new industrial pursuit--and a most industrious
one--skilful and persevering, acting on system and in phalanx; and
entirely an overmatch for the succession of new members who come
ignorantly to the consideration of the cases which they have so well
dressed up. It would be to the honor of Congress, and the protection
of the treasury, to institute a searching examination into the
practices of these agents, to see whether any undue means are used
to procure the legislation they desire.
CHAPTER CXXI.
ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON.
On Friday, the 30th of January, the President with some members of
his Cabinet, attended the funeral ceremonies of Warren R. Davis,
Esq., in the hall of the House of Representatives--of which body
Mr. Davis had been a member from the State of South Carolina. The
procession had moved out with the body, and its front had reached
the foot of the broad steps of the eastern portico, when the
President, with Mr. Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury, and Mr.
Mahlon Dickerson, Secretary of the Navy, were issuing from the door
of the great rotunda--which opens upon the portico. At that instant
a person stepped from the crowd into the little open space in front
of the President, levelled a pistol at him, at the distance of about
eight feet, and attempted to fire. It was a percussion lock, and the
cap exploded, without firing the powder in the barrel. The explosion
of the cap was so loud that many persons thought the pistol had
fired: I heard it at the foot of the steps, far from the place, and
a great crowd between. Instantly the person dropped the pistol which
had missed fire, took another which he held ready cocked in the left
hand, concealed by a cloak--levelled it--and pulled the trigger. It
was also a percussion lock, and the cap exploded without firing the
powder in the barrel. The President instantly rushed upon him with
his uplifted cane: the man shrunk back; Mr. Woodbury aimed a blow at
him; Lieutenant Gedney of the Navy knocked him down; he was secured
by the bystanders, who delivered him to the officers of justice for
judicial examination. The examination took place before the chief
justice of the district, Mr. Cranch; by whom he was committed in
default of bail. His name was ascertained to be Richard Lawrence,
an Englishman by birth, and house-painter by trade, at present out
of employment, melancholy and irascible. The pistols were examined,
and found to be well loaded; and fired afterwards without fail,
carrying their bullets true, and driving them through inch boards
at thirty feet distance; nor could any reason be found for the two
failures at the door of the rotunda. On his examination the prisoner
seemed to be at his ease, as if unconscious of having done any
thing wrong--refusing to cross-examine the witnesses who testified
against him, or to give any explanation of his conduct. The idea of
an unsound mind strongly impressing itself upon the public opinion,
the marshal of the district invited two of the most respectable
physicians of the city (Dr. Caussin and Dr. Thomas Sewell), to visit
him and examine into his mental condition. They did so: and the
following is the report which they made upon the case:
"The undersigned, having been requested by the marshal of the
District of Columbia to visit Richard Lawrence, now confined
in the jail of the county of Washington, for an attempt to
assassinate the President of the United States, with a view
to ascertain, as far as practicable, the present condition
of his bodily health and state of mind, and believing that
a detail of the examination will be more satisfactory than
an abstract opinion on the subject, we therefore give the
following statement. On entering his room, we engaged in
a free conversation with him, in which he participated,
apparently, in the most artless and unreserved manner. The first
interrogatory propounded was, as to his age--which question
alone he sportively declined answering. We then inquired into
the condition of his health, for several years past--to which
he replied that it had been uniformly good, and that he had
never labored under any mental derangement; nor did he admit
the existence of any of those symptoms of physical derangement
which usually attend mental alienation. He said he was born
in England, and came to this country when twelve or thirteen
years of age, and that his father died in this District, about
six or eight years since; that his father was a Protestant and
his mother a Methodist, and that he was not a professor of
any religion, but sometimes read the Bible, and occasionally
attended church. He stated that he was a painter by trade,
and had followed that occupation to the present time; but, of
late, could not find steady employment--which had caused much
pecuniary embarrassment with him; that he had been generally
temperate in his habits, using ardent spirits moderately when at
work; but, for the last three or four weeks, had not taken any;
that he had never gambled, and, in other respects, had led a
regular, sober life.
"Upon being interrogated as to the circumstances connected
with the attempted assassination, he said that he had been
deliberating on it for some time past, and that he had called
at the President's house about a week previous to the attempt,
and being conducted to the President's apartment by the porter,
found him in conversation with a member of Congress, whom he
believed to have been Mr. Sutherland, of Pennsylvania; that he
stated to the President that he wanted money to take him to
England, and that he must give him a check on the bank, and the
President remarked, that he was too much engaged to attend to
him--he must call another time, for Mr. Dibble was in waiting
for an interview. When asked about the pistols which he had
used, he stated that his father left him a pair, but not being
alike, about four years since he exchanged one for another,
which exactly matched the best of the pair; these were both
flint locks, which he recently had altered to percussion locks,
by a Mr. Boteler; that he had been frequently in the habit
of loading and firing those pistols at marks, and that he had
never known them to fail going off on any other occasion, and
that, at the distance of ten yards, the ball always passed
through an inch plank. He also stated that he had loaded those
pistols three or four days previous, with ordinary care, for
the purpose attempted; but that he used a pencil instead of a
ramrod, and that during that period, they were at all times
carried in his pocket; and when asked why they failed to
explode, he replied he knew no cause. When asked why he went
to the capitol on that day, he replied that he expected that
the President would be there. He also stated, that he was in
the rotunda when the President arrived; and on being asked why
he did not then attempt to shoot him, he replied that he did
not wish to interfere with the funeral ceremony, and therefore
waited till it was over. He also observed that he did not enter
the hall, but looked through a window from a lobby, and saw the
President seated with members of Congress, and he then returned
to the rotunda, and waited till the President again entered
it, and then passed through and took his position in the east
portico, about two yards from the door, drew his pistols from
his inside coat pocket, cocked them and held one in each hand,
concealed by his coat, lest he should alarm the spectators--and
states, that as soon as the one in the right hand missed fire,
he immediately dropped or exchanged it, and attempted to fire
the second, before he was seized; he further stated that he
aimed each pistol at the President's heart, and intended, if the
first pistol had gone off, and the president had fallen, to have
defended himself with the second, if defence had been necessary.
On being asked if he did not expect to have been killed on the
spot, if he had killed the President, he replied he did not;
and that he had no doubt but that he would have been protected
by the spectators. He was frequently questioned whether he had
any friends present, from whom he expected protection. To this
he replied, that he never had mentioned his intention to any
one, and that no one in particular knew his design; but that
he presumed it was generally know that he intended to put the
President out of the way. He further stated, that when the
President arrived at the door, near which he stood, finding
him supported on the left by Mr. Woodbury, and observing many
persons in his rear, and being himself rather to the right of
the President, in order to avoid wounding Mr. Woodbury, and
those in the rear, he stepped a little to his own right, so
that should the ball pass through the body of the President,
it would be received by the door-frame or stone wall. On being
asked if he felt no trepidation during the attempt: He replied,
not the slightest, until he found that the second pistol had
missed fire. Then observing that the President was advancing
upon him, with an uplifted cane, he feared that it contained
a sword, which might have been thrust through him before he
could have been protected by the crowd. And when interrogated
as to the motive which induced him to attempt the assassination
of the President, he replied, that he had been told that the
President had caused his loss of occupation, and the consequent
want of money, and he believed that to put him out of the way,
was the only remedy for this evil; but to the interrogatory, who
told you this? he could not identify any one, but remarked that
his brother-in-law, Mr. Redfern, told him that he would have
no more business, because he was opposed to the President--and
he believed Redfern to be in league with the President against
him. Again being questioned, whether he had often attended the
debates in Congress, during the present session, and whether
they had influenced him in making this attack on the person of
the President, he replied that he had frequently attended the
discussions in both branches of Congress, but that they had, in
no degree, influenced his action.
"Upon being asked if he expected to become the president of the
United States, if Gen. Jackson had fallen, he replied no.
"When asked whom he wished to be the President, his answer
was, there were many persons in the House of Representatives.
On being asked if there were no persons in the Senate, yes,
several; and it was the Senate to which I alluded. Who, in
your opinion, of the Senate, would make a good President? He
answered, Mr. Clay, Mr. Webster, Mr. Calhoun. What do you think
of Col. Benton, Mr. Van Buren, or Judge White, for President? He
thought they would do well. On being asked if he knew any member
of either house of Congress, he replied that he did not--and
never spoke to one in his life, or they to him. On being
asked what benefit he expected himself from the death of the
President, he answered he could not rise unless the President
fell, and that he expected thereby to recover his liberty, and
that the mechanics would all be benefited; that the mechanics
would have plenty of work; and that money would be more plenty.
On being asked why it would be more plenty, he replied, it would
be more easily obtained from the bank. On being asked what bank,
he replied, the Bank of the United States. On being asked if he
knew the president, directors, or any of the officers of the
bank, or had ever held any intercourse with them, or knew how he
could get money out of the bank, he replied no--that he slightly
knew Mr. Smith only.
"On being asked with respect to the speeches which he had heard
in Congress, and whether he was particularly pleased with those
of Messrs. Calhoun, Clay, and Webster, he replied that he was,
because they were on his side. He was then asked if he was well
pleased with the speeches of Col. Benton and Judge White? He
said he was and thought Col. Benton highly talented.
"When asked if he was friendly to Gen. Jackson, he replied,
no. Why not? He answered, because he was a tyrant. Who told
you he was a tyrant? He answered, it was a common talk with
the people, and that he had read it in all the papers. He was
asked if he could name any one who had told him so? He replied,
no. He was asked if he ever threatened to shoot Mr. Clay, Mr.
Webster, or Mr. Calhoun, or whether he would shoot them if he
had an opportunity? He replied, no. When asked if he would shoot
Mr. Van Buren? He replied, no, that he once met with Mr. Van
Buren in the rotunda, and told him he was in want of money and
must have it, and if he did not get it he (Mr. Van Buren), or
Gen. Jackson must fall. He was asked if any person were present
during the conversation? He replied, that there were several
present, and when asked if he recollected one of them, he
replied that he did not. When asked if any one advised him to
shoot Gen. Jackson, or say that it ought to be done? He replied,
I do not like to say. On being pressed on this point, he said no
one in particular had advised him.
"He further stated, that believing the President to be the
source of all his difficulties, he was still fixed in his
purpose to kill him, and if his successor pursued the same
course, to put him out of the way also--and declared that no
power in this country could punish him for having done so,
because it would be resisted by the powers of Europe, as well
as of this country. He also stated, that he had been long in
correspondence with the powers of Europe, and that his family
had been wrongfully deprived of the crown of England, and that
_he_ should yet live to regain it--and that he considered the
President of the United States nothing more than his clerk.
"We now think proper to add, that the young man appears
perfectly tranquil and unconcerned, as to the final result, and
seems to anticipate no punishment for what he has done. The
above contains the leading, and literally expressed facts of the
whole conversation we had with him, which continued at least
two hours. The questions were frequently repeated at different
stages of the examination; and presented in various forms."
It is clearly to be seen from this medical examination of the man,
that this attempted assassination of the President, was one of those
cases of which history presents many instances--a diseased mind
acted upon by a general outcry against a public man. Lawrence was in
the particular condition to be acted upon by what he heard against
General Jackson:--a workman out of employment--needy--idle--mentally
morbid; and with reason enough to argue regularly from false
premises. He heard the President accused of breaking up the labor
of the country! and believed it--of making money scarce! and he
believed it--of producing the distress! and believed it--of being
a tyrant! and believed it--of being an obstacle to all relief! and
believed it. And coming to a regular conclusion from all these
beliefs, he attempted to do what he believed the state of things
required him to do--take the life of the man whom he considered
the sole cause of his own and the general calamity--and the sole
obstacle to his own and the general happiness. Hallucination of mind
was evident; and the wretched victim of a dreadful delusion was
afterwards treated as insane, and never brought to trial. But the
circumstance made a deep impression upon the public feeling, and
irresistibly carried many minds to the belief in a superintending
Providence, manifested in the extraordinary case of two pistols in
succession--so well loaded, so coolly handled, and which afterwards
fired with such readiness, force, and precision--missing fire, each
in its turn, when levelled eight feet at the President's heart.
CHAPTER CXXII.
ALABAMA EXPUNGING RESOLUTIONS.
Mr. King, of Alabama, presented the preamble and joint resolution
of the general assembly of his State, entreating their senators
in Congress to use their "untiring efforts" to cause to be
expunged from the journal of the Senate, the resolve condemnatory
of President Jackson, for the removal of the deposits. Mr. Clay
desired to know, before any order was taken on those resolutions,
whether the senator presenting them, proposed to make any motion in
relation to expunging the journal? This inquiry was made in a way
to show that Mr. King was to meet resistance to his motion if he
attempted it. The expunging process was extremely distasteful to
the senators whose act was proposed to be stigmatized;--and they
now began to be sensitive at its mention.--When Mr. Benton first
gave notice of his intention to move it, his notice was looked upon
as an idle menace, which would end in nothing. Now it was becoming
a serious proceeding. The States were taking it up. Several of
them, through their legislatures--Alabama, Mississippi, New Jersey,
New-York, North Carolina--had already given the fatal instructions;
and it was certain that more would follow. Those of Alabama were
the first presented; and it was felt necessary to make head against
them from the beginning. Hence, the interrogatory put by Mr. Clay
to Mr. King--the inquiry whether he intended to move an expunging
resolution?--and the subsequent motion to lay the resolutions of the
State upon the table if he answered negatively. Now it was not the
intention of Mr. King to move the expunging resolution. It was not
his desire to take that business out of the hands of Mr. Benton,
who had conceived it--made a speech for it--given notice of it at
the last session as a measure for the present one--and had actually
given notice at the present session of his intention to offer the
resolution. Mr. King's answer would necessarily, therefore, be in
the negative, and Mr. Clay's motion then became regular to lay it
upon the table. Mr. Benton, therefore, felt himself called upon to
answer Mr. Clay, and to recall to the recollection of the Senate
what took place at the time the sentence of condemnation had passed;
and rose and said:
"He had then (at the time of passing the condemnatory
resolution), in his place, given immediate notice that he should
commence a series of motions for the purpose of expunging the
resolutions from the journals. He had then made use of the word
expunge, in contradistinction to the word repeal, or the word
reverse, because it was his opinion then, and that opinion had
been confirmed by all his subsequent reflection, that repeal or
reversal of the resolution would not do adequate justice. To
do that would require a complete expurgation of the journal.
It would require that process which is denominated expunging,
by which, to the present, and to all future times, it would be
indicated that that had been placed upon the journals which
should never have gone there. He had given that notice, after
serious reflection, that it might be seen that the Senate was
trampling the constitution of the United States under foot; and
not only that, but also the very forms, to say nothing of the
substance, of all criminal justice.
"He had given this notice in obedience to the dictates of
his bosom, which were afterwards sustained by the decision
of his head, without consultation with any other person, but
after conference only with himself and his God. To a single
human being he had said that he should do it, but he had not
consulted with any one. In the ordinary routine of business, no
one was more ready to consult with his friends, and to defer
to their opinions, than he was; but there were some occasions
on which he held council with no man, but took his own course,
without regard to consequences. It would have been a matter
of entire indifference with him, had the whole Senate risen
as one man, and declared a determination to give a unanimous
vote against him. It would have mattered nothing. He would not
have deferred to any human being. Actuated by these feelings he
had given notice of his intention in the month of May; and in
obedience to that determination he had, on the last day of the
session, laid his resolution on the table, in order to keep the
matter alive.
"This brought him to the answer to the question proposed. The
presentation of the resolutions of the legislature of Alabama
afforded a fit and proper occasion to give that public notice
which he had already informally and privately given to many
members of the Senate. He had said that he should bring forward
his resolution at the earliest convenient time. And yesterday
evening, when he saw the attempt which was made to give to a
proceeding emanating from the Post Office Committee, and to
which, by the unanimous consent of that committee, a legislative
direction had been assigned, a new form, by one of the senators
from South Carolina, so as to make it a proceeding against
persons, in contradistinction to the public matters embodied in
the report; when he heard these persons assailed by one of the
senators from South Carolina, in such a manner as to prevent any
possibility of doubt concerning them; and when he discovered
that the object of these gentle gentlemen was impeachment in
substance, if not in form, he did at once form the determination
to give notice this morning of his intention to move his
resolution at the earliest convenient period.
"This was his answer to the question which had been proposed.
"Mr. King, of Alabama, said he was surprised to hear the
question of the honorable senator from Kentucky, as he did
not expect such an inquiry: for he had supposed it was well
understood by every member of the Senate what his sentiments
were in regard to the right of instruction. The legislature of
Alabama had instructed him to pursue a particular course, and he
should obey their instructions. With regard to the resolution
to which the legislature alluded, he could merely say that he
voted against it at the time it was adopted by the Senate. His
opinion as to it was then, as well as now, perfectly understood.
If the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Benton] declined bringing
the subject forward relative to the propriety of expunging
the resolution in question from the journal of the Senate,
he, himself should, at some proper time, do so, and also say
something on the great and important question as to the right
of instruction. Now, that might be admitted in its fullest
extent. He held his place there, subject to the control of the
legislature of Alabama, and whenever their instructions reached
him, he should be governed by them. He made this statement
without entering into the consideration of the propriety or
impropriety of senators exercising their own judgment as to
the course they deemed most proper to pursue. For himself,
never having doubted the right of a legislature to instruct
their senators in Congress, he should consider himself culpable
if he did not carry their wishes into effect, when properly
expressed. And he had hoped there would have been no expression
of the Senate at this time, as he was not disposed to enter into
a discussion then, for particular reasons, which it was not
necessary he should state.
"As to the propriety of acting on the subject then, that would
depend upon the opinions of gentlemen as to the importance, the
great importance, of having the journal of the Senate freed
from what many supposed to be an unconstitutional act of the
Senate, although the majority of it thought otherwise. He would
now say that, if no one should bring forward a proposition to
get the resolution expunged, he, feeling himself bound to obey
the opinions of the legislature, should do so, and would vote
for it. If no precedent was to be found for such an act of the
Senate, he should most unhesitatingly vote for expunging the
resolution from the journal of the Senate, in such manner as
should be justified by precedent.
"Mr. Clay said the honorable member from Alabama had risen
in his place, and presented to the Senate two resolutions,
adopted by the legislature of his State, instructing him and
his colleague to use their untiring exertions to cause to be
expunged from the journals of the Senate certain resolutions
passed during the last session of Congress, on the subject
of the removal of the deposits from the Bank of the United
States. The resolutions of Alabama had been presented; they were
accompanied by no motion to carry the intentions of that State
into effect; nor were they accompanied by any intimation from
the honorable senator, who presented them, of his intention to
make any proposition, in relation to them, to the Senate. Under
these circumstances, the inquiry was made by him (Mr. C) of the
senator from Alabama, which he thought the occasion called for.
The inquiry was a very natural one, and he had learned with
unfeigned surprise that the senator did not expect it. He would
now say to the senator from Alabama, that of him, and of him
alone, were these inquiries made; and with regard to the reply
made by another senator (Mr. Benton), he would further say, that
his relations to him were not such as to enable him to know what
were that senator's intentions, at any time, and on any subject;
nor was it necessary he should know them.
"He had nothing further to say, than to express the hope that
the senator from Alabama would, for the present, withdraw the
resolutions he had presented; and if, after he had consulted
precedents, and a careful examination of the constitution of
the United States, he finds that he can, consistently with
them, make any propositions for the action of the Senate, he
(Mr. C.) would be willing to receive the resolutions, and pay
to them all that attention and respect which the proceedings
of one of the States of this Union merited. If the gentleman
did not pursue that course, he should feel himself bound, by
every consideration, by all the obligations which bound a public
man to discharge his duty to his God, his country, and his own
honor, to resist such an unconstitutional procedure as the
reception of these resolutions, without the expressed wish of
the legislature of Alabama, and without any intimation from her
senators, of any proposition to be made on them, at the very
threshold. He did hope that, for the present, the gentleman
would withdraw these resolutions, and at a proper time present
them with some substantive proposition for the consideration
of the Senate. If he did not, the debate must go on, to the
exclusion of the important one commenced yesterday, and which
every gentleman expected to be continued to-day, as he should in
such case feel it necessary to submit a motion for the Senate
to decide whether, under present circumstances, the resolutions
could be received.
"Mr. Clay declared that when such a resolution should be offered
he should discharge the duty which he owed to his God, his
country and his honor.
"Mr. King of Alabama, had felt an unwillingness from the first
to enter into this discussion, for reasons which would be
understood by every gentleman. It was his wish, and was so
understood by one or two friends whom he had consulted, that
the resolutions should lie on the table for the present, until
the debate on another subject was disposed of. In reply to the
senator from Kentucky, he must say that he could not, situated
as he was, accede to his proposition. His object certainly
was to carry into effect the wishes of the legislature of his
State; and he, as well as his colleague, felt bound to obey the
will of the sovereign State of Alabama, whenever made known
to them. He certainly should, at a proper time, present a
distinct proposition in relation to these resolutions for the
consideration of the Senate; and the senator from Kentucky could
then have an opportunity of discharging 'his duty to his God,
to his country, and his own honor,' in a manner most consistent
with his own sense of propriety.
"Mr. Clay would not renew the intimation of any intention on
his part, to submit a motion to the Senate, if there was any
probability that the senator from Alabama would withdraw the
resolutions he had submitted. He now gave notice that, if the
senator did not think fit to withdraw them, he should feel it
his duty to submit a proposition which would most probably lead
to a debate, and prevent the one commenced yesterday from being
resumed to-day.
"Mr. Calhoun moved that the resolution be laid upon the table,
to give the senator from Alabama [Mr. King], an opportunity to
prepare a resolution to accomplish the meditated purpose of
rescinding the former resolutions of the Senate. I confess, sir
(observed Mr. C), I feel some curiosity to see how the senator
from Alabama will reconcile such a proceeding with the free
and independent existence of a Senate. I feel, sir, a great
curiosity to hear how that gentleman proposes that the journals
are to be kept, if such a procedure is allowed to take effect. I
should like to know how he proposes to repeal a journal. By what
strange process he would destroy facts, and annihilate events
and things which are now the depositories of history. When he
shall have satisfied my curiosity on this particular, then there
is another thing I am anxious to be informed upon, and that
is, what form, what strange and new plan of proceeding, will
he suggest for the adoption of the Senate? I will tell him; I
will show him the only resource that is left, the point to which
he necessarily comes, and that is this: he will be obliged to
declare, in his resolution, that the principle upon which the
Senate acted was not correct; that it was a false and erroneous
principle. And let me ask, what was that principle, which now,
it seems, is to be destroyed? The principle on which the Senate
acted, the principle which that gentleman engages to overthrow,
is this: 'we have a right to express our opinion.' He will be
compelled to deny that; or, perhaps, he may take refuge from
such a predicament by qualifying his subversion of this first
principle of legislative freedom. And how will he qualify the
denial of this principle? that is, how will he deny it, and yet
apparently maintain it? He has only one resource left, and that
is, to pretend that we have a right to express our opinions, but
not of the President. This is the end and aim; yes, this is the
inevitable consequence and result of such an extraordinary, such
a monstrous procedure.
"So then, it is come to this, that the Senate has no right to
express its opinion in relation to the Executive? A distinction
is now set up between the President and all other officers, and
the gentleman is prepared with a resolution to give effect and
energy to the distinction; and now, for the first time that
such a doctrine has ever been heard on the American soil, he is
prepared to profess and publish, in the face of the American
people, that old and worn-out dogma of old and worn-out nations,
'the King can do no wrong!' that his officers, his ministers,
are alone responsible; that we shall be permitted perhaps to
utter our opinions of them; but a unanimous opinion expressed by
the Senate, in relation to the President himself, is no longer
suffered to exist, is no longer permitted to be given; it must
be expunged from the journals.
"I confess I am agitated with an intense curiosity: I wish
to see with what ingenuity of artful disguise the Senate is
to be reduced to the dumb legislation of Bonaparte's Senate.
This very question brings on the issue. This very proposition
of expunging our resolutions is the question in which the
expunging of our legislative freedom and independence is to be
agitated. I confess I long to see the strange extremities to
which the gentleman will come. It is a question of the utmost
magnitude; I an anxious to see it brought on; two senators
[Messrs. Benton, and King of Alabama] have pledged themselves
to bring it forward. They cannot do it too soon--they cannot
too soon expose the horrible reality of the condition to which
our country is reduced. I hope they will make no delay; let
them hasten in their course; let them lose no time in their
effort to expunge the Senate, and dissolve the system of
government and constitution. Yes, I entreat them to push their
deliberate purpose to a resolve. They have now given origin
to a question than which none perhaps is, in its effects and
tendencies, of deeper and more radical importance; it is a
question more important than that of the bank, or than that of
the Post Office, and I am exceedingly anxious to see how far
they will carry out the doctrine they have advanced; a doctrine
as enslaving and as despotic as any that is maintained by the
Autocrat of all the Russias. To give them an opportunity, I move
to lay the resolutions on the table, and I promise them that,
when they move their resolution, I will be ready to take it up.
"Mr. Clay said that the proposition to receive the resolutions
was a preliminary one, and was the question to which he had
at first invited the attention of the Senate. The debate,
certainly, had been very irregular, and not strictly in order.
He had contended, from the first, for the purpose of avoiding an
interference with a debate on another subject, that the subject
of the Alabama resolutions should not be agitated at that time.
The senator from Alabama having refused to withdraw these
resolutions, he was compelled to a course which would, in all
probability, lead to a protracted debate.
"Mr. Clay then submitted the following:
"_Resolved_, That the resolutions of the legislature of Alabama,
presented by the senator from that State, ought not to be acted
upon by the Senate, inasmuch as they are not addressed to the
Senate, nor contain any request that they be laid before the
Senate; and inasmuch, also, as that which those resolutions
direct should be done, cannot be done without violating the
constitution of the United States."
"Mr. Calhoun here moved to lay the resolutions on the table,
which motion took precedence of Mr. Clay's, and was not
debatable. He withdrew it, however, at the request of Mr.
Clayton.
"Mr. Benton said an objection had been raised to the resolutions
of Alabama, by the senator from South Carolina and the senator
from Delaware, to which he would briefly reply. Need he
refer those gentlemen to the course of their own reading? he
would refer them to the case in a State contiguous to South
Carolina, where certain proceedings of its legislature were
publicly burnt. (The journal of the Yazoo fraud, in Georgia.)
Need he refer them to the case of Wilkes? where the British
House of Commons expunged certain proceedings from their
journal--expunged! not by the childish process of sending out
for every copy and cutting a leaf from each, but by a more
effectual process. He would describe the _modus_ as he read it
in the parliamentary history. It was this: There was a total
suspension of business in the House, and the clerk, taking the
official journal, the original record of its proceedings, and
reading the clause to be expunged, obliterated it, word after
word, not by making a Saint Andrew's cross over the clause, as
is sometimes done in old accounts, but by completely erasing out
every letter. This is the way expunging is done, and this is
what I propose to get done in the Senate, through the power of
the people, upon this lawless condemnation of President Jackson:
and no system of tactics or manoeuvres shall prevent me from
following up the design according to the notice given yesterday.
"Mr. King of Alabama, in reply, said that when the proper
time arrived--and he should use his own time, on his own
responsibility--he would bring forward the resolution, of which
the senator from Missouri had given notice, if not prevented by
the previous action of that gentleman. He had no doubt of the
power of the Senate to repeal any resolution it had adopted.
What! repeal facts? asked the senator from South Carolina. He
would ask that gentleman if they had it not in their power to
retrace their steps when they have done wrong? If they had it
not in their power to correct their own journal when asserting
what was not true? The democratic party of the country had
spoken, pronounced judgment upon the facts stated in that
journal. They had declared that these facts were not true; that
the condemnation pronounced against the Chief Magistrate, for
having violated the constitution of the United States, was not
true; and it was high time that it was stricken from the journal
it disgraced.
"Mr. Calhoun observed that the senator from Alabama having made
some personal allusions to him, he felt bound to notice them,
although not at all disposed to intrude upon the patience of
the Senate. The senator had said that he (Mr. C.) was truly
connected with party. Now, if by 'party' the gentleman meant
that he was enlisted in any political scheme, that he desired
to promote the success of any party, or was anxious to see
any particular man elevated to the Chief Magistracy, he did
him great injustice. It was a long time since he (Mr. C.) had
taken any active part in the political affairs of the country.
The senator need only to have looked back to his vote, for the
last eight years, to have been satisfied that he (Mr. C.) had
voluntarily put himself in the very small minority to which he
belonged, and that he had done this to serve the gallant and
patriotic State of South Carolina. Would the gentleman say that
he did not step forward in defence of South Carolina, in the
great and magnanimous stand which she took in defence of her
rights? Now, he wished the senator to understand him, that he
had put himself in a minority of at least one to a hundred; that
he had abandoned party voluntarily, freely; and he would tell
every Senator--for he was constrained to speak of himself, and
therefore he should speak boldly--he would not turn upon his
heel for the administration of the affairs of this government.
He believed that such was the hold which corruption had obtained
in this government, that any man who should undertake to reform
it would not be sustained."
Mr. King of Alabama moved that the resolutions be printed, which
motion was superseded by a motion to lay it on the table, which
prevailed--yeas twenty-seven, nays twenty--as follows:
"YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Black, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton,
Ewing, Frelinghuysen, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Kent, Knight,
Leigh, Mangum, Naudain, Poindexter, Porter, Prentiss, Robbins,
Silsbee, Smith, Southard, Swift, Tomlinson, Tyler, Waggaman,
Webster.
"NAYS.--Messrs. Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Grundy, Hill,
Kane, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, McKean, Moore,
Morris, Preston, Robinson, Shepley, Tallmadge, Tipton, White,
Wright."
And thus the resolutions of a sovereign State, in favor of expunging
what it deemed to be a lawless sentence passed upon the President,
were refused even a reception and a printing--a circumstance
which seemed to augur badly for the final success of the series
of expunging motions which I had pledged myself to make. But, in
fact, it was not discouraging--but the contrary. It strengthened
the conviction that such conduct would sooner induce the change of
senators in the democratic States, and permit the act to be done.
CHAPTER CXXIII.
THE EXPUNGING RESOLUTION.
From the moment of the Senate's condemnation of General Jackson, Mr.
Benton gave notice of his intention to move the expunction of the
sentence from the journal, periodically and continually until the
object should be effected, or his political life come to its end. In
conformity to this notice, he made his formal motion at the session
'34-'35; and in these words:
"_Resolved_, That the resolution adopted by the Senate, on
the 28th day of March, in the year 1834, in the following
words: '_Resolved_, That the President, in the late executive
proceedings in relation to the public revenue, has assumed
upon himself authority and power not conferred by the
constitution and laws, but in derogation of both,' be, and
the same hereby is, ordered to be expunged from the journals
of the Senate; because the said resolution is illegal and
unjust, of evil example, indefinite and vague, expressing a
criminal charge without specification; and was irregularly and
unconstitutionally adopted by the Senate, in subversion of the
rights of defence which belong to an accused and impeachable
officer; and at a time and under circumstances to endanger the
political rights, and to injure the pecuniary interests of the
people of the United States."
This proposition was extremely distasteful to the Senate--to the
majority which passed the sentence on General Jackson; and Mr.
Southard, senator from New Jersey, spoke their sentiments, and his
own, when he thus bitterly characterized it as an indictment which
the Senate itself was required to try, and to degrade itself in its
own condemnation,--he said:
"The object of this resolution (said Mr. S.), not to obtain
an expression from the Senate that their former opinions were
erroneous, nor that the Executive acted correctly in relation
to the public treasury. It goes further, and denounces the
act of the Senate as so unconstitutional, unjustifiable, and
offensive, that the evidence of it ought not to be permitted to
remain upon the records of the government. It is an indictment
against the Senate. The senator from Missouri calls upon
us to sit in judgment upon our own act, and warns us that
we can save ourselves from future and lasting denunciation
and reproach only by pronouncing our own condemnation by
our votes. He assures us that he has no desire or intention
to degrade the Senate, but the position in which he would
place us is one of deep degradation--degradation of the most
humiliating character--which not only acknowledges error, and
admits inexcusable misconduct in this legislative branch of
the government, but bows it down before the majesty of the
Executive, and makes us offer incense to his infallibility."
The bitterness of this self trial was aggravated by seeing the
course which the public mind was taking. A current, strong and
steady, and constantly swelling, was setting in for the President
and against the Senate; and resolutions from the legislatures
of several States--Alabama, Mississippi, New Jersey, North
Carolina--had already arrived instructing their senators to vote
for the expurgation which Mr. Benton proposed. In the mean time he
had not yet made his leading speech in favor of his motion; and he
judged this to be the proper time to do so, in order to produce its
effects on the elections of the ensuing summer; and accordingly now
spoke as follows:
Mr. Benton then rose and addressed the Senate in support of his
motion. He said that the resolution which he had offered, though
resolved upon, as he had heretofore stated, without consultation
with any person, was not resolved upon without great deliberation in
his own mind. The criminating resolution, which it was his object
to expunge, was presented to the Senate, December 26th, 1833. The
senator from Kentucky who introduced it [Mr. Clay], commenced a
discussion of it on that day, which was continued through the months
of January and February, and to the end, nearly, of the month of
March. The vote was taken upon it the 28th of March; and about a
fortnight thereafter he announced to the Senate his intention to
commence a series of motions for expunging the resolution from the
journal. Here, then, were nearly four months for consideration; for
the decision was expected; and he had very anxiously considered,
during that period, all the difficulties, and all the proprieties,
of the step which he meditated. Was the intended motion to clear
the journal of the resolution right in itself? The convictions of
his judgment told him that it was. Was expurgation the proper mode?
Yes; he was thoroughly satisfied that that was the proper mode of
proceeding in this case. For the criminating resolution which he
wished to get rid of combined all the characteristics of a case
which required erasure and obliteration: for it was a case, as
he believed, of the exercise of power without authority, without
even jurisdiction; illegal, irregular, and unjust. Other modes of
annulling the resolution, as rescinding, reversing, repealing,
could not be proper in such a case; for they would imply rightful
jurisdiction, a lawful authority, a legal action, though an
erroneous judgment. All that he denied. He denied the authority of
the Senate to pass such a resolution at all; and he affirmed that
it was unjust, and contrary to the truth, as well as contrary to
law. This being his view of the resolution, he held that the true
and proper course, the parliamentary course of proceeding in such a
case, was to expunge it.
But, said Mr. B., it is objected that the Senate has no right to
expunge any thing from its journal; that it is required by the
constitution to keep a journal; and, being so required, could not
destroy any part of it. This, said Mr. B., is sticking in the bark;
and in the thinnest bark in which a shot, even the smallest, was
ever lodged. Various are the meanings of the word keep, used as a
verb. To keep a journal is to write down, daily, the history of what
you do. For the Senate to keep a journal is to cause to be written
down, every day, the account of its proceedings; and, having done
that, the constitutional injunction is satisfied. The constitution
was satisfied by entering this criminating resolution on the
journal; it will be equally satisfied by entering the expunging
resolution on the same journal. In each case the Senate keeps a
journal of its own proceedings.
It is objected, also, that we have no right to destroy a part of
the journal; and that to expunge is to destroy and to prevent the
expunged part from being known in future. Not so the fact, said Mr.
B. The matter expunged is not destroyed. It is incorporated in the
expunging resolution, and lives as long as that lives; the only
effect of the expurgation being to express, in the most emphatic
manner, the opinion that such matter ought never to have been put in
the journal.
Mr. B. said he would support these positions by authority, the
authority of eminent examples; and would cite two cases, out of a
multitude that might be adduced, to show that expunging was the
proper course, the parliamentary course, in such a case as the one
now before the Senate, and that the expunged matter was incorporated
and preserved in the expunging resolution.
Mr. B. then read, from a volume of British Parliamentary History,
the celebrated case of the Middlesex election, in which the
resolution to expel the famous John Wilkes was expunged from the
journal, but preserved in the expurgatory resolution, so as to
be just as well read now as if it had never been blotted out from
the journals of the British House of Commons. The resolution ran
in these words: "That the resolution of the House of the 17th
February, 1769, 'that John Wilkes, Esq., having been, in this
session of Parliament, expelled this House, was and is incapable
of being elected a member to serve in the present Parliament,' be
expunged from the journals of this House, as being subversive of the
rights of the whole body of electors of this kingdom." Such, said
Mr. B., were the terms of the expunging resolution in the case of
the Middlesex election, as it was annually introduced from 1769 to
1782; when it was finally passed by a vote of near three to one, and
the clause ordered to be expunged was blotted out of the journal,
and obliterated, by the clerk at the table, in the presence of the
whole House, which remained silent, and all business suspended until
the obliteration was complete. Yet the history of the case is not
lost. Though blotted out of one part of the journal, it is saved
in another; and here, at the distance of half a century, and some
thousand miles from London, the whole case is read as fully as if no
such operation had ever been performed upon it.
Having given a precedent from British parliamentary history, Mr.
B. would give another from American history; not, indeed, from the
Congress of the assembled States, but from one of the oldest and
most respectable States of the Union; he spoke of Massachusetts, and
of the resolution adopted in the Senate of that State during the
late war, adverse to the celebration of our national victories; and
which, some ten years afterwards, was expunged from the journals by
a solemn vote of the Senate.
A year ago, said Mr. B., the Senate tried President Jackson; now the
Senate itself is on trial nominally before itself; but in reality
before America, Europe, and posterity. We shall give our voices in
our own case; we shall vote for or against this motion; and the
entry upon the record will be according to the majority of voices.
But that is not the end, but the beginning of our trial. We shall
be judged by others; by the public, by the present age, and by all
posterity! The proceedings of this case, and of this day, will not
be limited to the present age; they will go down to posterity, and
to the latest ages. President Jackson is not a character to be
forgotten in history. His name is not to be confined to the dry
catalogue and official nomenclature of mere American Presidents.
Like the great Romans who attained the consulship, not by the paltry
arts of electioneering, but through a series of illustrious deeds,
his name will live, not for the offices he filled, but for the deeds
which he performed. He is the first President that has ever received
the condemnation of the Senate for the violation of the laws and
the constitution, the first whose name is borne upon the journals
of the American Senate for the violation of that constitution
which he is sworn to observe, and of those laws which he is bound
to see faithfully executed. Such a condemnation cannot escape the
observation of history. It will be read, considered, judged! when
the men of this day, and the passions of this hour, shall have
passed to eternal repose.
Before he proceeded to the exposition of the case which he intended
to make, he wished to avail himself of an argument which had been
conclusive elsewhere, and which he trusted could not be without
effect in this Senate. It was the argument of public opinion. In
the case of the Middlesex election, it had been decisive with the
British House of Commons; in the Massachusetts case, it had been
decisive with the Senate of that State. In both these cases many
gentlemen yielded their private opinions to public sentiment; and
public sentiment having been well pronounced in the case now before
the Senate, he had a right to look for the same deferential respect
for it here which had been shown elsewhere.
Mr. B. then took up a volume of British parliamentary history for
the year 1782, the 22d volume, and read various passages from pages
1407, 1408, 1410, 1411, to show the stress which had been laid on
the argument of public opinion in favor of expunging the Middlesex
resolutions; and the deference which was paid to it by the House,
and by members who had, until then, opposed the motion to expunge.
He read first from Mr. Wilkes' opening speech, on renewing his
annual motion for the fourteenth time, as follows:
"If the people of England, sir, have at any time explicitly and
fully declared an opinion respecting a momentous constitutional
question, it has been in regard to the Middlesex election in 1768."
* * * * "Their voice was never heard in a more clear and distinct
manner than on this point of the first magnitude for all the
electors of the kingdom, and I trust will now be heard favorably."
He then read from Mr. Fox's speech. Mr. Fox had heretofore opposed
the expunging resolution, but now yielded to it in obedience to the
voice of the people.
"He (Mr. Fox) had turned the question often in his mind, he was
still of opinion that the resolution which gentlemen wanted to
expunge was founded on proper principles." * * * * "Though he
opposed the motion, he felt very little anxiety for the event of
the question; for when he found the voice of the people was against
the privilege, as he believed was the case at present, he would
not preserve the privilege." * * * * "The people had associated,
they had declared their sentiments to Parliament, and had taught
Parliament to listen to the voice of their constituents."
Having read these passages, Mr. B. said they were the sentiments of
an English whig of the old school. Mr. Fox was a whig of the old
school. He acknowledged the right of the people to instruct their
representatives. He yielded to the general voice himself, though
not specially instructed; and he uses the remarkable expression
which acknowledges the duty of Parliament to obey the will of the
people. "They had declared their sentiments to Parliament, and had
taught Parliament to listen to the voice of their constituents."
This, said Mr. B., was fifty years ago; it was spoken by a member of
Parliament, who, besides being the first debater of his age, was at
that time Secretary at War. He acknowledged the duty of Parliament
to obey the voice of the people. The son of a peer of the realm,
and only not a peer himself because he was not the eldest son, he
still acknowledged the great democratic principle which lies at
the bottom of all representative government. After this, after
such an example, will American Senators be unwilling to obey the
people? Will they require people to teach Congress the lesson which
Mr. Fox says the English people had taught their Parliament fifty
years ago? The voice of the people of the United States had been
heard on this subject. The elections declared it. The vote of many
legislatures declared it. From the confines of the Republic the
voice of the people came rolling in--a swelling tide, rising as it
flowed--and covering the capitol with its mountain waves. Can that
voice be disregarded? Will members of a republican Congress be less
obedient to the voice of the people than were the representatives of
a monarchical House of Commons?
Mr. B. then proceeded to the argument of his motion. He moved to
expunge the resolution of March 28, 1834, from the journals of the
Senate, because it was illegal and unjust; vague and indefinite;
a criminal charge without specification; unwarranted by the
constitution and laws; subversive of the rights of defence which
belong to an accused and impeachable officer; of evil example; and
adopted at a time and under circumstances to involve the political
rights and the pecuniary interests of the people of the United
States in peculiar danger and serious injury.
These reasons for expunging the criminating resolution from the
journals, Mr. B. said, were not phrases collected and paraded for
effect, or strung together for harmony of sound. They were each,
separately and individually, substantive reasons; every word an
allegation of fact, or of law. Without going fully into the argument
now, he would make an exposition which would lay open his meaning,
and enable each allegation, whether of law or of fact, to be fully
understood, and replied to in the sense intended.
1. _Illegal and unjust._--These were the first heads under which
Mr. B. would develope his objections, he would say the outline of
his objections, to the resolution proposed to be expunged. He held
it to be illegal, because it contained a criminal charge, on which
the President might be impeached, and for which he might be tried
by the Senate. The resolution adopted by the Senate is precisely
the first step taken in the House of Representatives to bring on an
impeachment. It was a resolution offered by a member in his place,
containing a criminal charge against an impeachable officer, debated
for a hundred days; and then voted upon by the Senate, and the
officer voted to be guilty. This is the precise mode of bringing on
an impeachment in the House of Representatives; and, to prove it,
Mr. B. would read from a work of approved authority on parliamentary
practice; it was from Mr. Jefferson's Manual. Mr. B. then read from
the Manual, under the section entitled Impeachment, and from that
head of the section entitled accusation. The writer was giving
the British Parliamentary practice, to which our own constitution
is conformable. "The Commons, as the grand inquest of the nation,
became suitors for penal justice. The general course is to pass
a resolution containing a criminal charge against the supposed
delinquent; and then to direct some member to impeach him by oral
accusation at the bar of the House of Lords, in the name of the
Commons."
Repeating a clause of what he had read, Mr. B. said the general
course is to pass a criminal charge against the supposed delinquent.
This is exactly what the Senate did; and what did it do next?
Nothing. And why nothing? Because there was nothing to be done
by them but to execute the sentence they had passed; and that
they could not do. Penal justice was the consequence of the
resolution; and a judgment of penalties could not be attempted
on such an irregular proceeding. The only kind of penal justice
which the Senate could inflict was that of public opinion; it was
to ostracize the President, and to expose him to public odium, as
a violator of the laws and constitution of his country. Having
shown the resolution to be illegal, Mr. B. would pronounce it
to be unjust; for he affirmed the resolution to be untrue; he
maintained that the President had violated no law, no part of the
constitution, in dismissing Mr. Duane from the Treasury, appointing
Mr. Taney, or causing the deposits to be removed; for these were
the specifications contained in the original resolution, also in
the second modification of the resolution, and intended in the
third modification, when stripped of specifications, and reduced
to a vague and general charge. It was in this shape of a general
charge that the resolution passed. No new specifications were even
suggested in debate. The alterations were made voluntarily, by the
friends of the resolution, at the last moment of the debate, and
just when the vote was to be taken. And why were the specifications
then dropped? Because no majority could be found to agree in them?
or because it was thought prudent to drop the name of the Bank of
the United States? or for both these reasons together? Be that as
it may, said Mr. B., the condemnation of the President, and the
support of the bank, were connected in the resolution, and will
be indissolubly connected in the public mind; and the President
was unjustly condemned in the same resolution that befriended and
sustained the cause of the bank. He held the condemnation to be
untrue in point of fact, and therefore unjust; for he maintained
that there was no breach of the laws and constitution in any thing
that President Jackson did, in removing Mr. Duane, or in appointing
Mr. Taney, or in causing the deposits to be removed. There was no
violation of law, or constitution, in any part of these proceedings;
on the contrary, the whole country, and the government itself,
was redeemed from the dominion of a great and daring moneyed
corporation, by the wisdom and energy of these very proceedings.
2. _Vague and indefinite_; a criminal charge without specification.
Such was the resolution, Mr. B. said, when it passed the Senate; but
such it was not when first introduced, nor even when first altered;
in its first and second forms it contained specifications, and these
specifications identified the condemnation of the President with the
defence of the bank; in its third form, these specifications were
omitted, and no others were substituted; the bank and the resolution
stood disconnected on the record, but as much connected, in fact,
as ever. The resolution was reduced to a vague and indefinite form,
on purpose, and in that circumstance, acquired a new character of
injustice to President Jackson. His accusers should have specified
the law, and the clause in the constitution, which was violated;
they should have specified the acts which constituted the violation.
This was due to the accused, that he might know on what points to
defend himself; it was due to the public, that they might know
on what points to hold the accusers to their responsibility, and
to make them accountable for an unjust accusation. To sustain
this position, Mr. B. had recourse to history and example, and
produced the case of Mr. Giles's accusation of General Hamilton,
then Secretary of the Treasury, in the year 1793. Mr. Giles, he
said, proceeded in a manly, responsible manner. He specified the
law and the alleged violations of the law, so that the friends of
General Hamilton could see what to defend, and so as to make himself
accountable for the accusation. He specified the law, which he
believed to be violated, by its date and its title; and he specified
the two instances in which he held that law to have been infringed.
Mr. B. said he had a double object in quoting this resolution of Mr.
Giles, which was intended to lay the foundation for an impeachment
against General Hamilton; it was to show, first, the speciality
with which these criminating resolutions should be drawn; next, to
show the absence of any allegations of corrupt or wicked intention.
The mere violation of law was charged as the offence, as it was in
three of the articles of impeachment against Judge Chase; and thus,
the absence of an allegation of corrupt intention in the resolution
adopted against President Jackson, was no argument against its
impeachment character, especially as exhibited in its first and
second form, with the criminal averment, "dangerous to the liberties
of the people."
For the purpose of exposing the studied vagueness of the resolution
as passed, detecting its connection with the Bank of the United
States, demonstrating its criminal character in twice retaining
the criminal averment, "dangerous to the liberties of the people,"
and showing the progressive changes it had to undergo before it
could conciliate a majority of the votes, Mr. B. would exhibit
all three of the resolutions, and read them side by side of each
other, as they appeared before the Senate, in the first, second,
and third forms which they were made to wear. They appeared first
in the embryo, or primordial form; then they assumed their aurelia,
or chrysalis state; in the third stage, they reached the ultimate
perfection of their imperfect nature.
FIRST FORM.--_December 26, 1833._
"_Resolved_, That by dismissing the late Secretary of the Treasury,
because he would not, contrary to his sense of his own duty, remove
the money of the United States, in deposit with the Bank of the
United States and its branches, in conformity with the President's
opinion, and by appointing his successor to make such removal, which
has been done, the President has assumed the exercise of a power
over the treasury of the United States not granted to him by the
constitution and laws, and dangerous to the liberties of the people."
SECOND FORM.--_March 28, 1834._
"_Resolved_, That, in taking upon himself the responsibility of
removing the deposit of the public money from the Bank of the
United States, the President of the United States has assumed the
exercise of a power over the treasury of the United States not
granted to him by the constitution and laws, and dangerous to the
liberties of the people."
THIRD FORM.--_March 28, 1834._
"_Resolved_, That the President, in the late executive proceedings,
in relation to the public revenue, has assumed upon himself
authority and power not conferred by the constitution and laws, but
in derogation of both."
Having exhibited the original resolution, with its variations,
Mr. B. would leave it to others to explain the reasons of such
extraordinary metamorphoses. Whether to get rid of the bank
association, or to get rid of the impeachment clause, or to
conciliate the votes of all who were willing to condemn the
President, but could not tell for what, it was not for him to
say; but one thing he would venture to say, that the majority who
agreed in passing a general resolution, containing a criminal
charge against President Jackson, for violating the laws and the
constitution, cannot now agree in naming the law or the clause in
the constitution violated, or in specifying any act constituting
such violation. And here Mr. B. paused, and offered to give way to
the gentlemen of the opposition, if they would now undertake to
specify any act which President Jackson had done in violation of law
or constitution.
3. _Unwarranted by the constitution and laws._--Mr. B. said this
head explained itself. It needed no development to be understood by
the Senate or the country. The President was condemned without the
form of a trial; and, therefore, his condemnation was unwarranted by
the constitution and laws.
4. _Subversive of the rights of defence, which belong to an
accused and impeachable officer._--This head, also (Mr. B. said),
explained itself. An accused person had a right to be heard before
he was condemned; an impeachable officer could not be condemned
unheard by the Senate, without subverting all the rights of
defence which belong to him, and disqualifying the Senate to act
as impartial judges in the event of his being regularly impeached
for the same offence. In this case, the House of Representatives,
if they confided in the Senate's condemnation, would send up an
impeachment; that they had not done so, was proof that they had no
confidence in the correctness of our decision.
5. _Of evil example._--Nothing, said Mr. B., could he more unjust
and illegal in itself, and therefore more evil in example, than to
try people without a hearing, and condemn them without defence. In
this case, such a trial and such a condemnation was aggravated by
the refusal of the Senate, after their sentence was pronounced, to
receive the defence of the President, and let it be printed for the
inspection of posterity! So that, if this criminating resolution
is not expunged, the singular spectacle will go down to posterity,
of a condemnation, and a refusal to permit an answer from the
condemned person standing recorded on the pages of the same journal!
Mr. B. said the Senate must look forward to the time--far ahead,
perhaps, but a time which may come--when this body may be filled
with disappointed competitors, or personal enemies of the President,
or of aspirants to the very office which he holds, and who may not
scruple to undertake to cripple him by senatorial condemnations; to
attaint him by convictions; to ostracise him by vote; and lest this
should happen, and the present condemnation of President Jackson
should become the precedent for such an odious proceeding, the evil
example should be arrested, should be removed, by expunging the
present sentence from the journals of the Senate. And here Mr. B.
would avail himself of a voice which had often been heard in the
two Houses of Congress, and always with respect and veneration. It
was the voice of a wise man, an honest man, a good man, a patriot;
one who knew no cause but the cause of his country; and who, a
quarter of a century ago, foresaw and described the scenes of this
day, and foretold the consequences which must have happened to any
other President, under the circumstances in which President Jackson
has been placed. He spoke of Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina,
and of the sentiments which he expressed, in the year 1810, when
called upon to give a vote in approbation of Mr. Madison's conduct
in dismissing Mr. Jackson, the then British minister to the United
States. He opposed the resolution of approbation, because the House
had nothing to do with the President in their legislative character,
except the passing of laws, calling for information or impeaching;
and, looking into the evil consequences of undertaking to judge of
the President's conduct, he foretold the exact predicament in which
the Senate is now involved, with respect to President Jackson. Mr.
B. then read extracts from the speech of Mr. Macon, on the occasion
referred to:
"I am opposed to the resolution, not for the reasons which have
been offered against it, nor for any which can be drawn from the
documents before us, but because I am opposed to addressing the
President of the United States upon any subject whatever. We have
nothing to do with him, in our legislative character, except the
passing of laws, calling on him for information, or to impeach.
On the day of the presidential election, we, in common with our
fellow-citizens, are to pass on his conduct, and resolutions of this
sort will have no weight on that day. It is on this ground solely
that I am opposed to adopting any resolution whatever in relation
to the Executive conduct. If the national legislature can pass
resolutions to approve the conduct of the President, may they not
also pass resolutions to censure? And what would be the situation
of the country, if we were now discussing a motion to request the
President to recall Mr. Jackson, and again to endeavor to negotiate
with him?"
6. _At a time, and under circumstances, to involve the political
rights and pecuniary interests of the people of the United States
in serious injury and peculiar danger._--This head of his argument,
Mr. B. said, would require a development and detail which he had not
deemed necessary at this time, considering what had been said by him
at the last session, and what would now be said by others, to give
the reasons which he had so briefly touched. But at this point he
approached new ground; he entered a new field; he saw an extended
horizon of argument and fact expand before him, and it became
necessary for him to expand with his subject. The condemnation of
the President is indissolubly connected with the cause of the bank!
The first form of the resolution exhibited the connection; the
second form did also; every speech did the same; for every speech
in condemnation of the President was in justification of the bank;
every speech in justification of the President was in condemnation
of the bank; and thus the two objects were identical and reciprocal.
The attack of one was a defence of the other; the defence of one
was the attack of the other. And thus it continued for the long
protracted period of nearly one hundred days--from December 26th,
1833, to March 28th, 1834--when, for reasons not explained to
the Senate, upon a private consultation among the friends of the
resolution, the mover of it came forward to the Secretary's table,
and voluntarily made the alterations which cut the connection
between the bank and the resolution! but it stood upon the record,
by striking out every thing relative to the dismissal of Mr. Duane,
the appointment of Mr. Taney, and the removal of the deposits.
But the alteration was made in the record only. The connection
still subsisted in fact, now lives in memory, and shall live in
history. Yes, sir, said Mr. B., addressing himself to the President
of the Senate; yes, sir, the condemnation of the President was in
indissolubly connected with the cause of the bank, with the removal
of the deposits, the renewal of the charter, the restoration of the
deposits, the vindication of Mr. Duane, the rejection of Mr. Taney,
the fate of elections, the overthrow of Jackson's administration,
the fall of prices, the distress meetings, the distress memorials,
the distress committees, the distress speeches; and all the long
list of hapless measures which astonished, terrified, afflicted, and
deeply injured the country during the long and agonized protraction
of the famous panic session. All these things are connected, said
Mr. B.; and it became his duty to place a part of the proof which
established the connection before the Senate and the people.
Mr. B. then took up the appendix to the report made by the Senate's
Committee of Finance on the bank, commonly called Mr. Tyler's
report, and read extracts from instructions sent to two-and-twenty
tranches of the bank, contemporaneously with the progress of the
debate on the criminating resolutions; the object and effect of
which, and their connection with the debate in the Senate, would be
quickly seen. Premising that the bank had dispatched orders to the
same branches, in the month of August, and had curtailed $4,066,000,
and again, in the month of October, to curtail $5,825,000, and to
increase the rates of their exchange, and had expressly stated in
a circular, on the 17th of that month, that this reduction would
place the branches in a position of entire security, Mr. B. invoked
attention to the shower of orders, and their dates, which he was
about to read. He read passages from page 77 to 82, inclusive. They
were all extracts of letters from the president of the bank in
person, to the presidents of the branches; for Mr. B. said it must
be remembered, as one of the peculiar features of the bank attack
upon the country last winter, that the whole business of conducting
this curtailment, and raising exchanges, and doing whatever it
pleased with the commerce, currency, and business of the country,
was withdrawn from the board of directors, and confided to one of
those convenient committees of which the president is ex officio
member and creator; and which, in this case, was expressly absolved
from reporting to the board of directors! The letters, then, are
all from Nicholas Biddle, president, and not from Samuel Jaudon,
cashier, and are addressed direct to the presidents of the branch
banks.
When Mr. B. had finished reading these extracts, he turned to the
report made by the senator from Virginia, who sat on his right
[Mr. Tyler], where all that was said about these new measures of
hostility, and the propriety of the bank's conduct in this third
curtailment, and in its increase upon rates of exchange, was
compressed into twenty lines, and the wisdom or necessity of them
were left to be pronounced upon by the judgment of the Senate. Mr.
B. would read those twenty lines of that report:
"The whole amount of reduction ordered by the above proceedings
(curtailment ordered on 8th and 17th of October) was $5,825,906. The
same table, No. 4, exhibits the fact, that on the 23d of January a
further reduction was ordered to the amount of $3,320,000. This was
communicated to the offices in letters from the president, stating
'that the present situation of the bank, and the new measures of
hostility which are understood to be in contemplation, make it
expedient to place the institution beyond the reach of all danger;
for this purpose, I am directed to instruct your office to conduct
its business on the following footing' (appendix, No. 9, copies of
letters). The offices of Cincinnati, Louisville, Lexington, St.
Louis, Nashville, and Natchez, were further directed to confine
themselves to ninety days' bills on Baltimore, and the cities north
of it, of which they were allowed to purchase any amount their means
would justify: and to bills on New Orleans, which they were to take
only in payment of pre-existing debts to the bank and its offices;
while the office at New Orleans was directed to abstain from drawing
on the Western offices, and to make its purchases mainly on the
North Atlantic cities. The committee has thus given a full, and
somewhat elaborate detail of the various measures resorted to by the
bank, from the 13th of August, 1833; of their wisdom and necessity
the Senate will best be able to pronounce a correct judgment."
This, Mr. B. said, was the meagre and stinted manner in which the
report treated a transaction which he would show to be the most
cold-blooded, calculating, and diabolical, which the annals of any
country on this side of Asia could exhibit.
[Mr. Tyler here said there were two pages on this subject to be
found at another part of the report, and opened the report at the
place for Mr. B.]
Mr. B. said the two pages contained but few allusions to this
subject, and nothing to add to or vary what was contained in the
twenty lines he had read. He looked upon it as a great omission
in the report; the more so as the committee had been expressly
commanded to report upon the curtailments and the conduct of the
bank in the business of internal exchange. He had hoped to have had
searching inquiries and detailed statements of facts on these vital
points. He looked to the senator from Virginia [Mr. Tyler] for these
inquiries and statements. He wished him to show, by the manner in
which he would drag to light, and expose to view, the vast crimes of
the bank, that the Old Dominion was still the mother of the Gracchi;
that the Old lady was not yet forty-five; that she could breed sons!
Sons to emulate the fame of the Scipios. But he was disappointed.
The report was dumb, silent, speechless, upon the operations of the
bank during its terrible campaign of panic and pressure upon the
American people. And now he would pay one instalment of the speech
which had been promised some time ago on the subject of this report;
for there was part of that speech which was strictly applicable and
appropriate to the head he was now discussing.
Mr. B. then addressed himself to the senator from Virginia, who sat
on his right [Mr. Tyler], and requested him to supply an omission
in his report, and to inform what were those new measures of
hostility alluded to in the two-and-twenty letters of instruction
of the bank, and repeated in the report, and which were made the
pretext for this third curtailment, and these new and extraordinary
restrictions and impositions upon the purchase of bills of exchange.
[Mr. Tyler answered that it was the expected prohibition upon the
receivability of the branch bank drafts in payment of the federal
revenue.]
Mr. B. resumed: The senator is right. These drafts are mentioned
in one of the circular letters, and but one of them, as the new
measure understood to be in contemplation, and which understanding
had been made the pretext for scourging the country. He (Mr. B.)
was incapable of a theatrical artifice--a stage trick--in a grave
debate. He had no question but that the senator could answer his
question, and he knew that he had answered it truly; but he wanted
his testimony, his evidence, against the bank; he wanted proof to
tie the bank down to this answer, to this pretext, to this thin
disguise for her conduct in scourging the country. The answer is
now given; the proof is adduced; and the apprehended prohibition of
the receivability of the branch drafts stands both as the pretext
and the sole pretext for the pressure commenced in January, the
doubling the rates of exchange, breaking up exchanges between the
five Western branch banks, and concentrating the collection of bills
of exchange upon four great commercial cities.
Mr. B. then took six positions, which he enumerated, and undertook
to demonstrate to be true. They were:
1. That it was untrue, in point of fact, that there were any new
measures in contemplation, or action, to destroy the bank.
2. That it was untrue, in point of fact, that the President harbored
hostile and revengeful designs against the existence of the bank.
3. That it was untrue, in point of fact, that there was any
necessity for this third curtailment, which was ordered the last of
January.
4. That there was no excuse, justification, or apology for the
conduct of the bank in relation to domestic exchange, in doubling
its rates, breaking it up between the five Western branches turning
the collection of bills upon the principal commercial cities, and
forbidding the branch at New Orleans to purchase bills on any part
of the West.
5. That this curtailment and these exchange regulations in January
were political and revolutionary, and connected themselves with the
resolution in the Senate for the condemnation of President Jackson.
6. That the distress of the country was occasioned by the Bank of
the United States and the Senate of the United States, and not by
the removal of the deposits.
Having stated his positions, Mr. B. proceeded to demonstrate them.
1. As to the new measures to destroy the bank, Mr. B. said there
were no such measures. The one indicated, that of stopping the
receipt of the branch bank drafts in payments to the United States,
existed nowhere but in the two-and-twenty letters of instruction of
the president of the bank. There is not even an allegation that the
measure existed; the language is "in contemplation"--"understood
to be in contemplation," and upon this flimsy pretext of an
understanding of something in contemplation, and which something
never took place, a set of ruthless orders are sent out to every
quarter of the Union to make a pressure for money, and to embarrass
the domestic exchanges of the Union. Three days would have brought
an answer from Washington to Philadelphia--from the Treasury to
the bank; and let it be known that there was no intention to
stop the receipt of these drafts at that time. But it would seem
that the bank did not recognize the legitimacy of Mr. Taney's
appointment! and therefore would not condescend to correspond with
him as Secretary of the Treasury! But time gave the answer, even
if the bank would not inquire at the Treasury. Day after day, week
after week, month after month passed off, and these redoubtable
new measures never made their appearance. Why not then stop the
curtailment, and restore the exchanges to their former footing?
February, March, April, May, June, five months, one hundred and
fifty days, all passed away; the new measures never came; and yet
the pressure upon the country was kept up; the two-and-twenty orders
were continued in force. What can be thought of an institution
which, being armed by law with power over the moneyed system of the
whole country, should proceed to exercise that power to distress
that country for money upon an understanding that something was
in contemplation; and never inquire if its understanding was
correct, nor cease its operations, when each successive day, for
one hundred and fifty days, proved to it that no such thing was in
contemplation? At last, on the 27th of June, when the pressure is
to be relaxed, it is done upon another ground; not upon the ground
that the new measures had never taken effect, but because Congress
was about to rise without having done any thing for the bank. Here
is a clear confession that the allegation of new measures was a mere
pretext; and that the motive was to operate upon Congress, and force
a restoration of the deposits, and renewal of the charter.
Mr. B. said he knew all about these drafts. The President always
condemned their legality, and was for stopping the receipt of them.
Mr. Taney, when Attorney General, condemned them in 1831. Mr. B.
had applied to Mr. McLane, in 1832, to stop them; but he came to no
decision. He applied to Mr. Duane, by letter, as soon as he came
into the Treasury; but got no answer. He applied to Mr. Taney as
soon as he arrived at Washington in the fall of 1833; and Mr. Taney
decided that he would not stop them until the moneyed concerns of
the country had recovered their tranquillity and prosperity, lest
the bank should make it the pretext of new attempts to distress the
country; and thus the very thing which Mr. Taney refused to do, lest
it should be made a pretext for oppression, was falsely converted
into a pretext to do what he was determined they should have no
pretext for doing.
But Mr. B. took higher ground still; it was this: that, even if the
receipt for the drafts had been stopped in January or February,
there would have been no necessity on that account for curtailing
debts and embarrassing exchanges. This ground he sustained by
showing--1st. That the bank had at that time two millions of dollars
in Europe, lying idle, as a fund to draw bills of exchange upon;
and the mere sale of bills on this sum would have met every demand
which the rejection of the drafts could have thrown upon it. 2. That
it sent the money it raised by this curtailment to Europe, to the
amount of three and a half millions; and thereby showed that it was
not collected to meet any demand at home. 3d. That the bank had at
that time (January, 1834) the sum of $4,230,509 of public money in
hand, and therefore had United States money enough in possession to
balance any injury from rejection of drafts. 4th. That the bank had
notes enough on hand to supply the place of all the drafts, even
if they were all driven in. 5th. That it had stopped the receipt
of these branch drafts itself at the branches, except each for its
own in November, 1833, and was compelled to resume their receipt
by the energetic and just conduct of Mr. Taney, in giving transfer
drafts to be used against the branches which would not honour the
notes and drafts of the other branches. Here Mr. B. turned upon Mr.
Tyler's report, and severely arraigned it for alleging that the bank
always honored its paper at every point, and furnishing a supply of
negative testimony to prove that assertion, when there was a large
mass of positive testimony, the disinterested evidence of numerous
respectable persons, to prove the contrary, and which the committee
had not noticed.
Finally, M. B. had recourse to Mr. Biddle's own testimony to
annihilate his (Mr. Biddle's) affected alarm for the destruction of
the bank, and the injury to the country from the repulse of these
famous branch drafts from revenue payments. It was in a letter of
Mr. Biddle to Mr. Woodbury in the fall of 1834, when the receipt of
these drafts was actually stopped, and in the order which was issued
to the branches to continue to issue them as usual. Mr. B. read a
passage from this letter to show that the receipt of these drafts
was always a mere Treasury arrangement, in which the bank felt no
interest; that the refusal to receive them was an object at all
times of perfect indifference to the bank, and would not have been
even noticed by it, if Mr. Woodbury had not sent him a copy of his
circular.
Mr. B. invoked the attention of the Senate upon the fatal
contradictions which this letter of November, and these instructions
of January, 1834, exhibit. In January, the mere understanding of
a design in contemplation to exclude these drafts from revenue
payments, is a danger of such alarming magnitude, an invasion
of the rights of the bank in such a flagrant manner, a proof of
such vindictive determination to prostrate, sacrifice, and ruin
the institution, that the entire continent must be laid under
contribution to raise money to enable the institution to stand the
shock! November of the same year when the order for the rejection
actually comes, then the same measure is declared to be one of
the utmost indifference to the bank; in which it never felt any
interest; which the Treasury adopted for its own convenience; which
was always under the exclusive control of the Treasury; about which
the bank had never expressed a wish; of which it would have taken
no notice if the Secretary had not sent them a circular; and the
expediency of which it was not intended to question in the remotest
degree! Having pointed out these fatal contradictions, Mr. B. said
it was a case in which the emphatic ejaculation might well be
repeated: Oh! that mine enemy would write a book!
To put the seal of the bank's contempt on the order prohibiting
the receipt of these drafts, to show its disregard of law, and its
ability to sustain its drafts upon its own resources, and without
the advantage of government receivability, Mr. B. read the order
which the president of the bank addressed to all the branches on
the receipt of the circular which gave him information of the
rejection of these drafts. It was in these words: "This will make
no alteration whatever in your practice, with regard to issuing
or paying these drafts, which you will continue as heretofore."
What a pity, said Mr. B., that the president of the bank could not
have thought of issuing such an order as this in January, instead
of sending forth the mandate for curtailing debts, embarrassing
exchange, levying three millions and a half, alarming the country
with the cry of danger, and exhibiting President Jackson as a
vindictive tyrant, intent upon the ruin of the bank!
2. The hostility of the President to the bank. This assertion, said
Mr. B., so incontinently reiterated by the president of the bank,
is taken up and repeated by our Finance Committee, to whose report
he was now paying an instalment of those respects which he had
promised them. This assertion, so far as the bank and the committee
are concerned in making it is an assertion without evidence, and, so
far as the facts are concerned, is an assertion against evidence. If
there is any evidence of the bank or the committee to support this
assertion, in the forty pages of the report, or the three hundred
pages of the appendix, the four members of the Finance Committee
can produce it when they come to reply. That there was evidence to
contradict it, he was now ready to show. This evidence consisted
in four or five public and prominent facts, which he would now
mention, and in other circumstances, which he would show hereafter.
The first was the fact which he mentioned when this report was first
read on the 18th of December last, namely, that President Jackson
had nominated Mr. Biddle at the head of the government directors,
and thereby indicated him for the presidency of the bank, for
three successive years after this hostility was supposed to have
commenced. The second was, that the President had never ordered a
_scire facias_ to issue against the bank to vacate its charter,
which he has the right, under the twenty-third section of the
charter, to do, whenever he believed the charter to be violated. The
third, that during many years, he has never required his Secretaries
of the Treasury to stop the governmental receipt of the branch bank
drafts, although his own mind upon their illegality had been made up
for several years past. The fourth, that after all the clamor--all
the invocations upon heaven and earth against the tyranny of
removing the deposits--those deposits have never happened to be
quite entirely removed! An average of near four millions of dollars
of public money has remained in the hands of the bank for each
month, from the 1st of October, 1833, to the 1st of January, 1835,
inclusively! embracing the entire period from the time the order
was to take effect against depositing in the Bank of the United
States down to the commencement of the present year! So far are the
deposits from being quite entirely removed, as the public are led
to believe, that, at the distance of fifteen months from the time
the order for the removal began to take effect, there remained in
the hands of the bank the large sum of three millions eight hundred
and seventy-eight thousand nine hundred and fifty-one dollars and
ninety-seven cents, according to her own showing in her monthly
statements. That President Jackson is, and always has been, opposed
to the existence of the bank, is a fact as true as it is honorable
to him; that he is hostile to it, in the vindictive and revengeful
sense of the phrase, is an assertion, Mr. B. would take the liberty
to repeat, without evidence, so far as he could see into the proofs
of the committee, and against evidence, to the full extent of all
the testimony within his view. Far from indulging in revengeful
resentment against the bank, he has been patient, indulgent, and
forebearing towards it, to a degree hardly compatible with his duty
to his country, and with his constitutional supervision over the
faithful execution of the laws; to a degree which has drawn upon
him, as a deduction from his own conduct, an argument in favor of
the legality of this very branch bank currency, on the part of
this very committee, as may be seen in their report. Again, the
very circumstance on which this charge of hostility rests in the
two-and-twenty letters of Mr. Biddle, proves it to be untrue: for
the stoppage of the drafts, understood to be in contemplation, was
not in contemplation, and did not take place until the pecuniary
concerns of the country were tranquil and prosperous; and when it
did thus take place, the president of the bank declared it to have
been always the exclusive right of the government to do it, in which
the bank had no interest, and for which it cared nothing. No, said
Mr. B., the President has opposed the recharter of the bank; he has
not attacked its present charter; he has opposed its future, not its
present existence; and those who characterize this opposition to a
future charter as attacking the bank, and destroying the bank, must
admit that they advocate the hereditary right of the bank to a new
charter after the old one is out; and that they deny to a public man
the right of opposing that hereditary claim.
3. That there was no necessity for this third curtailment ordered
in January. Mr. B. said, to have a full conception of the truth of
this position, it was proper to recollect that the bank made its
first curtailment in August, when the appointment of an agent to
arrange with the deposit banks announced the fact that the Bank of
the United States was soon to cease to be the depository of public
moneys. The reduction under that first curtailment was $4,066,000.
The second was in October, and under that order for curtailment the
reduction was $5,825,000. The whole reduction, then, consequent
upon the expected and actual removal of deposits, was $9,891,000.
At the same time the whole amount of deposits on the first day of
October, the day for the removal, or rather for the cessation to
deposit in the United States Bank to take effect, was $9,868,435;
and on the first day of February, 1834, when the third curtailment
was ordered, there were still $3,066,561 of these deposits on hand,
and have remained on hand to near that amount ever since; so
that the bank in the two first curtailments, accomplished between
August and January, had actually curtailed to the whole amount,
and to the exact amount, upon precise calculation, of the amount
of deposits on hand on the first of October; and still had, on the
first of January, a fraction over three millions of the deposits
in its possession. This simple statement of sums and dates shows
that there was no necessity for ordering a further reduction of
$3,320,000 in January, as the bank had already curtailed to the
whole amount of the deposits, and $22,500 over. Nor did the bank put
the third curtailment upon that ground, but upon the new measures
in contemplation; thus leaving her advocates every where still to
attribute the pressure created by the third curtailment to the old
cause of the removal of the deposits. This simple statement of facts
is sufficient to show that this third curtailment was unnecessary.
What confirms that view, is that the bank remitted to Europe, as
fast as it was collected, the whole amount of the curtailment, and
$105,000 over; there to lie idle until she could raise the foreign
exchange to eight per cent. above par; which she had sunk to five
per cent. below par, and thus make two sets of profits out of one
operation in distressing and pressing the country.
4. No excuse for doubling the rates of exchange, breaking up the
exchange business in the West, forbidding the branch at New Orleans
to purchase a single bill on the West, and concentrating the
collection of exchange on the four great commercial cities. For
this, Mr. B. said, no apology, no excuse, no justification, was
offered by the bank. The act stood unjustified and unjustifiable.
The bank itself has shrunk from the attempt to justify it; our
committee, in that report of which the bank proclaims itself to be
proud, gives no opinion in its brief notice of a few lines upon
this transaction; but leaves it to the Senate to pronounce upon its
wisdom and necessity! The committee, Mr. B. said, had failed in
their duty to their country by the manner in which they had veiled
this affair of the exchanges in a few lines; and then blinked the
question of its enormity, by referring it to the judgment of the
Senate. He made the same remark upon the contemporaneous measure of
the third curtailment; and called on the author of the report [Mr.
Tyler] to defend his report, and to defend the conduct of the bank
now, if he could; and requested him to receive all this part of his
speech as a further instalment paid of what was due to that report
on the bank.
5. That the curtailment and exchange regulations of January were
political and revolutionary, and connect themselves with the
contemporaneous proceedings of the Senate for the condemnation of
the President. That this curtailment, and these regulations were
wanton and wicked, was a proposition, Mr. B. said, which resulted
as a logical conclusion from what had been already shown, namely,
that they were causeless and unnecessary, and done upon pretexts
which have been demonstrated to be false. That they were political
and revolutionary, and connected with the proceedings in the Senate
for the condemnation of the President, he would now prove. In the
exhibition of this proof, the first thing to be looked to is the
chronology of the events--the time at which the bank made this
third curtailment, and sent forth these exchange regulations--and
the time at which the Senate carried on the proceeding against
the President. Viewed under this aspect, the two movements are
not only connected, but identical and inseparable. The time for
the condemnation of the President covers the period from the 25th
of December, 1833, to the 28th of March, 1834; the bank movement
is included in the same period; the orders for the pressure were
issued from the 21st of January to the 1st of February, and were to
accomplish their effect in the month of March, and by the first of
April; except in one place, where, for a reason which will be shown
at a proper time, the accomplishment of the effect was protracted
till the 10th day of April. These, Mr. B. said, were the dates of
issuing the orders and accomplishing their effect; the date of the
adoption of the resolution in the bank for this movement is not
given in the report, but must have been, in the nature of things,
anterior to the issue of the orders; it must have been some days
before the issue of the orders; and was, in all probability, a few
days after the commencement of the movement in the Senate against
the President. The next point of connection, Mr. B. said, was in
the subject matter; and here it was necessary to recur to the
original form, and to the second form, of the resolution for the
condemnation of the President. In the first, or primordial form,
the resolution was expressly connected with the cause of the bank.
It was, for dismissing Mr. Duane because he would not remove the
deposits, and appointing Mr. Taney because he would remove them.
In the second form of the resolution--that form which naturalists
would call its aurelia, or chrysalis state--the phraseology of
the connection was varied, but still the connection was retained
and expressed. The names of Mr. Duane and Mr. Taney were dropped;
and the removal of the deposits upon his own responsibility, was
the alleged offence of the President. In its third and ultimate
transformation, all allusion to the bank was dropped, and the vague
term "revenue" was substituted; but it was a substitution of phrase
only, without any alteration of sense or meaning. The resolution
is the same under all its phases. It is still the bank, and Mr.
Taney, and Mr. Duane, and the removal of the deposits, which are
the things to be understood, though no longer prudent to express.
All these substantial objects are veiled, and substituted by the
empty phrase "revenue;" which might signify the force bill in South
Carolina, and the bank question in Philadelphia! The vagueness of
the expression left every gentleman to fight upon his own hook, and
to hang his vote upon any mental reservation which could be found
in his own mind! and Mr. B. would go before the intelligence of
any rational man with the declaration that the connection between
the condemnation of the President and the cause of the bank was
doubly proved; first by the words of the resolution, and next by
the omission of those words. The next point of connection, Mr. B.
said, was detected in the times, varied to suit each State, at which
the pressure under the curtailment was to reach its maximum; and
the manner in which the restrictions upon the sale and purchase of
bills of exchange was made to fall exclusively and heavily upon the
principal commercial cities, at the moment when most deeply engaged
in the purchase and shipment of produce. Thus, in New-York, where
the great charter elections were to take place during the first
week in April, the curtailment was to reach its maximum pressure
on the first day of that month. In Virginia, where the elections
are continued throughout the whole month of April, the pressure
was not to reach its climax until the tenth day of that month.
In Connecticut, where the elections occurred about the first of
April, the pressure was to have its last turn of the screw in the
month of March. And in these three instances, the only ones in
which the elections were depending, the political bearing of the
pressure was clear and undeniable. The sympathy in the Senate in
the results of those political calculations, was displayed in the
exultation which broke out on receiving the news of the elections
in Virginia, New-York, and Connecticut--an exultation which broke
out into the most extravagant rejoicings over the supposed downfall
of the administration. The careful calculation to make the pressure
and the exchange regulations fall upon the commercial cities at the
moment to injure commerce most, was also visible in the times fixed
for each. Thus, in all the western cities, Cincinnati, Louisville,
Lexington, Nashville, Pittsburg, Saint Louis, the pressure was
to reach its maximum by the first day of March; the shipments of
western produce to New Orleans being mostly over by that time; but
in New Orleans the pressure was to be continued till the first of
April, because the shipping season is protracted there till that
month, and thus the produce which left the upper States under the
depression of the pressure, was to meet the same pressure upon
its arrival in New Orleans; and thus enable the friends of the
bank to read their ruined prices of western produce on the floor
of this Senate. In Baltimore, the first of March was fixed, which
would cover the active business season there. So much, said Mr.
B., for the pressure by curtailment; now for the pressure by bills
of exchange, and he would take the case of New Orleans first.
All the branches in the West, and every where else in the Union,
were authorized to purchase bills of exchange at short dates, not
exceeding ninety days, on that emporium of the West; so as to
increase the demand for money there; at the same time the branch in
New Orleans was forbid to purchase a single bill in any part of the
valley of the Mississippi. This prohibition was for two purposes;
first, to break up exchange; and next, to make money scarce in
New Orleans; as, in default of bills of exchange, silver would be
shipped, and the shipping of silver would make a pressure upon all
the local banks. To help out this operation, Mr. B. said, it must be
well and continually remembered that the Bank of the United States
itself abducted about one million and a quarter of hard dollars from
New Orleans during the period of the pressure there; thus proving
that all her affected necessity for curtailment was a false and
wicked pretext for the cover of her own political and revolutionary
views.
The case of the western branches was next adverted to by Mr. B.
Among these, he said, the business of exchange was broken up _in
toto_. The five western branches were forbid to purchase exchange
at all; and this tyrannical order was not even veiled with the
pretext of an excuse. Upon the North Atlantic cities, Mr. B. said,
unlimited authority to all the branches was given to purchase
bills, all at short dates, under ninety days; and all intended
to become due during the shipping season, and to increase the
demand for money while the curtailment was going on, and the screw
turning from day to day to lessen the capacity of getting money,
and make it more scarce as the demand for it became urgent. Thus
were the great commercial cities, New Orleans, New-York, Baltimore,
and Philadelphia, subject to a double process of oppression; and
that at the precise season of purchasing and shipping crops, so
as to make their distress recoil upon the planters and farmers;
and all this upon the pretext of new measures understood to be in
contemplation. Time again becomes material, said Mr. B. The bank
pressure was arranged in January, to reach its climax in March and
the first of April; the debate in the Senate for the condemnation of
President Jackson, which commenced in the last days of December, was
protracted over the whole period of the bank pressure, and reached
its consummation at the same time; namely, the 28th day of March.
The two movements covered the same period of time, reached their
conclusions together, and co-operated in the effect to be produced;
and during the three months of this double movement, the Senate
chamber resounded daily with the cry that the tyranny and vengeance
of the President, and his violation of laws and constitution, had
created the whole distress, and struck the nation from a state of
Arcadian felicity--from a condition of unparalleled prosperity--to
the lowest depth of misery and ruin. And here Mr. B. obtested and
besought the Senate to consider the indifference with which the bank
treated its friends in the Senate, and the sorrowful contradiction
in which they were left to be caught. In the Senate, and all over
the country, the friends of the bank were allowed to go on with
the old tune, and run upon the wrong scent, of removal of the
deposits creating all the distress; while, in the two-and-twenty
circular letters dispatched to create this distress, it was not
the old measure alone, but the new measures contemplated, which
constituted the pretext for this very same distress. Thus, the bank
stood upon one pretext, and its friends stood upon another; and for
this mortifying contradiction, in which all its friends have become
exposed to see their mournful speeches exploded by the bank itself,
a just indignation ought now to be felt by all the friends of the
bank, who were laying the distress to the removal of the deposits,
and daily crying out that nothing could relieve the country but the
restoration of the deposits, or the recharter of the bank; while
the bank itself was writing to its branches that it was the new
measures understood to be in contemplation that was occasioning
all the mischief. Mr. B. would close this head with a remark which
ought to excite reflections which should never die away; which
should be remembered as long as national banks existed, or asked for
existence. It was this: That here was a proved case of a national
bank availing itself of its organization, and of its power, to send
secret orders, upon a false pretext, to every part of the Union,
to create distress and panic for the purpose of accomplishing an
object of its own; and then publicly and calumniously charging all
this mischief on the act of the President for the removal of the
deposits. This recollection should warn the country against ever
permitting another national bank to repeat a crime of such frightful
immorality, and such enormous injury to the business and property of
the people. Mr. B. expressed his profound regret that the report of
the bank committee was silent upon these dreadful enormities, while
so elaborate upon trifles in favor of the bank. He was indignant
at the mischief done to private property; the fall in the price of
staples, of stocks, and of all real and personal estate; at the ruin
of many merchants, and the injury of many citizens, which took place
during this hideous season of panic and pressure. He was indignant
at the bank for creating it, and still more for its criminal
audacity in charging its own conduct upon the President; and he was
mortified, profoundly mortified, that all this should have escaped
the attention of the Finance Committee, and enabled them to make a
report of which the bank, in its official organ, declares itself to
be justly proud; which it now has undergoing the usual process of
diffusion through the publication of supplemental gazettes; which
it openly avers would have insured the recharter if it had come
out in time; and to which it now looks for such recharter as soon
as President Jackson retires, and the country can be thrown into
confusion by the distractions of a presidential election.
Mr. B. now took up another head of evidence to prove the fact that
the curtailment and exchange regulations of January were political
and revolutionary, and connected with the proceedings of the
Senate for the condemnation of the President; and here he would
proceed upon evidence drawn from the bank itself. Mr. B. then read
extracts from Mr. Biddle's letters of instructions (January 30,
1834) to Joseph Johnson, Esquire, president of the branch bank at
Charleston, South Carolina. They were as follows: "With a view to
meet the coming crisis in the banking concerns of the country, and
especially to provide against new measures of hostility understood
to be in contemplation by the executive officers at Washington,
a general reduction has been ordered at the several offices, and
I have now to ask your particular attention to accomplish it." *
* * * "It is as disagreeable to us as it can be to yourselves to
impose any restrictions upon the business of the office. But you are
perfectly aware of the effort which has been making for some time
to prostrate the bank, to which this new measure to which I have
alluded will soon be added, unless the projectors become alarmed at
it. On the defeat of these attempts to destroy the bank depends, in
our deliberate judgment, not merely the pecuniary interests, but the
whole free institutions of our country; and our determination is,
by even a temporary sacrifice of profit, to place the bank entirety
beyond the reach of those who meditate its destruction."
Mr. B. would invoke the deepest attention to this letter. The
passages which he had read were not in the circulars addressed
at the same time to the other branches. It was confined to this
letter, with something similar in one more which he would presently
read. The coming crisis in the banking concerns of the country is
here shadowed forth, and secretly foretold, three months before it
happened; and with good reason, for the prophet of the evil was to
assist in fulfilling his prophecy. With this secret prediction,
made in January, is to be connected the public predictions
contemporaneously made on this floor, and continued till April,
when the explosion of some banks in this district was proclaimed as
the commencement of the general ruin which was to involve all local
banks, and especially the whole safety-fund list of banks, in one
universal catastrophe. The Senate would remember all this, and spare
him repetitions which must now be heard with pain, though uttered
with satisfaction a few months ago. The whole free institutions
of our country was the next phrase in the letter to which Mr. B.
called attention. He said that in this phrase the political designs
of the bank stood revealed; and he averred that this language was
identical with that used upon this floor. Here, then, is the secret
order of the bank, avowing that the whole free institutions of the
country are taken into its holy keeping; and that it was determined
to submit to a temporary sacrifice of profit in sustaining the bank,
which itself sustains the whole free institutions of the country!
What insolence! What audacity! But, said Mr. B., what is here meant
by free institutions, was the elections! and the true meaning of
Mr. Biddle's letter is, that the bank meant to submit to temporary
sacrifices of money to carry the elections, and put down the Jackson
administration. No other meaning can be put upon the words; and if
there could, there is further proof in reserve to nail the infamous
and wicked design upon the bank. Another passage in this letter, Mr.
B. would point out, and then proceed to a new piece of evidence.
It was the passage which said this new measure will soon be added,
unless the projectors become alarmed at it. Now, said Mr. B., take
this as you please; either that the projectors did, or did not,
become alarmed at their new measure; the fact is clear that no new
measure was put in force, and that the bank, in proceeding to act
upon that assumption, was inventing and fabricating a pretext to
justify the scourge which it was meditating against the country.
Dates are here material, said Mr. B. The first letters, founded on
these new measures, were dated the 21st of January; and spoke of
them as being understood to be in contemplation. This letter to Mr.
Johnson, which speaks hypothetically, is dated the 30th of January,
being eight days later; in which time the bank had doubtless heard
that its understanding about what was in contemplation was all
false; and to cover its retreat from having sent a falsehood to
two-and-twenty branches, it gives notice that the new measures which
were the alleged pretext of panic and pressure upon the country
were not to take place, because the projectors had got alarmed. The
beautiful idea of the projectors--that is to say, General Jackson,
for he is the person intended--becoming alarmed at interdicting the
reception of illegal drafts at the treasury, is conjured up as a
salvo for the honor of the bank, in making two-and-twenty instances
of false assertion. But the panic and pressure orders are not
countermanded. They are to go on, although the projectors do become
alarmed, and although the new measure be dropped.
Mr. B. had an extract from a second letter to read upon this
subject. It was to the president of the New Orleans branch, Mr.
W. W. Montgomery, and dated Bank of the United States the 24th of
January. He read the extract: "The state of things here is very
gloomy; and, unless Congress takes some decided step to prevent the
progress of the troubles, they may soon outgrow our control. Thus
circumstanced, our first duty is, to the institution, to preserve
it from all danger; and we are therefore anxious, for a short time
at least, to keep our business within manageable limits, and to
make some sacrifice of property to entire security. It is a moment
of great interest, and exposed to sudden changes in public affairs,
which may induce the bank to conform its policy to them; of these
dangers, should any occur, you will have early advice." When he
had read this extract, Mr. B. proceeded to comment upon it; almost
every word of it being pregnant with political and revolutionary
meaning of the plainest import. The whole extract, he said, was the
language of a politician, not of a banker, and looked to political
events to which the bank intended to conform its policy. In this
way, he commented successively upon the gloomy state of things at
the bank (for the letter is dated in the bank), and the troubles
which were to outgrow their control, unless Congress took some
decided step. These troubles, Mr. B. said, could not be the dangers
to the bank; for the bank had taken entire care of itself in the
two-and-twenty orders which it had sent out to curtail loans and
break up exchanges. Every one of these orders announced the power
of the bank, and the determination of the bank, to take care of
itself. Troubles outgrow our control! What insolence! When the bank
itself, and its confederates, were the creators and fomenters of all
these troubles, the progress of which it affected to deplore. The
next words--moment of great interest, exposed to sudden changes in
public affairs, induce the bank to conform its policy to them--Mr.
B. said, were too flagrant and too barefaced for comment. They were
equivalent to an open declaration that a revolution was momently
expected, in which Jackson's administration would be overthrown, and
the friends of the bank brought into power; and, as soon as that
happened, the bank would inform its branches of it; and would then
conform its policy to this revolution, and relieve the country from
the distress which it was then inflicting upon it. Sir, said Mr.
B., addressing the Vice-President, thirty years ago, the prophetic
vision of Mr. Jefferson foresaw this crisis; thirty years ago, he
said that this bank was an enemy to our form of government; that,
by its ramification and power, and by seizing on a critical moment
in our affairs, it could upset the government! And this is what it
would have done last winter, had it not been for one man! one man!
one single man! with whom God had vouchsafed to favor our America in
that hour of her greatest trial. That one man stood a sole obstacle
to the dread career of the bank; stood for six months as the
rampart which defended the country, the citadel upon which the bank
artillery incessantly thundered! And what was the conduct of the
Senate all this time? It was trying and condemning that man, killing
him off with a senatorial condemnation, removing the obstacle which
stood between the bank and its prey; and, in so doing, establishing
the indissoluble connection between the movement of the bank
in distressing the country, and the movement of the Senate in
condemning the President.
Mr. B. said that certainly no more proof was necessary, on this
head, to show that the designs of the bank were political
and revolutionary, intended to put down General Jackson's
administration, and to connect itself with the Senate; but he had
more proof, that of a publication under the editorial head of the
_National Gazette_, and which publication he assumed to say, was
written by the president of the bank. It was a long article of four
columns; but he would only read a paragraph. He read: "The great
contest now waging in this country is between its free institutions
and the violence of a vulgar despotism. The government is turned
into a baneful faction, and the spirit of liberty contends against
it throughout the country. On the one hand is this miserable cabal,
with all the patronage of the Executive; on the other hand, the
yet unbroken mind and heart of the country, with the Senate and
the bank;--[in reading these words, in which the bank associated
itself with the Senate, Mr. B. repeated the famous expression of
Cardinal Wolsey, in associating himself with the king: '_Ego et
rex meus_;']--the House of Representatives, hitherto the intuitive
champion of freedom, shaken by the intrigues of the kitchen,
hesitates for a time, but cannot fail before long to break its own
fetters first, and then those of the country. In that quarrel, we
predict, they who administer the bank will shrink from no proper
share which the country may assign to them. Personally, they must be
as indifferent as any of their fellow-citizens to the recharter of
the bank. But they will not suffer themselves, nor the institution
intrusted to them, to be the instruments of private wrong and public
outrage; nor will they omit any effort to rescue the institutions
of the country from being trodden under foot by a faction of
interlopers. To these profligate adventurers, whether their power is
displayed in the executive or legislative department, the directors
of the bank will, we are satisfied, never yield the thousandth part
of an inch of their own personal rights, or their own official
duties; and will continue this resistance until the country, roused
to a proper sense of its dangers and its wrongs, shall drive the
usurpers out of the high places they dishonor." This letter, said
Mr. B., discloses, in terms which admit of no explanation or denial,
the design of the bank in creating the pressure which was got up
and continued during the panic session. It was to rouse the people,
by dint of suffering, against the President and the House of
Representatives, and to overturn them both at the ensuing elections.
To do this, now stands revealed as its avowed object. The Senate
and the bank were to stand together against the President and the
House; and each to act its part for the same common object: the
bank to scourge the people for money, and charge its own scourging
upon the President; the Senate to condemn him for a violation of
the laws and constitution, and to brand him as the Cæsar, Cromwell,
Bonaparte--the tyrant, despot, usurper, whose head would be cut
off in any kingdom of Europe for such acts as he practised here.
Mr. B. said, the contemplation of the conduct of the bank, during
the panic session, was revolting and incredible. It combined every
thing to revolt and shock the moral sense. Oppression, falsehood,
calumny, revolution, the ruin of individuals, the fabrication of
false pretences, the machinations for overturning the government,
the imputation of its own crimes upon the head of the President; the
enriching its favorites with the spoils of the country, insolence
to the House of Representatives, and its affected guardianship
of the liberties of the people and the free institutions of the
country; such were the prominent features of its conduct. The
parallel of its enormity was not to be found on this side of Asia;
an example of such remorseless atrocity was only to be seen in
the conduct of the Paul Benfields and the Debi Sings who ravaged
India under the name of the Marquis of Hastings. Even what had been
casually and imperfectly brought to light, disclosed a system of
calculated enormity which required the genius of Burke to paint.
What was behind would require labors of a committee, constituted
upon parliamentary principles, not to plaster, but to probe the
wounds and ulcers of the bank; and such a committee he should hope
to see, not now, but hereafter, not in the vacation but in the
session of Congress. For he had no idea of these peripatetic and
recess committees, of which the panic session had been so prolific.
He wanted a committee, unquestionable in the legality of its own
appointment, duly qualified in a parliamentary sense for discovering
the misconduct they are set to investigate; and sitting under the
wing of the authority which can punish the insolent, compel the
refractory, and enforce the obedience which is due to its mandates.
6. The distress of the country occasioned by the Bank of the United
States and the Senate of the United States.--This, Mr. B. said,
might be an unpleasant topic to discuss in the Senate; but this
Senate, for four months of the last session, and during the whole
debate on the resolution to condemn the President, had resounded
with the cry that the President had created all the distress; and
the huge and motley mass, throughout the Union, which marched under
the _oriflamme_ of the bank, had every where repeated and reiterated
the same cry. If there was any thing unpleasant, then, in the
discussion of this topic in this place, the blame must be laid on
those who, by using that argument in support of their resolution
against the President, devolved upon the defenders of the President
the necessity of refuting it. Mr. B. would have recourse to facts
to establish his position. The first fact he would recur to was the
history of a reduction of deposits, made once before in this same
bank, so nearly identical in every particular with the reduction
which took place under the order for the late removal of deposits,
that it would require exact references to documentary evidence to
put its credibility beyond the incredulity of the senses. Not only
the amount from which the reduction was made, its progress, and
ultimate depression, corresponded so closely as each to seem to be
the history of the same transaction, but they began in the same
month, descended in the same ratio, except in the instances which
operate to the disadvantage of the late reduction, and, at the end
of fifteen months, had reached the same point. Mr. B. spoke of the
reduction of deposits which took place in the years 1818 and 1819;
and would exhibit a table to compare it with the reductions under
the late order for the removal of the deposits.
Here, said Mr. B., is a similar and parallel redaction of deposits
in this same bank, and that at a period of real pecuniary distress
to itself; a period when great frauds were discovered in its
management; when a committee examined it, and reported it guilty
of violating its charter; when its stock fell in a few weeks from
one hundred and eighty to ninety; when propositions to repeal
its charter, without the formality of a _scire facias_, were
discussed in Congress; when nearly all presses, and nearly all
voices, condemned it; and when a real necessity compelled it to
reduce its discounts and loans with more rapidity, and to a far
greater comparative extent, than that which has attended the late
reduction. Yet, what was the state of the country? Distressed, to
be sure, but no panic; no convulsion in the community; no cry of
revolution. And why this difference? If mere reduction of deposits
was to be attended with these effects at one time, why not at the
other? Sir, said Mr. B., addressing the Vice-President, the reason
is plain and obvious. The bank was unconnected with politics, in
1819; it had no desire, at that time, to govern the elections, and
to overturn an administration; it had no political confederates; it
had no president of the bank then to make war upon the President of
the United States, and to stimulate and aid a great political party
in crushing the President, who would not sign a new charter, and
in crushing the House of Representatives which stood by him. There
was no resolution then to condemn the President for a violation of
the laws and the constitution. And it was this fatal resolution,
which we now propose to expunge, which did the principal part of the
mischief. That resolution was the root of the evil; the signal for
panic meetings, panic memorials, panic deputations, panic speeches,
and panic jubilees. That resolution, exhibited in the Senate
chamber, was the scarlet mantle of the consul, hung out from his
tent; it was the signal for battle. That resolution, and the alarm
speeches which attended it, was the tocsin which started a continent
from its repose. And the condemnation which followed it, and which
left this chamber just in time to reach the New-York, Virginia,
and Connecticut elections, completed the effect upon the public
mind, and upon the politics and commerce of the country, which the
measures of the bank had been co-operating for three months to
produce. And here he must express his especial and eternal wonder
how all these movements of bank and Senate co-operating together,
if not by arrangement, at least by a most miraculous system of
accidents, to endanger the political rights, and to injure the
pecuniary interests of the people of the United States, could so far
escape the observation of the investigating committee of the Senate,
as not to draw from them the expression of one solitary opinion, the
suggestion of one single idea, the application of one single remark,
to the prejudice of the bank. Surely they ought to have touched
these scenes with something more than a few meagre, stinted, and
starved lines of faint allusion to the "new measures understood to
be in contemplation;" those new measures which were so falsely, so
wickedly fabricated to cover the preconcerted and premeditated plot
to upset the government by stimulating the people to revolution,
through the combined operations of the pecuniary pressure and
political alarms.
The table itself was entitled to the gravest recollection, not only
for the comparison which it suggested, but the fact of showing
the actual progress and history of the removal of the deposits,
and blasting the whole story of the President's hostility to the
bank. From this table it is seen that the deposits, in point of
fact, have never been all taken from the bank; that the removal,
so far as it went, was gradual and gentle; that an average of
three millions has always been there; that nearly four millions
was there on the 1st day of January last; and before these facts,
the fabricated story of the President's hostility to the bank, his
vindictiveness, and violent determination to prostrate, destroy, and
ruin the institution, must fall back upon its authors, and recoil
upon the heads of the inventors and propagators of such a groundless
imputation.
Mr. B. could give another fact to prove that it was the Senate and
the bank, and the Senate more than the bank, which produced the
distress during the last winter. It was this: that although the
curtailments of the bank were much larger both before and after
the session of Congress, yet there was no distress in the country,
except during the session, and while the alarm speeches were in a
course of delivery on this floor. Thus, the curtailment from the 1st
of August to the 1st of October, was $4,066,000; from the 1st of
October to the meeting of Congress in December, the curtailment was
$5,641,000--making $9,707,000 in four months, and no distress in the
country. During the session of Congress (seven months) there was a
curtailment of $3,428,138; and during this time the distress raged.
From the rise of Congress (last of June) to the 1st of November, a
period of four months, the curtailment was $5,270,771, and the word
distress was not heard in the country. Why? Because there were no
panic speeches. Congress had adjourned; and the bank, being left
to its own resources, could only injure individuals, but could not
alarm and convulse the community.
Mr. B. would finish this view of the conduct of the bank in creating
a wanton pressure, by giving two instances; one was the case of
the deposit bank in this city; the other was the case of a senator
opposed to the bank. He said that the branch bank at this place
had made a steady run upon the Metropolis Bank from the beginning
to the ending of the panic session. The amount of specie which it
had taken was $605,000: evidently for the purpose of blowing up
the pet bank in this district; and during all that time the branch
refused to receive the notes, or branch drafts, of any other branch,
or the notes of the mother bank; or checks upon any city north
of Baltimore. On the pet bank in Baltimore it would take checks,
because the design was to blow up that also. Here, said Mr. B.,
was a clear and flagrant case of pressure for specie for the mere
purpose of mischief, and of adding the Metropolis Bank to the list
of those who stopped payment at that time. And here Mr. B. felt
himself bound to pay his respects to the Committee on Finance, that
went to examine the bank last summer. That committee, at pages
16 and 22, of their report, brought forward an unfounded charge
against the administration for making runs upon the branches of
the United States Bank, to break them; while it had been silent
with respect to a well-founded instance of the same nature from
the Bank of the United States towards the deposit bank in this
district. Their language is: "The administrative department of the
government had manifested a spirit of decided hostility to the
bank. It had no reason to expect any indulgence or clemency at
its hands; and in this opinion, if entertained by the directors,
about which there can be but little question, subsequent events
very soon proved they were not mistaken. The President's address
to his cabinet; the tone assumed by the Secretary (Mr. Taney)
in his official communication to Congress, and the developments
subsequently made by Mr. Duane in his address to the public, all
confirm the correctness of this anticipation. The measure which
the bank had cause to fear was the accumulation by government of
large masses of notes, and the existence thereby of heavy demands
against its offices" (p. 16). "In persevering in its policy of
redeeming its notes whenever presented, and thereby continuing them
as a universal medium of exchange, in opposition to complaints on
that head from some of the branches (see copies of correspondence),
the security of the institution and the good of the country were
alike promoted. The accumulation of the notes of any one branch
for the purpose of a run upon it by any agent of the government,
when specie might be obtained at the very places of collection, in
exchange for the notes of the most distant branches, would have
been odious in the eyes of the public, and ascribed to no other
feeling than a feeling of vindictiveness" (p. 22). Upon these
extracts, Mr. B. said, it was clear that the committee had been so
unfortunate as to commit a series of mistakes, and every mistake to
the advantage of the bank, and to the prejudice of the government
and the country. First, the government is charged, for the charge
is clear, though slightly veiled, that the President of the United
States in his vindictiveness against the bank, would cause the
notes of the branches to be accumulated, and pressed upon them
to break them. Next, the committee omit to notice the very thing
actually done, in our very presence here, by the Bank of the United
States against a deposit bank, which it charges without foundation
upon the President. Then it credits the bank with the honor of
paying its notes every where, and exchanging the notes of the most
distant branches for specie, when the case of the Metropolis Bank,
here in our presence, for the whole period of the panic session,
proves the contrary; and when we have a printed document, positive
testimony from many banks, and brokers, testifying that the branches
in Baltimore and New-York, during the fall of 1833, positively
refused to redeem the notes of other branches, or to accept them
in exchange for the notes of the local banks, though taken in
payment of revenue; and that, in consequence, the notes of distant
branches fell below par, and were sold at a discount, or lent for
short periods without interest, on condition of getting specie for
them; and that this continued till Mr. Taney coerced the bank, by
means of transfer drafts, to cause the notes of her branches to be
received and honored at other branches as usual. In all this, Mr. B.
said, the report of the committee was most unfortunate; and showed
the necessity for a new committee to examine that institution; a
committee constituted upon parliamentary principles--a majority in
favor of inquiry--like that of the Post Office. The creation of such
a committee, Mr. B. said, was the more necessary, as one of the main
guards intended by the charter to be placed over the bank was not
there during the period of the pressure and panic operations; he
alluded to the government directors; the history of whose rejection,
after such long delays in the Senate to act on their nomination, is
known to the whole country.
The next instance of wanton pressure which Mr. B. would mention,
was the case of an individual, then a member of the Senate from
Pennsylvania, now minister to St. Petersburg (Mr. Wilkins). That
gentleman had informed him (Mr. B.), towards the close of the last
session, that the bank had caused a _scire facias_ to be served
in his house, to the alarm and distress of his wife, to revive a
judgment against him, whilst he was here opposing the bank.
[Mr. Ewing, of Ohio, here rose, and wished to know of Mr. B. whether
it was the Bank of the United States that had issued this _scire
facias_ against Mr. Wilkins.]
Mr. B. was very certain that it was. He recollected not only the
information, but the time and the place when and where it was given;
it was the last days of the last session, and at the window beyond
that door (pointing to the door in the corner behind him); and he
added, if there is any question to be raised, it can be settled
without sending to Russia; the _scire facias_, if issued, will be
on record in Pittsburg. Mr. B. then said, the cause of this conduct
to Mr. Wilkins can be understood when it is recollected that he had
denied on this floor the existence of the great distress which had
been depicted at Pittsburg; and the necessity that the bank was
under to push him at that time can be appreciated by seeing that two
and fifty members of Congress, as reported by the Finance Committee,
had received "accommodations" from the bank and its branches in the
same year that a senator, and a citizen of Pennsylvania, opposed to
the bank, was thus proceeded against.[10]
[10] At pages 37 and 38 of the report, the Finance Committee fully
acquits the bank of all injurious discriminations between borrowers
and applicants, of different politics.
Mr. B. returned to the resolution which it was proposed to expunge.
He said it ought to go. It was the root of the evil, the father
of the mischief, the source of the injury, the box of Pandora,
which had filled the land with calamity and consternation for six
long months. It was that resolution, far more than the conduct
of the bank, which raised the panic, sunk the price of property,
crushed many merchants, impressed the country with the terror of
an impending revolution, and frightened so many good people out of
the rational exercise of their elective franchise at the spring
elections. All these evils have now passed away. The panic has
subsided; the price of produce and property has recovered from
its depression, and risen beyond its former bounds. The country
is tranquil, prosperous, and happy. The States which had been
frightened from their propriety at the spring elections, have
regained their self-command. Now, with the total vanishing of its
effects, let the cause vanish also. Let this resolution for the
condemnation of President Jackson be expunged from the journals of
the Senate! Let it be effaced, erased, blotted out, obliterated from
the face of that page on which it should never have been written!
Would to God it could be expunged from the page of all history,
and from the memory of all mankind. Would that, so far as it is
concerned, the minds of the whole existing generation should be
dipped in the fabulous and oblivious waters of the river Lethe. But
these wishes are vain. The resolution must survive and live. History
will record it; memory will retain it; tradition will hand it down.
In the very act of expurgation it lives; for what is taken from
one page is placed on another. All atonement for the unfortunate
calamitous act of the Senate is imperfect and inadequate. Expunge,
if we can, still the only effect will be to express our solemn
convictions, by that obliteration, that such a resolution ought
never to have soiled the pages of our journal. This is all that
we can do; and this much we are bound to do, by every obligation
of justice to the President, whose name has been attainted; by
every consideration of duty to the country, whose voice demands
this reparation; by our regard to the constitution, which has been
trampled under foot; by respect to the House of Representatives,
whose function has been usurped; by self-respect, which requires
the Senate to vindicate its justice, to correct its errors, and
re-establish its high name for equity, dignity, and moderation. To
err is human; not to err is divine; to correct error is the work of
supereminent and also superhuman moral excellence, and this exalted
work now remains for the Senate to perform.
CHAPTER CXXIV.
EXPUNGING RESOLUTION: REJECTED, AND RENEWED.
The speech which had been delivered by Mr. Benton, was intended for
effect upon the country--to influence the forthcoming elections--and
not with any view to act upon the Senate, still consisting of the
same members who had passed the condemnatory resolution, and not
expected to condemn their own act. The expunging resolution was
laid upon the table, without any intention to move it again during
the present session; but, on the last day of the session, when the
Senate was crowded with business, and when there was hardly time
to finish up the indispensable legislation, the motion was called
up, and by one of its opponents--Mr. Clayton, of Delaware--the
author of the motion being under the necessity to vote for the
taking up, though expecting no good from it. The moment it was
taken up, Mr. White, of Tennessee, moved to strike out the word
"expunge," and insert "rescind, reverse, and make null and void."
This motion astonished Mr. Benton. Mr. White, besides opposing all
the proceedings against President Jackson, had been his personal and
political friend from early youth--for the more than forty years
which each of them had resided in Tennessee. He expected his aid,
and felt the danger of such a defection. Mr. Benton defended his
word as being strictly parliamentary, and the only one which was
proper to be used when an unauthorized act is to be condemned--all
other phrases admitting the legality of the act which is to be
invalidated. Mr. White justified his motion on the ground that an
expurgation of the journal would be its obliteration, which he
deemed inconsistent with the constitutional injunction to "keep"
a journal--the word "keep" being taken in its primary sense of
"holding," "preserving," instead of "writing," a journal: but the
mover of the resolution soon saw that Mr. White was not the only one
of his friends who had yielded at that point--that others had given
way--and, came about him importuning him to give up the obnoxious
word. Seeing himself almost deserted, he yielded a mortifying and
reluctant assent; and voted with others of his friends to emasculate
his own motion--to reduce it from its high tone of reprobation, to
the legal formula which applied to the reversal of a mere error in
a legal proceeding. The moment the vote was taken, Mr. Webster rose
and exulted in the victory over the hated phrase. He proclaimed the
accomplishment of every thing that he desired in relation to the
expunging resolution: the word was itself expunged; and he went on
to triumph in the victory which had been achieved, saying:
"That which made this resolution, which we have now amended,
particularly offensive, was this: it proposed to expunge our
journal. It called on us to violate, to obliterate, to erase,
our own records. It was calculated to fix a particular stigma,
a peculiar mark of reproach or disgrace, on the resolution of
March last. It was designed to distinguish it, and reprobate
it, in some especial manner. Now, sir, all this most happily,
is completely defeated by the almost unanimous vote of the
Senate which has just now been taken. The Senate has declared,
in the most emphatic manner, that its journal shall not be
tampered with. I rejoice most heartily, sir, in this decisive
result. It is now settled, by authority not likely to be shaken,
that our records are sacred. Men may change, opinions may
change, power may change, but, thanks to the firmness of the
Senate, the records of this body do not change. No instructions
from without, no dictates from principalities or powers,
nothing--nothing can be allowed to induce the Senate to falsify
its own records, to disgrace its own proceedings, or violate
the rights of its members. For one, sir, I feel that we have
fully and completely accomplished all that could be desired in
relation to this matter. The attempt to induce the Senate to
expunge its journal has failed, signally and effectually failed.
The record remains, neither blurred, blotted, nor disgraced."
And then, to secure the victory which he had gained, Mr. Webster
immediately moved to lay the amended resolution on the table, with
the peremptory declaration that he would not withdraw his motion
for friend or foe. The resolve was laid upon the table by a vote
of 27 to 20. The exulting speech of Mr. Webster restored me to
my courage--made a man of me again; and the moment the vote was
over, I rose and submitted the original resolution over again, with
the detested word in it--to stand for the second week of the next
session--with the peremptory declaration that I would never yield it
again to the solicitations of friend or foe.
CHAPTER CXXV.
BRANCH MINTS AT NEW ORLEANS, AND IN THE GOLD REGIONS OF GEORGIA AND
NORTH CAROLINA.
The bill had been reported upon the proposition of Mr. Waggaman,
senator from Louisiana, and was earnestly and perseveringly opposed
by Mr. Clay. He moved its indefinite postponement, and contended
that the mint at Philadelphia was fully competent to do all the
coinage which the country required. He denied the correctness of the
argument, that the mint at New Orleans was necessary to prevent the
transportation of the bullion to Philadelphia. It would find its way
to the great commercial marts of the country whether coined or not.
He considered it unwise and injudicious to establish these branches.
He supposed it would gratify the pride of the States of North
Carolina and Georgia to have them there; but when the objections
to the measure were so strong, he could not consent to yield his
opposition to it. He moved the indefinite postponement of the bill,
and asked the yeas and nays on his motion; which were ordered.--Mr.
Mangum regretted the opposition of the senator from Kentucky (Mr.
Clay), and thought it necessary to multiply the number of American
coins, and bring the mints to the places of production. There was
an actual loss of near four per cent. in transporting the gold
bullion from the Georgia and North Carolina mines to Philadelphia
for coinage. With respect to gratifying the pride of the Southern
States, it was a misconception; for those States had no pride to
gratify. He saw no evil in the multiplication of these mints. It
was well shown by the senator from Missouri, when the bill was
up before, that, in the commentaries on the constitution it was
understood that branches might be multiplied.--Mr. Frelinghuysen
thought that the object of having a mint was mistaken. The mint was
established for the accommodation of the government, and he thought
the present one sufficient. Why put an additional burden upon the
government because the people in the South have been so fortunate as
to find gold?--Mr. Bedford Brown of North Carolina, said the senator
from New Jersey, asked why we apply to Congress to relieve us from
the burden of transporting our bullion to be coined, when the
manufacturers of the North did not ask to be paid for transporting
their material. He said it was true the manufacturers had not asked
for this transportation assistance, but they asked for what was
much more valuable, and got it--protection. The people of the South
ask no protection; they rely on their own exertions; they ask but
a simple act of justice--for their rights, under the power granted
by the States to Congress to regulate the value of coin, and to
make the coin itself. It has the exclusive privilege of Congress,
and he wished to see it exercised in the spirit in which it was
granted; and which was to make the coinage general for the benefit
of all the sections of the Union, and not local to one section. The
remark of the gentlemen is founded in mistake. What are the facts?
Can the gold bullion of North Carolina be circulated as currency?
We all know it cannot; it is only used as bullion, and carried to
Philadelphia at a great loss. Another reason for the passage of
the bill, and one which Mr. Brown hoped would not be less regarded
by senators on the other side of the House, was that the measure
would be auxiliary to the restoration of the metallic currency, and
bring the government back to that currency which was the only one
contemplated by the constitution.
Mr. Benton took the high ground of constitutional right to the
establishment of these branches, and as many more as the interests
of the States required. He referred to the Federalist, No. 44,
written by Mr. Madison, that in surrendering the coining power to
the federal government, the States did not surrender their right
to have local mints. He read the passage from the number which
he mentioned, and which was the exposition of the clause in the
constitution relative to the coining power. It was express, and
clear in the assertion, that the States were not to be put to the
expense and trouble of sending their bullion and foreign coins to
a central mint to be recoined; but that, as many local mints would
be established under the authority of the general government as
should be necessary. Upon this exposition of the meaning of the
constitution, Mr. B. said, the States accepted the constitution; and
it would be a fraud on them now to deny branches where they were
needed. He referred to the gold mines in North Carolina, and the
delay with which that State accepted the constitution, and inquired
whether she would have accepted it at all, without an amendment to
secure her rights, if she could have foreseen the great discoveries
of gold within her limits, and the present opposition to granting
her a local mint. That State, through her legislature, had applied
for a branch of the mint years ago, and all that was said in her
favor was equally applicable to Georgia. Mr. B. said, the reasons
in the Federalist for branch mints were infinitely stronger now
than when Mr. Madison wrote in 1788. Then, the Southern gold region
was unknown, and the acquisition of Louisiana not dreamed of. New
Orleans, and the South, now require branch mints, and claim the
execution of the constitution as expounded by Mr. Madison.
Mr. B. claimed the right to the establishment of these branches
as an act of justice to the people of the South and the West.
Philadelphia could coin, but not diffuse the coin among them. Money
was attracted to Philadelphia from the South and West, but not
returned back again to those regions. Local mints alone could supply
them. France had ten branch mints; Mexico had eight; the United
States not one. The establishment of branches was indispensable to
the diffusion of a hard-money currency, especially gold; and every
friend to that currency should promote the establishment of branches.
Mr. B. said, there were six hundred machines at work coining paper
money--he alluded to the six hundred banks in the United States; and
only one machine at work coining gold and silver. He believed there
ought to be five or six branch mints in the United States; that is,
two or three more than provided for in this bill; one at Charleston,
South Carolina, one at Norfolk or Richmond, Virginia, and one
at New-York or Boston. The United States Bank had twenty-four
branches; give the United States Mint five or six branches; and the
name of that bank would cease to be urged upon us. Nobody would want
her paper when they could get gold.
Mr. B. scouted the idea of expense on such an object as this. The
expense was but inconsiderable in itself, and was nothing compared
to its object. For the object was to supply the country with a safe
currency,--with a constitutional currency; and currency was a thing
which concerned every citizen. It was a point at which the action
of government reached every human being, and bore directly upon
his property, upon his labor, and upon his daily bread. The States
had a good currency when this federal government was formed; it
was gold and silver for common use, and large bank notes for large
operations. Now the whole land is infested with a vile currency
of small paper: and every citizen was more or less cheated. He
himself had but two bank notes in the world, and they were both
counterfeits, on the United States Bank, with St. Andrew's cross
drawn through their faces. He used nothing but gold and silver since
the gold bill passed.
In reply to Mr. Frelinghuysen, who asked where was the gold
currency? He would answer, far the greatest part of it was in the
vaults of the Bank of the United States, and its branches, to be
sold or shipped to Europe; or at all events, to be kept out of
circulation, to enable the friends of the bank to ask, where is the
gold currency? and then call the gold bill a humbug. But he would
tell the gentleman where a part of the gold was; it was in the
Metropolis Bank in this city, and subject to his check to the full
amount of his pay and mileage. Yes, said Mr. B., now, for the first
time, Congress is paid in gold, and it is every member's own fault
if he does not draw it and use it.
Mr. B. said this question concerned the South and West, and he would
hope to see the representatives from these two sections united in
support of the bill. He saw with pleasure, that several gentlemen
from the north of the Potomac, and from New England were disposed
to support it. Their help was most acceptable on a subject so near
and so dear to the South and West. Every inhabitant of the South
and West was personally interested in the success of the bill.
From New Orleans, the new coin would ascend the Mississippi River,
scatter itself all along its banks, fill all its towns, cities,
and villages, branch off into the interior of the country, ascend
all the tributary streams, and replenish and refresh the whole face
of the land. From the Southern mints, the new gold would come into
the West, and especially into Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, by the
stock drivers, being to them a safe and easy remittance, and to the
country a noble accession to their currency; enabling them quickly
to dispense with their small notes.
It was asked, Mr. B. said, what loss has the Western People now
sustained for want of gold? He would answer that the whole West was
full of counterfeit paper; that counterfeit paper formed a large
part of the actual circulation, especially of the United States
branch drafts; that sooner or later all these counterfeits must stop
in somebody's hands; and they would be sure to stop in the hands
of those who were least able to bear the loss. Every trader down
the Mississippi, Mr. B. said, was more or less imposed upon with
counterfeit paper; some lost nearly their whole cargoes. Now if
there was a branch mint in New Orleans every one would get new gold.
He could get it direct from the mint; or have his gold examined
there before he received it. Mr. B. said that one great object of
establishing branch mints was to prevent and detect counterfeiting.
Such establishments would detect every counterfeit piece, and enable
every body to have recourse to a prompt and safe standard for
ascertaining what was genuine and what not. This was a great reason
for the ten branches in France.
Mr. B. was against the paper system. He was against all small notes.
He was against all paper currency for common use; and being against
it he was in favor of the measures that would put down small paper
and put up gold and silver. The branching of the mint was one of the
indispensable measures for accomplishing that object, and therefore
he was for it. He was in favor of practical measures. Speeches alone
would not do. A gentleman might make a fine speech in favor of hard
money; but unless he gave votes in favor of measures to accomplish
it, the speech would be inoperative. Mr. B. held the French currency
to be the best in the world, where there was no bank note under 500
francs (near $100), and where, in consequence, there was a gold and
silver circulation of upwards of five hundred millions of dollars;
a currency which had lately stood two revolutions and one conquest,
without the least fluctuation in its quantity or value.
New Orleans, he said, occupied the most felicitous point in America
for a mint. It was at the point of reception and diffusion. The
specie of Mexico came there; and when there, it ascended the river
into the whole West. It was the market city--the emporium of the
Great Valley; and from that point every exporter of produce could
receive his supply and bring it home. Mr. B. reiterated that this
was a question of currency; of hard money against paper; of gold
against United States Bank notes. It was a struggle with the paper
system. He said the gold bill was one step; the branching the mint
would be the second step; the suppression of all notes under twenty
dollars would be the third step towards getting a gold and silver
currency. The States could do much towards putting down small notes;
the federal government could put them down, by putting the banks
which issued them under the _ban_; or, what was better, and best of
all, returning to the act of 1789, which enacted that the revenues
of the federal government should be received in gold and silver coin
only.
* * * * *
The question was then put on Mr. Clay's motion for indefinite
postponement--and failed--16 yeas to 27 nays. Further strenuous
exertion was made to defeat the bill. Mr. Clay moved to postpone
it to the ensuing week--which, being near the end of the session,
would be a delay which might be fatal to it; but it came near
passing--20 yeas to 22 nays. A motion was made by Mr. Clay to
recommit the bill to the Committee of Finance--a motion equivalent
to its abandonment for the session, which failed. Mr. Calhoun
gave the bill an earnest support. He said it was a question of
magnitude, and of vital importance to the South, and deserved the
most serious consideration. Yet, he was sorry to say, he had seen
more persevering opposition made to it than to any other measure for
the last two years. It was a sectional question, but one intended
to extend equal benefits to all the States--Mr. Clay said, if
there had been resistance on one side, there had also been a most
unparalleled, and he must say, unbounded perseverance on the other.
He would repeat that in whatever light he had received the proposed
measure, he had been unable to come to any other conclusion than
this, that it was, in his humble judgment, delusive, uncalled for,
calculated to deceive the people--to hold out ideas which would
never be realized;--and as utterly unworthy of the consideration
of the Senate.--Mr. Calhoun was astonished at the warmth of Mr.
Clay on this question--a question as much sectional in one point of
view, as a measure could be, but national in another. Let senators
say what they would, this government was bound, in his opinion, to
establish the mints which had been asked for. Finally, the question
was taken, and carried--24 to 19--the yeas being: Messrs. Benton,
Bibb, Brown, Calhoun, Cuthbert, Hendricks, Kane, King of Alabama,
King of Georgia, Leigh, Linn, Mangum, Morris, Porter, Preston,
Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Tallmadge, Tyler, Waggaman, Webster,
White, Wright. The nays were: Messrs. Bell of New Hampshire, Black
of Mississippi, Buchanan, Clay, Clayton, Ewing, Frelinghuysen,
Goldsborough, Isaac Hill, Knight, McKean, Naudain, Robbins,
Silsbee, Smith, Southard, Swift, Tipton, Tomlinson. The bill was
immediately carried to the House of Representatives; and there being
a large majority there in favor of the hard money policy of the
administration, it was taken up and acted upon, although so near the
end of the session; and easily passed.
CHAPTER CXXVI.
REGULATION DEPOSIT BILL.
The President had recommended to Congress the passage of an
act to regulate the custody of the public moneys in the local
banks, intrusted with their keeping. It was a renewal of the same
recommendation made at the time of their removal, and in conformity
to which the House of Representatives had passed the bill which had
been defeated in the Senate. The same bill was sent up to the Senate
again, and passed by a large majority: twenty-eight to twelve. The
yeas were: Messrs. Benton, Black of Mississippi, Calhoun, Clayton
of Delaware, Cuthbert of Georgia, Ewing of Ohio, Frelinghuysen,
Goldsborough, Kent, Knight, Leigh, Linn, McKean, Mangum, Moore,
Alexander Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Robinson, Smith,
Southard, Swift, Tomlinson, Tyler, Waggaman, Webster, Wright. The
nays were: Messrs. Bibb, Brown, Buchanan, Hendricks, Hill, Kane,
King of Alabama, Morris of Ohio, Poindexter, Ruggles, Shepley,
Tallmadge. And thus, the complaint ceased which had so long
prevailed against the President, on the alleged illegality of the
State bank custody of the public moneys. These banks were taken
as a necessity, and as a half-way house between the Bank of the
United States and an Independent treasury. After a brief sojourn
in the intermediate abode, they passed on to the Independent
treasury--there, it is hoped, to remain for ever.
CHAPTER CXXVII.
DEFEAT OF THE DEFENCE APPROPRIATION, AND LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION
BILL.
The President in his annual message at the commencement had
communicated to Congress the state of our relations with France, and
especially the continued failure to pay the indemnities stipulated
by the treaty of 1831; and had recommended to Congress measures of
reprisal against the commerce of France. The recommendation, in the
House of Representatives, was referred to the committee of foreign
relations, which through their chairman, Mr. Cambreling, made a
report adverse to immediate resort to reprisals, and recommending
contingent preparation to meet any emergency which should grow
out of a continued refusal on the part of France to comply with
her treaty, and make the stipulated payment. In conformity with
this last recommendation, and at the suggestion of Mr. John Quincy
Adams, it was resolved unanimously upon yeas and nays, or rather
upon yeas, their being no nays, and 212 members voting--"That in
the opinion of this House, the treaty of the 4th of July 1831 with
France be maintained, and its execution insisted upon:" and, with
the like unanimity it was resolved--"That preparations ought to
be made to meet any emergency growing out of our relations with
France." These two resolutions showed the temper of the House,
and that it intended to vindicate the rights of our citizens, if
necessary at the expense of war. Accordingly an appropriation of
three millions of dollars was inserted by the House in the general
fortification bill to enable the President to make such military
and naval preparations during the recess of Congress as the state
of our relations with France might require. This appropriation was
zealously voted by the House: in the Senate it met with no favor;
and was rejected. The House insisted on its appropriation: the
Senate "adhered" to its vote: and that brought the disagreement to
a committee of conference, proposed by the House. In the mean time
Congress was in the expiring moments of its session; and eventually
the whole appropriation for contingent preparation, and the whole
fortification bill, was lost by the termination of the Congress.
It was a most serious loss; and it became a question which House
was responsible for such a misfortune--regrettable at all times,
but particularly so in the face of our relations with France. The
starting point in the road which led to this loss was the motion
made by Mr. Webster to "adhere"--a harsh motion, and more calculated
to estrange than to unite the two Houses. Mr. King, of Alabama,
immediately took up the motion in that sense; and said:
"He very much regretted that the senator from Massachusetts
should have made such a motion; it had seldom or never been
resorted to until other and more gentle means had failed to
produce a unity of action between the two Houses. At this
stage of the proceeding it would be considered (and justly)
harsh in its character; and, he had no doubt, if sanctioned
by the Senate, would greatly exasperate the other House, and
probably endanger the passage of the bill altogether. Are
gentlemen, said Mr. K., prepared for this? Will they, at this
particular juncture, in the present condition of things, take
upon themselves such a fearful responsibility as the rejection
of this bill might involve? For himself, if your forts are to
be left unarmed, your ships unrepaired and out of commission,
and your whole sea-coast exposed without defences of any kind,
the responsibility should not rest upon his shoulders. It is
as well, said Mr. K., to speak plainly on this subject. Our
position with regard to France was known to all who heard him
to be of such a character as would not, in his opinion, justify
prudent men, men who look to the preservation of the rights and
the honor of the nation, in withholding the means, the most
ample means, to maintain those rights and preserve unimpaired
that honor.
"Mr. K. said, while he was free to confess that the proposed
appropriation was not in its terms altogether as specific as
he could have wished it, he could not view it in the light
which had, or seemed to have, so much alarmed the senator from
Massachusetts, and others who had spoken on the subject. We are
told, said Mr. K., that the adoption of the amendment made by
the House will prostrate the fortress of the constitution and
bury under its ruins the liberties of the people. He had too
long been accustomed to the course of debate here, particularly
in times of high party excitement, to pay much attention to
bold assertion or violent denunciation. In what, he asked, does
it violate the constitution? Does it give to the President the
power of declaring war? You have been told, and told truly, by
my friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. Buchanan], that this power
alone belongs to Congress; nor does this bill in the slightest
degree impair it. Does it authorize the raising of armies? No,
not one man can be enlisted beyond the number required to fill
up the ranks of your little army; and whether you pass this
amendment or not, that power is already possessed under existing
laws. Is it, said Mr. K., even unprecedented and unusual? A
little attention to the history of our government must satisfy
all who heard him, that it is neither the one nor the other.
"During the whole period of the administrations of General
Washington and the elder Adams, all appropriations were
general, applying a gross sum for the expenditure of the
different departments of the government, under the direction
of the President; and it was not till Mr. Jefferson came into
office, that, at his recommendation, specific appropriations
were adopted. Was the constitution violated, broken down,
and destroyed, under the administration of the father of
his country? Or did the fortress to which the senator from
Massachusetts, on this occasion, clings so fondly, tumble into
ruin, when millions were placed in the hands of Mr. Jefferson
himself, to be disposed of for a designated object, but, in
every thing else, subject to his unlimited discretion? No, said
Mr. K., our liberties remained unimpaired; and, he trusted in
God, would so remain for centuries yet to come. He would not
urge his confidence in the distinguished individual at the head
of the government as a reason why this amendment should pass;
he was in favor of limiting executive discretion as far as
practicable; but circumstances may present themselves, causes
may exist, which would place it out of the power of Congress
promptly to meet the emergency. To whom, then, should they look?
Surely to the head of the government--to the man selected by the
people to guard their rights and protect their interests. He
put it to senators to say whether, in a possible contingency,
which all would understand, our forts should not be armed, or
ships put in commission? None will venture to gainsay it. Yet
the extent to which such armament should be carried must, from
the very necessity of the case, be left to the sound discretion
of the President. From the position he occupies, no one can be
so competent to form a correct judgment, and he could not, if
he would, apply the money to other objects than the defences
of the country. Mr. K. said he would not, at this last moment
of the session, when time was so very precious, further detain
the Senate than to express his deep apprehension, his alarm,
lest this most important bill should be lost by this conflict
between the two Houses. He would beg of senators to reflect on
the disastrous consequences which might ensue. He would again
entreat the senator from Massachusetts to withdraw his motion,
and ask a conference, and thus leave some reasonable ground for
hope of ultimate agreement on this most important subject."
The motion was persisted in, and the "adherence" carried by a vote
of twenty-nine to seventeen. The yeas and nays were:
YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Ewing,
Frelinghuysen, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Kent, Knight, Leigh,
Mangum, Moore, Naudain, Poindexter, Porter, Prentiss, Preston,
Robbins, Silsbee, Smith, Southard, Swift, Tomlinson, Tyler,
Waggaman, Webster, White.--29.
NAYS.--Messrs. Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Grundy, Hill,
Kane, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, McKean, Ruggles,
Robinson, Shepley, Tallmadge, Tipton, Wright.--17.
Upon being notified of this vote, the House took the conciliatory
step of "insisting;" and asked a "conference." The Senate agreed
to the request--appointed a committee on its part, which was met
by another on the part of the House, which could not agree about
the three millions; and while engaged in these attempts at concord,
the existence of the Congress terminated. It was after midnight;
the morning of the fourth of March had commenced; many members said
their power was at an end--others that it would continue till twelve
o'clock, noon; for it was that hour, on the 3d of March, 1789, that
the first Congress commenced its existence, and that day should
only be counted half, and the half of the next day taken to make
out two complete years for each Congress. To this it was answered
that, in law, there are no fractions of a day; that the whole day
counted in a legal transaction: in the birth of a measure or of a
man. The first day that the first Congress sat was the day of its
birth, without looking to the hour at which it formed a quorum; the
day a man was born was the day of his birth, and he counted from
the beginning of the day, and the whole day, and not from the hour
and minute at which he entered the world--a rule which would rob all
the afternoon-born children of more or less of the day on which they
were born, and postpone their majority until the day after their
birthday. While these disquisitions were going on, many members were
going off; and the Senate hearing nothing from the House, dispatched
a message to it, on the motion of Mr. Webster, "respectfully to
remind it" of the disagreement on the fortification bill; on
receiving which message, Mr. Cambreleng, chairman of conference, on
the part of the House, stood up and said:
"That the committee of conference of the two Houses had met,
and had concurred in an amendment which was very unsatisfactory
to him. It proposed an unconditional appropriation of three
hundred thousand dollars for arming the fortifications, and
five hundred thousand dollars for repairs of and equipping our
vessels of war--an amount totally inadequate, if it should be
required, and more than was necessary, if it should not be. When
he came into the House from the conference, they were calling
the ayes and noes on the resolution to pay the compensation due
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Letcher). He voted on that
resolution, but there was no quorum voting. On a subsequent
proposition to adjourn, the ayes and noes were called, and again
there was no quorum voting. Under such circumstances, and at two
o'clock in the morning, he did not feel authorized to present to
the House an appropriation of eight hundred thousand dollars.
He regretted the loss, not only of the appropriation for the
defence of the country, but of the whole fortification bill;
but let the responsibility fall where it ought--on the Senate
of the United States. The House had discharged its duty to the
country. It had sent the fortification bill to the Senate, with
an additional appropriation, entirely for the defence of the
country. The Senate had rejected that appropriation, without
even deigning to propose any amendment whatever, either in form
or amount. The House sent it a second time; and a second time
no amendment was proposed, but the reverse; the Senate adhered,
without condescending to ask even a conference. Had that body
asked a conference, in the first instance, some provision
would have been made for defence, and the fortification bill
would have been saved before the hour arrived which terminated
the existence of the present House of Representatives. As it
was, the committees did not concur till this House had ceased
to exist--the ayes and noes had been twice taken without a
quorum--the bill was evidently lost, and the Senate must take
the responsibility of leaving the country defenceless. He could
not feel authorized to report the bill to the House, situated
as it was, and at this hour in the morning; but if any other
member of the committee of conference proposed to do it, he
should make no objection, though he believed such a proposition
utterly ineffectual at this hour; for no member could, at this
hour in the morning, be compelled to vote."
Many members said the time was out, and that there had been no
quorum for two hours. A count was had, and a quorum not found.
The members were requested to pass through tellers, and did so:
only eight-two present. Mr. John Y. Mason informed the House that
the Senate had adjourned; then the House did the same--making the
adjournment in due form, after a vote of thanks to the speaker, and
hearing his parting address in return.
CHAPTER CXXVIII.
DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUE.
Propositions for distributing the public land revenue among the
States, had become common, to be succeeded by others to distribute
the lands themselves, and finally the Custom House revenue, as well
as that of the lands. The progress of distribution was natural
and inevitable in that direction, when once begun. Mr. Calhoun
and his friends had opposed these proposed distributions as
unconstitutional, as well as demoralizing but after his junction
with Mr. Clay, he began to favor them; but still with the salvo of
an amendment to the constitution. With this view, in the latter part
of the session of 1835, he moved a resolution of inquiry into the
extent of executive patronage, the increase of public expenditure,
and the increase of the number of persons employed or fed by the
federal government; and he asked for a select committee of six
to report upon his resolution. Both motions were granted by the
Senate; and, according to parliamentary law, and the principles
of fair legislation (which always accord a committee favorable to
the object proposed), the members of the committee were appointed
upon the selection of the six which he wished. They were: Messrs.
Webster, Southard, Bibb, King of Georgia, and Benton--which, with
himself, would make six. Mr. Webster declined, and Mr. Poindexter
was appointed in his place; Mr. Southard did not act; and the
committee, consisting of five, stood, politically, three against
the administration--two for it; and was thus a frustration of Mr.
Calhoun's plan of having an impartial committee, taken equally from
the three political parties. He had proposed the committee upon the
basis of three political parties in the Senate, desiring to have two
members from each party; giving as a reason for that desire, that he
wished to go into the examination of the important inquiry proposed,
with a committee free from all prejudice, and calculated to give it
an impartial consideration. This division into three parties was
not to the taste of all the members; and hence the refusal of some
to serve upon it. It was the first time that the existence of three
parties was proposed to be made the basis of senatorial action, and
did not succeed. The actual committee classed democratically, but
with the majority opposed to the administration.
At the first meeting a sub-committee of three was formed--Mr.
Calhoun of course at its head--to draw up a report for the
consideration of the full committee: and of this sub-committee a
majority was against the administration. Very soon the committee
was assembled to hear the report read. I was surprised at it--both
at the quickness of the preparation and the character of the paper.
It was an elaborate, ingenious and plausible attack upon the
administration, accusing it of having doubled the expenses of the
government--of having doubled the number of persons employed or
supported by it--of holding the public moneys in illegal custody--of
exercising a patronage tending to corruption--the whole the result
of an over full treasury, which there was no way to deplete but by
a distribution of the surplus revenue among the States; for which
purpose an amendment of the constitution would be necessary; and
was proposed. Mr. Benton heard the reading in silence; and when
finished declared his dissent to it: said he should make no minority
report--a kind of reports which he always disliked; but when read
in the Senate he should rise in his place and oppose it. Mr. King,
of Georgia, sided with Mr. Benton; and thus the report went in. Mr.
Calhoun read it himself at the secretary's table, and moved its
printing. Mr. Poindexter moved an extra number of 30,000 copies;
and spoke at length in support of his motion, and in favor of the
report. Mr. King, of Georgia, followed him against the report: and
Mr. Benton followed Mr. King on the same side. On the subject of
the increase of expenditures doubled within the time mentioned, he
showed that it came from extraordinary objects, not belonging to
the expenses of the government, but temporary in their nature and
transient in their existence; namely, the expenses of removing the
Indians, the Indian war upon the Mississippi, and the pension act of
1832; which carried up the revolutionary pensions from $355,000 per
annum to $3,500,000--just tenfold--and by an act which the friends
of the administration opposed. He showed also that the increase in
the number of persons employed, or supported by the government, came
in a great degree from the same measure which carried up the number
of pensioners from 17,000 to 40,000. On the subject of the illegal
custody of the public moneys, it was shown, in the first place, that
the custody was not illegal; and, in the second, that the deposit
regulation bill had been defeated in the Senate by the opponents
of the administration. Having vindicated the administration from
the charge of extravagance, and the illegal custody of the public
moneys, Mr. Benton came to the main part of the report--the surplus
in the treasury, its distribution for eight years among the States
(just the period to cover two presidential elections); and the
proposed amendment to the constitution to permit that distribution
to be made: and here it is right that the report should be allowed
to speak for itself. Having assumed the annual surplus to be nine
millions for eight years--until the compromise of 1833 worked out
its problem;--that this surplus was inevitable, and that there was
no legitimate object of federal care on which it could be expended,
the report brought out distribution as the only practical depletion
of the treasury, and the only remedy for the corruptions which an
exuberant treasury engendered. It proceeded thus:
"But if no subject of expenditure can be selected on which the
surplus can be safely expended, and if neither the revenue nor
expenditure can, under existing circumstances, be reduced, the
next inquiry is, what is to be done with the surplus, which, as
has been shown, will probably equal, on an average, for the next
eight years, the sum of $9,000,000 beyond the just wants of the
government? A surplus of which, unless some safe disposition
can be made, all other means of reducing the patronage of the
Executive must prove ineffectual.
"Your committee are deeply sensible of the great difficulty
of finding any satisfactory solution of this question; but
believing that the very existence of our institutions, and with
them the liberty of the country, may depend on the success of
their investigation, they have carefully explored the whole
ground, and the result of their inquiry is, that but one means
has occurred to them holding out any reasonable prospect of
success. A few preliminary remarks will be necessary to explain
their views.
"Amidst all the difficulties of our situation, there is one
consolation: that the danger from Executive patronage, as far
as it depends on excess of revenue, must be temporary. Assuming
that the act of 2d of March, 1833, will be left undisturbed, by
its provisions the income, after the year 1842, is to be reduced
to the economical wants of the government. The government,
then, is in a state of passage from one where the revenue is
excessive, to another in which, at a fixed and no distant
period, it will be reduced to its proper limits. The difficulty
in the intermediate time is, that the revenue cannot be brought
down to the expenditure, nor the expenditure, without great
danger, raised to the revenue, for reasons already explained.
How is this difficulty to be overcome? It might seem that the
simple and natural means would be, to vest the surplus in some
safe and profitable stock, to accumulate for future use; but
the difficulty in such a course will, on examination, be found
insuperable.
"At the very commencement, in selecting the stock, there would
be great, if not insurmountable, difficulties. No one would
think of investing the surplus in bank stock, against which
there are so many and such decisive reasons that it is not
deemed necessary to state them; nor would the objections be less
decisive against vesting in the stock of the States, which would
create the dangerous relation of debtor and creditor between
the government and the members of the Union. But suppose this
difficulty surmounted, and that some stock perfectly safe was
selected, there would still remain another that could not be
surmounted. There cannot be found a stock, with an interest in
its favor sufficiently strong to compete with the interests
which, with a large surplus revenue, will be ever found in
favor of expenditures. It must be perfectly obvious to all who
have the least experience, or who will duly reflect on the
subject, that were a fund selected in which to vest the surplus
revenue for future use, there would be found in practice a
constant conflict between the interest in favor of some local
or favorite scheme of expenditure, and that in favor of the
stock. Nor can it be less obvious that, in point of fact, the
former would prove far stronger than the latter. The result is
obvious. The surplus, be it ever so great, would be absorbed by
appropriations, instead of being vested in the stock; and the
scheme, of course, would, in practice, prove an abortion; which
brings us back to the original inquiry, how is the surplus to
be disposed of until the excess shall be reduced to the just and
economical wants of the government?
"After bestowing on this question, on the successful solution
of which so much depends, the most deliberate attention, your
committee, as they have already stated, can advise but one means
by which it can be effected; and that is, an amendment of the
constitution, authorizing the temporary distribution of the
surplus revenue among the States till the year 1843; when, as
has been shown, the income and expenditure will be equalized.
"Your committee are fully aware of the many and fatal objections
to the distribution of the surplus revenue among the States,
considered as a part of the ordinary and regular system of
this government. They admit them to be as great as can well be
imagined. The proposition itself, that the government should
collect money for the purpose of such distribution, or should
distribute a surplus for the purpose of perpetuating taxes,
is too absurd to require refutation; and yet what would be
when applied, as supposed, so absurd and pernicious, is, in
the opinion of your committee, in the present extraordinary
and deeply disordered state of our affairs, not only useful
and salutary, but indispensable to the restoration of the body
politic to a sound condition; just as some potent medicine,
which it would be dangerous and absurd to prescribe to the
healthy, may, to the diseased, be the only means of arresting
the hand of death. Distribution, as proposed, is not for the
preposterous and dangerous purpose of raising a revenue for
distribution, or of distributing the surplus as a means of
perpetuating a system of duties or taxes; but a temporary
measure to dispose of an unavoidable surplus while the revenue
is in the course of reduction, and which cannot be otherwise
disposed of, without greatly aggravating a disease that
threatens the most dangerous consequences; and which holds out
hope, not only of arresting its further progress, but also of
restoring the body politic to a state of health and vigor. The
truth of this assertion a few observations will suffice to
illustrate.
"It must be obvious, on a little reflection, that the effects
of distribution of the surplus would be to place the interests
of the States, on all questions of expenditure, in opposition
to expenditure, as every reduction of expense would necessarily
increase the sum to be distributed among the States. The effect
of this would be convert them, through their interests, into
faithful and vigilant sentinels on the side of economy and
accountability in the expenditures of this government; and would
thus powerfully tend to restore the government, in its fiscal
action, to the plain and honest simplicity of former days.
"It may, perhaps, be thought by some that the power which the
distribution among the States would bring to bear against
the expenditure and its consequent tendency to retrench the
disbursements of the government, would be so strong, as not
only to curtail useless or improper expenditure, but also
the useful and necessary. Such, undoubtedly, would be the
consequence, if the process were too long continued; but in the
present irregular and excessive action of the system, when its
centripetal force threatens to concentrate all its powers in a
single department, the fear that the action of this government
will be too much reduced by the measure under consideration, in
the short period to which it is proposed to limit its operation,
is without just foundation. On the contrary, if the proposed
measure should be applied in the present diseased state of the
government, its effect would be like that of some powerful
alterative medicine operating just long enough to change the
present morbid action, but not sufficiently long to superinduce
another of an opposite character.
"But it may be objected that, though the distribution might
reduce all useless expenditure, it would at the same time give
additional power to the interest in favor of taxation. It is
not denied that such would be its tendency; and, if the danger
from increased duties or taxes was at this time as great as that
from a surplus revenue, the objection would be fatal; but it is
confidently believed that such is not the case. On the contrary,
in proposing the measure, it is assumed that the act of March
2, 1833, will remain undisturbed. It is on the strength of this
assumption that the measure is proposed, and, as it is believed,
safely proposed.
"It may, however, be said that the distribution may create,
on the part of the States, an appetite in its favor which
may ultimately lead to its adoption as a permanent measure.
It may indeed tend to excite such an appetite, short as is
the period proposed for its operation; but it is obvious
that this danger is far more than countervailed by the fact
that the proposed amendment to the constitution to authorize
the distribution would place the power beyond the reach of
legislative construction; and thus effectually prevent the
possibility of its adoption as a permanent measure; as it
cannot be conceived that three-fourths of the States will ever
assent to an amendment of the constitution to authorize a
distribution, except as an extraordinary measure, applicable to
some extraordinary condition of the country like the present.
"Giving, however, to these and other objections which may be
urged, all the force that can be claimed for them, it must be
remembered the question is not whether the measure proposed is
or is not liable to this or that objection, but whether any
other less objectionable can be devised; or rather, whether
there is any other, which promises the least prospect of
relief, that can be applied. Let not the delusion prevail that
the disease, after running through its natural course, will
terminate of itself, without fatal consequences. Experience
is opposed to such anticipations. Many and striking are the
examples of free States perishing under that excess of
patronage which now afflicts ours. It may, in fact, be said
with truth, that all or nearly all diseases which afflict free
governments may be traced directly or indirectly to excess of
revenue and expenditure; the effect of which is to rally around
the government a powerful, corrupt, and subservient corps--a
corps ever obedient to its will, and ready to sustain it in
every measure, whether right or wrong; and which, if the cause
of the disease be not eradicated, must ultimately render the
government stronger than the people.
"What progress this dangerous disease has already made in our
country it is not for your committee to say; but when they
reflect on the present symptoms; on the almost unbounded extent
of executive patronage, wielded by a single will; the surplus
revenue, which cannot be reduced within proper limits in less
than seven years--a period which covers two presidential
elections, on both of which all this mighty power and influence
will be brought to bear; and when they consider that, with the
vast patronage and influence of this government, that of all
the States acting in concert with it will be combined, there
are just grounds to fear that the fate which has befallen so
many other free governments must also befall ours, unless,
indeed, some effectual remedy be forthwith applied. It is under
this impression that your committee have suggested the one
proposal; not as free from all objections, but as the only one
of sufficient power to arrest the disease and to restore the
body politic to a sound condition; and they have accordingly
reported a resolution so to amend the constitution that the
money remaining in the treasury at the end of each year till the
1st of January, 1843, deducting therefrom the sum of $2,000,000
to meet current and contingent expenses, shall annually be
distributed among the States and Territories, including the
District of Columbia; and, for that purpose, the sum to be
distributed to be divided into as many shares as there are
senators and representatives in Congress, adding two for each
territory and two for the District of Columbia; and that there
shall be allotted to each State a number of shares equal to its
representation in both Houses, and to the territories, including
the District of Columbia, two shares each. Supposing the surplus
to be distributed should average $9,000,000 annually, as
estimated, it would give to each share $30,405; which multiplied
by the number of senators and representatives from a State will
show the amount to which any State will be entitled."
The report being here introduced to speak for itself, the reply
also is introduced as delivered upon the instant, and found in the
Congress register of debates, thus:
"Mr. Benton next came to the proposition in the report to amend
the constitution for eight years, to enable Congress to make
distribution among the States, Territories, and District of
Columbia, of the annual surplus of public money. The surplus is
carefully calculated at $9,000,000 per annum for eight years;
and the rule of distribution assumed goes to divide that sum
into as many shares as there are senators and representatives
in Congress; each State to take shares according to her
representation; which the report shows would give for each share
precisely $30,405; and then leaves it to the State itself, by a
little ciphering, in multiplying the aforesaid sum of $30,405 by
the whole number of senators and representatives which it may
have in Congress, to calculate the annual amount of the stipend
it would receive. This process the report extends through a
period of eight years; so that the whole sum to be divided to
the States, Territories, and District of Columbia, will amount
to seventy-two millions of dollars.
"Of all the propositions which he ever witnessed, brought
forward to astonish the senses, to confound recollection, and
to make him doubt the reality of a past or a present scene,
this proposition, said Mr. B., eclipses and distances the
whole! What! the Senate of the United States--not only the
same Senate, but the same members, sitting in the same chairs,
looking in each others' faces, remembering what each had said
only a few short months ago--now to be called upon to make an
alteration in the constitution of the United States, for the
purpose of dividing seventy-two millions of surplus money in
the treasury; when that same treasury was proclaimed, affirmed,
vaticinated, and proved, upon calculations, for the whole
period of the last session, to be sinking into bankruptcy! that
it would be destitute of revenue by the end of the year, and
could never be replenished until the deposits were restored!
the bank rechartered! and the usurper and despot driven from
the high place which he dishonored and abused! This was the cry
then; the cry which resounded through this chamber for six long
months, and was wafted upon every breeze to every quarter of the
Republic, to alarm, agitate, disquiet and enrage the people. The
author of this report, and the whole party with which he marched
under the _oriflamme_ of the Bank of the United States, filled
the Union with this cry of a bankrupt treasury, and predicted
the certain and speedy downfall of the administration, from the
want of money to carry on the operations of the government.
"[Mr. Calhoun here rose and wished to know of Mr. Benton whether
he meant to include him in the number of those who had predicted
a deficiency in the revenue.]
"Mr. B. said he would answer the gentleman by telling him
an anecdote. It was the story of a drummer taken prisoner
in the low countries by the videttes of Marshal Saxe, under
circumstances which deprived him of the protection of the laws
of war. About to be shot, the poor drummer plead in his defence
that he was a non-combatant; he did not fight and kill people;
he did nothing, he said, but beat his drum in the rear of the
line. But he was answered, so much the worse; that he made
other people fight, and kill one another, by driving them on
with that drum of his in the rear of the line; and so he should
suffer for it. Mr. B. hoped that the story would be understood,
and that it would be received by the gentleman as an answer to
his question; as neither in law, politics, nor war, was there
any difference between what a man did by himself, and did by
another. Be that as it may, said Mr. B., the strangeness of the
scene in which we are now engaged remains the same. Last year
it was a bankrupt treasury, and it beggared government; now it
is a treasury gorged to bursting with surplus millions, and a
government trampling down liberty, contaminating morals, bribing
and wielding vast masses of people, from the unemployable
funds of countless treasures. Such are the scenes which the
two sessions present; and it is in vain to deny it, for the
fatal speeches of that fatal session have gone forth to all the
borders of the republic. They were printed here by the myriad,
franked by members by the ton weight, freighted to all parts
by a decried and overwhelmed Post Office, and paid for! paid
for! by whom? Thanks for one thing, at least! The report of the
Finance Committee on the bank (Mr. Tyler's report) effected the
exhumation of one mass--one mass of hidden and buried putridity;
it was the printing account of the Bank of the United States for
that session of Congress which will long live in the history of
our country under the odious appellation of the panic session.
That printing account has been dug up; is the black vomit of
the bank! and he knew the medicine which could bring forty
such vomits from the foul stomach of the old red harlot. It
was the medicine of a committee of investigation, constituted
upon parliamentary principles; a committee, composed, in
its majority, of those who charged misconduct, and evinced
a disposition to probe every charge to the bottom; such a
committee as the Senate had appointed, at the same session, not
for the bank, but for the post office.
"Yes, exclaimed Mr. B., not only the treasury was to be
bankrupt, but the currency was to be ruined. There was to be
no money. The trash in the treasury, what little there was,
was to be nothing but depreciated paper, the vile issues of
insolvent pet banks. Silver, and United States bank notes, and
even good bills of exchange, were all to go off, all to take
leave, and make their mournful exit together; and gold! that
was a trick unworthy of countenance; a gull to bamboozle the
simple, and to insult the intelligent, until the fall election
were over. Ruin, ruin, ruin to the currency was the lugubrious
cry of the day, and the sorrowful burden of the speech for six
long months. Now, on the contrary, it seems to be admitted that
there is to be money, real good money, in the treasury, such
as the fiercest haters of the pet banks would wish to have;
and that not a little, since seventy-two millions of surpluses
are proposed to be drawn from that same empty treasury in the
brief space of eight years. Not a word about ruined currency
now. Not a word about the currency itself. The very word seems
to be dropped from the vocabulary of gentlemen. All lips closed
tight, all tongues hushed still, all allusion avoided, to that
once dear phrase. The silver currency doubled in a year; four
millions of gold coins in half a year; exchanges reduced to the
lowest and most uniform rates; the whole expenses of Congress
paid in gold; working people receiving gold and silver for their
ordinary wages. Such are the results which have confounded the
prophets of wo, silenced the tongues of lamentation, expelled
the word currency from our debates; and brought the people to
question, if it cannot bring themselves, to doubt, the future
infallibility of those undaunted alarmists who still go forward
with new and confident predictions, notwithstanding they
have been so recently and so conspicuously deceived in their
vaticinations of a ruined currency, a bankrupt treasury, and a
beggard government.
"But here we are, said Mr. B., actually engaged in a serious
proposition to alter the constitution of the United States
for the period of eight years, in order to get rid of surplus
revenue; and a most dazzling, seductive, and fascinating scheme
is presented; no less than nine millions a year for eight
consecutive years. It took like wildfire, Mr. B. said, and
he had seen a member--no, that might seem too particular--he
had seen a gentleman who looked upon it as establishing a
new era in the affairs of our America, establishing a new
test for the formation of parties, bringing a new question
into all our elections, State and federal; and operating the
political salvation and elevation of all who supported it and
the immediate, utter, and irretrievable political damnation
of all who opposed it. But Mr. B. dissented from the novelty
of the scheme. It was an old acquaintance of his, only new
vamped and new burnished, for the present occasion. It is the
same proposition, only to be accomplished in a different way,
which was brought forward, some years ago, by a senator from
New Jersey (Mr. Dickerson) and which then received unmeasured
condemnation, not merely for unconstitutionality, but for all
its effects and consequences: the degradation of mendicant
States, receiving their annual allowance from the bounty of the
federal government; the debauchment of the public morals, when
every citizen was to look to the federal treasury for money,
and every candidate for office was to outbid his competitor in
offering it; the consolidation of the States, thus resulting
from a central supply of revenue; the folly of collecting
with one hand to pay back with the other; and both hands to
be greased at the expense of the citizen, who pays one man to
collect the money from him, and another to bring it back to
him, _minus_ the interest and the cost of a double operation in
fetching and carrying; and the eventual and inevitable progress
of the scheme to the plunder of the weaker half of the Union by
the stronger; when the stronger half would undoubtedly throw
the whole burden of raising the money upon the weaker half, and
then take the main portion to themselves. Such were the main
objections uttered against this plan, seven years ago, when
a gallant son of South Carolina (General Hayne) stood by his
(Mr. B.'s) side--no, stood before him--and led him in the fight
against that fatal and delusive scheme, now brought forward
under a more seclusive, dangerous, alarming, inexcusable,
unjustifiable, and demoralizing form.
"Yes, said Mr. B., it is not only the revival of the same plan
for dividing surplus revenue, which received its condemnation
on this floor, seven or eight years ago; but it is the
modification, and that in a form infinitely worse for the new
States, of the famous land bill which now lies upon our table.
It takes up the object of that bill, and runs away with it,
giving nine millions where that gave three, and leaves the
author of that bill out of sight behind; and can the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun) be so short-sighted as not
to see that somebody will play him the same prank, and come
forward with propositions to raise and divide twenty, thirty,
forty millions; and thus outleap, outjump, and outrun him in the
race of popularity, just as far as he himself has now outjumped,
outleaped, and outran, the author of the land distribution bill?
"Yes, said Mr. B., this scheme for dividing surplus revenue
is an old acquaintance on this floor; but never did it come
upon this floor at a time so inauspicious, under a form so
questionable, and upon assumptions so unfounded in fact, so
delusive in argument. He would speak of the inauspiciousness
of the time hereafter; at present, he would take positions in
direct contradiction to all the arguments of fact and reason
upon which this monstrous scheme of distribution is erected and
defended. Condensed into their essence, these arguments are:
"1. That there will be a surplus of nine millions annually, for
eight years.
"2. That there is no way to reduce the revenue.
"3. That there is no object of general utility to which these
surpluses can be applied.
"4. That distribution is the only way to carry them off without
poisoning and corrupting the whole body politic.
"Mr. B. disputed the whole of those propositions, and would
undertake to show each to be unfounded and erroneous.
"1. The report says that the surplus will probably equal, on
the average, for the next eight years, the sum of $9,000,000
beyond the just wants of the government; and in a subsequent
part it says, supposing the surplus to be distributed should
average $9,000,000, annually, as estimated, it would give to
each share $30,405, which, multiplied by the senators and
representatives of any State, would show the sum to which it
would be entitled. The amendment which has been reported to
carry this distribution into effect is to take effect for the
year 1835--the present year--and to continue till the 1st day
of January, 1843; of course it is inclusive of 1842, and makes
a period of eight years for the distribution to go on. The
amendment contains a blank, which is to be filled up with the
sum which is to be left in the treasury every year, to meet
contingent and unexpected demands and the report shows that this
blank is to be filled with the sum of $2,000,000. Here, then,
is the totality of these surpluses, eleven millions a year,
for eight consecutive years; but of which nine millions are
to be taken annually for distribution. Now, nine times eight
are seventy-two, so that here is a report setting forth the
enormous sum of $72,000,000 of mere surplus, after satisfying
all the just wants of the government, and leaving two millions
in the treasury, to be held up for distribution, and to excite
the people to clamor for their shares of such a great and
dazzling prize. At the same time, Mr. B. said, there would be
no such surplus. It was a delusive bait held out to whet the
appetite of the people for the spoils of their country; and
could never be realized, even if the amendment for authorizing
the distribution should now pass. The seventy-two millions could
never be found; they would exist nowhere but in this report, in
the author's imagination, and in the deluded hopes of an excited
community. The seventy-two millions could never be found; they
would turn out to be the 'fellows in Kendal green and buckram
suits,' which figured so largely in the imagination of Sir John
Falstaff--the two-and-fifty men in buckram which the valiant old
knight received upon his point, thus! [extending a pencil in
the attitude of defence]. The calculations of the author of the
report were wild, delusive, astonishing, incredible. He (Mr. B.)
could not limit himself to the epithet wild, for it was a clear
case of hallucination.
"Mr. B. then took up the treasury report of Mr. Secretary
Woodbury, communicated at the commencement of the present
session of Congress, and containing the estimates required by
law of the expected income and expenditure for the present year,
and also for the year 1836. At pages 4 and 5 are the estimates
for the present year; the income estimated at $20,000,000,
the expenditures at $19,683,540; being a difference of only
some three hundred thousand dollars between the income and the
outlay; and such is the chance for nine millions taken, and two
left in the first year of the distribution. At pages 10, 14, 15,
the revenue for 1836 is computed; and, after going over all the
heads of expense, on which diminutions will probably be made,
he computes the income and outlay of the year at about equal; or
probably a little surplus to the amount of one million. These
are the estimates, said Mr. B., formed upon data, and coming
from an officer making reports upon his responsibility, and
for the legislative guidance of Congress; and to which we are
bound to give credence until they are shown to be incorrect.
Here, then, are the first two years of the eight disposed of,
and nothing found in them to divide. The last two years of the
term could be dispatched even more quickly, said Mr. B.; for
every body that understands the compromise act of March, 1833,
must know that, in the last two years of the operation of that
act, there would be an actual deficit in the treasury. Look
at the terms of the act! It proceeds by slow and insensible
degrees, making slight deductions once in two years, until the
years 1841 and 1842, when it ceases crawling, and commences
jumping; and leaps down, at two jumps, to twenty per centum on
the value of the articles which pay duty, which articles are
less than one half of our importations. Twenty per cent. upon
the amount of goods which will then pay duty will produce but
little, say twelve or thirteen millions, upon the basis of
sixty or seventy millions of dutiable articles imported then,
which only amount to forty-seven millions now. Then there will
be no surplus at all for one half the period of eight years:
the first two and the last two. In the middle period of four
years there will probably be a surplus of two or three millions;
but Mr. B. took issue upon all the allegations with respect
to it; as that there was no way to reduce the revenue without
disturbing the compromise act of March, 1833; that there was no
object of general utility to which it could be applied; and that
distribution was the only way to get rid of it.
"Equally delusive, and profoundly erroneous, was the
gentleman's idea of the surplus which could be taken out of the
appropriations. True, that operation could be performed once,
and but once. The run of our treasury payments show that about
one quarter of the year's expenditure is not paid within the
year, but the first quarter of the next year, and thus could
be paid out of the revenue received in the first quarter of
the next year, even if the revenue of the last quarter of the
preceding year was thrown away. But this was a thing which could
only be done once. You might rely upon the first quarter, but
you could not upon the second, third, and fourth. There would
not be a dollar in the treasury at the end of four years, if
you deducted a quarter's amount four times successively. It
was a case, if a homely adage might be allowed, which would
well apply--you could not eat the cake and have it too. Mr. B.
submitted it, then, to the Senate, that, on the first point of
objection to the report, his issue was maintained. There was
no such surplus of nine millions a year for eight years, as
had been assumed, nor any thing near it; and this assumption
being the corner-stone of the whole edifice of the scheme of
distribution, it was sufficient to show the fallacy of that data
to blow the whole scheme into the empty air.
"Mr. B. admonished the Senate to beware of ridicule. To pass a
solemn vote for amending the constitution, for the purpose of
enabling Congress to make distribution of surpluses of revenue,
and then find no surplus to distribute, might lessen the dignity
and diminish the weight of so grave a body. It might expose it
to ridicule; and that was a hard thing for public bodies, and
public men, to stand. The Senate had stood much in its time;
much in the latter part of Mr. Monroe's administration, when
the Washington Republican habitually denounced it as a faction,
and displayed many brilliant essays, written by no mean hand,
to prove that the epithet was well applied, though applied to a
majority. It had stood much, also, during the four years of the
second Mr. Adams's administration; as the surviving pages of the
defunct National Journal could still attest: but in all that
time it stood clear of ridicule; it did nothing upon which saucy
wit could lay its lash. Let it beware now! for the passage of
this amendment may expose it to untried peril; the peril of song
and caricature. And wo the Senate, farewell to its dignity, if
it once gets into the windows of the printshop, and becomes the
burden of the ballads which the milkmaids sing to their cows.
"2. Mr. B. took up his second head of objection. The report
affirmed that there was no way to reduce the revenue before
the end of the year 1842, without violating the terms of the
compromise act of March, 1833. Mr. B. said he had opposed
that act when it was on its passage, and had then stated his
objections to it. It was certainly an extraordinary act, a
sort of new constitution for nine years, as he had heard it
felicitously called. It was made in an unusual manner, not
precisely by three men on an island on the coast of Italy, but
by two in some room of a boarding-house in this city; and then
pushed through Congress under a press of sail, and a duresse
of feeling; under the factitious cry of dissolution of the
Union, raised by those who had been declaring, on one hand,
that the tariff could not be reduced without dissolving the
Union; and on the other that it could not be kept up without
dissolving the same Union. The value of all such cries, Mr. B.
said, would be appreciated in future, when it was seen with how
much facility certain persons who had stood under the opposite
poles of the earth, as it were, on the subject of the tariff
had come together to compromise their opinions, and to lay the
tariff on the shelf for nine years! a period which covered two
presidential elections! That act was no favorite of his, but
he would let it alone; and thus leaving it to work out its
design for nine years, he would say there were ways to reduce
the revenue, very sensibly, without affecting the terms or the
spirit of that act. And here he would speak upon data. He had
the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Woodbury) to
declare that he believed he could reduce the revenue in this way
and upon imports to the amount of five hundred thousand dollars;
and he, Mr. B., should submit a resolution calling upon the
Secretary to furnish the details of this reduction to the Senate
at the commencement of their next stated session, that Congress
might act upon it. Further, Mr. B. would say, that it appeared
to him that the whole list of articles in the fifth section of
the act, amounting to thirty or forty in number, and which by
that section are to be free of duty in 1842, and which in his
opinion might be made free this day, and that not only without
injury to the manufacturers, but with such manifest advantage
to them, that, as an equivalent for it, and for the sake of
obtaining it, they ought to come forward of themselves, and
make a voluntary concession of reductions on some other points,
especially on some classes of woollen goods.
"Having given Mr. Woodbury's authority for a reduction of
$500,000 on imports, Mr. B. would show another source from
which a much larger reduction could be made, and that without
affecting this famous act of March, 1833, in another and a
different quarter; it was in the Western quarter, the new
States, the public lands! The act of 1833 did not embrace this
source of revenue, and Congress was free to act upon it, and
to give the people of the new States the same relief on the
purchase of the article on which they chiefly paid revenue as
it had done to the old States in the reduction of the tariff.
Mr. B. did not go into the worn-out and exploded objections
to the reduction of the price of the lands which the report
had gathered up from their old sleeping places, and presented
again to the Senate. Speculators, monopolies, the fall in the
price of real estate all over the Union; these were exploded
fallacies which he was sorry to see paraded here again, and
which he should not detain the Senate to answer. Suffice it to
say, that there is no application made now, made heretofore, or
intended to be made, so far as he knew, to reduce the price of
new land! One dollar and a quarter was low enough for the first
choice of new lands; but it was not low enough for the second,
third, fourth, and fifth choices! It was not low enough for
the refuse lands which had been five, ten, twenty, forty years
in market; and which could find no purchaser at $1 25, for the
solid reason that they were worth but the half, the quarter, the
tenth part, of that sum. It was for such lands that reduction
of prices was sought, and had been sought for many years, and
would continue to be sought until it was obtained; for it was
impossible to believe that Congress would persevere in the
flagrant injustice of for ever refusing to reduce the price of
refuse and unsalable lands to their actual value. The policy of
President Jackson, communicated in his messages, Mr. B. said,
was the policy of wisdom and justice. He was for disposing of
the lands more for the purpose of promoting settlements, and
creating freeholders, than for the purpose of exacting revenue
from the meritorious class of citizens who cultivate the soil.
He would sell the lands at prices which would pay expenses--the
expense of acquiring them from the Indians, and surveying and
selling them; and this system of moderate prices with donations,
or nominal sales to actual settlers, would do justice to the new
States, and effect a sensible reduction in the revenue; enough
to prevent the necessity of amending the constitution to get rid
of nine million surpluses! But whether the price of lands was
reduced or not, Mr. B. said, the revenue from that source would
soon be diminished. The revenue had been exorbitant from the
sale of lands for three or four years past. And why? Precisely
because immense bodies of new lands, and much of it in the
States adapted to the production of the great staples which now
bear so high a price, have within that period, come into market;
but these fresh lands must soon be exhausted; the old and refuse
only remain for sale; and the revenue from that source will sink
down to its former usual amount, instead of remaining at three
millions a year for nine years, as the report assumes.
"3. When he had thus shown that a diminution of revenue could
be effected, both on imports and on refuse and unsalable lands,
Mr. B. took up the third issue which he had joined with the
report; namely, the possibility of finding an object of general
utility on which the surpluses could be expended. The report
affirmed there was no such object; he, on the contrary, affirmed
that there were such; not one, but several, not only useful,
but necessary, not merely necessary, but exigent; not exigent
only, but in the highest possible degree indispensable and
essential. He alluded to the whole class of measures connected
with the general and permanent defence of the Union! In peace,
prepare for war! is the admonition of wisdom in all ages and
in all nations; and sorely and grievously has our America
heretofore paid for the neglect of that admonition. She has
paid for it in blood, in money, and in shame. Are we prepared
now? And is there any reason why we should not prepare now?
Look at your maritime coast, from Passamaquoddy Bay to Florida
point; your gulf coast, from Florida point to the Sabine; your
lake frontier, in its whole extent. What is the picture? Almost
destitute of forts; and, it might be said, quite destitute of
armament. Look at your armories and arsenals--too few and too
empty; and the West almost destitute! Look at your militia, many
of them mustering with corn stalks; the States deficient in
arms, especially in field artillery, and in swords and pistols
for their cavalry! Look at your navy; slowly increasing under
an annual appropriation of half a million a year, instead of a
whole million, at which it was fixed soon after the late war,
and from which it was reduced some years ago, when money ran
low in the treasury! Look at your dock-yards and navy-yards;
thinly dotted along the maritime coast, and hardly seen at all
on the gulf coast, where the whole South, and the great West,
so imperiously demand naval protection! Such is the picture;
such the state of our country; such its state at this time, when
even the most unobservant should see something to make us think
of defence! Such is the state of our defences now, with which,
oh! strange and wonderful contradiction! the administration is
now reproached, reviled, flouted, and taunted, by those who
go for distribution, and turn their backs on defence! and who
complain of the President for leaving us in this condition, when
five years ago, in the year 1829, he recommended the annual
sum of $250,000 for arming the fortifications (which Congress
refused to give), and who now are for taking the money out of
the treasury, to be divided among the people; instead of turning
it all to the great object of the general and permanent defence
of the Union, for which they were so solicitous, so clamorous,
so feelingly alive, and patriotically sensitive, even one short
month ago.
"Does not the present state of the country (said Mr. B.) call
for defence? and is not this the propitious time for putting
it in defence? and will not that object absorb every dollar
of real surplus that can be found in the treasury for these
eight years of plenty, during which we are to be afflicted with
seventy-two millions of surplus? Let us see. Let us take one
single branch of the general system of defence, and see how it
stands, and what it would cost to put it in the condition which
the safety and the honor of the country demanded. He spoke of
the fortifications, and selected that branch, because he had
data to go upon; data to which the senator from South Carolina,
the author of this report, could not object.
"The design (said Mr. B.) of fortifying the coasts of the
United States is as old as the Union itself. Our documents
are full of executive recommendations, departmental reports,
and reports of committees upon this subject, all urging this
great object upon the attention of Congress. From 1789, through
every succeeding administration, the subject was presented to
Congress; but it was only after the late war, and when the
evils of a defenceless coast were fresh before the eyes of the
people, that the subject was presented in the most impressive,
persevering, and systematic form. An engineer of the first rank
(General Bernard) was taken into our service from the school of
the great Napoleon. A resolution of the House of Representatives
called on the War Department for a plan of defence, and a
designation of forts adequate to the protection of the country;
and upon this call examinations were made, estimates framed,
and forts projected for the whole maritime coast from Savannah
to Boston. The result was the presentation, in 1821, of a
plan for ninety forts upon that part of the coast; namely,
twenty-four of the first class; twenty-three of the second;
and forty-three of the third. Under the administration of Mr.
Monroe, and the urgent recommendations of the then head of the
War Department (Mr. Calhoun), the construction of these forts
was commenced, and pushed with spirit and activity; but, owing
to circumstances not necessary now to be detailed, the object
declined in the public favor, lost a part of its popularity,
perhaps justly, and has since proceeded so slowly that, at the
end of twenty years from the late war, no more than thirteen of
these forts have been constructed; namely, eight of the first
class, three of the second, and two of the third; and of these
thirteen constructed, none are armed; almost all of them are
without guns or carriages, and more ready for the occupation of
an enemy than for the defence of ourselves. This is the state
of fortifications on the maritime coast, exclusive of the New
England coast to the north of Boston, exclusive of Cape Cod,
south of Boston, and exclusive of the Atlantic coast of Florida.
The lake frontier is untouched. The gulf frontier, almost two
thousand miles in length, barely is dotted with a few forts in
the neighborhood of Pensacola, New Orleans, and Mobile; all the
rest of the coast may be set down as naked and defenceless.
This was our condition. Now, Mr. B. did not venture to give an
opinion that the whole plan of fortifications developed in the
reports of 1821 should be carried into effect; but he would
say, and that most confidently, that much of it ought to be;
and it would be the business of Congress to decide on each fort
in making a specific appropriation for it. He would also say
that many forts would be found to be necessary which were not
embraced in that plan; for it did not touch the lake coast, and
the gulf coast, nor the New England coast, north of Boston, nor
any point of the land frontier. Without going into the question
at all, of how many were necessary, or where they should be
placed, it was sufficient to show that there were enough
wanting, beyond dispute, to constitute an object of utility,
worthy of the national expenditure; and sufficient to absorb,
not nine millions of annual surplus, to be sure, but about as
many millions of surplus as would ever be found, and the bank
stock into the bargain. The thirteen forts constructed had cost
twelve millions one hundred and thirteen thousand dollars; near
one million of dollars each. But this was for construction
only; the armament was still to follow; and for this object
two millions were estimated in 1821 for the ninety forts then
recommended; and of that two millions it may be assumed that but
little has been granted by Congress. So much for fortifications;
in itself a single branch of defence, and sufficient to absorb
many millions. But there were many other branches of defence
which, Mr. B. said, he would barely enumerate. There was the
navy, including its gradual increase, its dock-yards, its
navy-yards; then the armories and arsenals, which were so much
wanted in the South and West, and especially in the South,
for a reason (besides those which apply to foreign enemies)
which need not be named; then the supply of arms to the States,
especially field artillery, swords, and pistols, for which
an annual but inadequate appropriation had been made for so
long a time that he believed the States had almost forgot the
subject. Here are objects enough, Mr. President, exclaimed
Mr. B., to absorb every dollar of our surplus, and the bank
stock besides. The surpluses, he was certain, would be wholly
insufficient, and the bank stock, by a solemn resolution of
the two Houses of Congress, should be devoted to the object.
As a fund was set apart, and held sacred and inviolable, for
the payment of the public debt so; should a fund be now created
for national defence, and this bank stock should be the first
and most sacred item put into it. It is the only way to save
that stock from becoming the prey of incessant contrivances to
draw money from the treasury. Mr. B. said that he intended to
submit resolutions, requesting the President to cause to be
communicated to the next Congress full information upon all the
points that he had touched; the probable revenue and expenditure
for the next eight years; the plan and expense of fortifying
the coast; the navy, and every other point connected with the
general and permanent defence of the Union, with a view to let
Congress take it up, upon system, and with a design to complete
it without further delay. And he demanded, why hurry on this
amendment before that information can come in?
"Now is the auspicious moment, said Mr. B., for the republic
to rouse from the apathy into which it has lately sunk on the
subject of national defence. The public debt is paid; a sum of
six or seven millions will come from the bank; some surpluses
may occur; let the national defence become the next great
object after the payment of the debt, and all spare money go
to that purpose. If further stimulus were wanted, it might be
found in the present aspect of our foreign affairs, and in the
reproaches, the taunts, and in the offensive insinuations which
certain gentlemen have been indulging in for two months with
respect to the defenceless state of the coast; and which they
attribute to the negligence of the administration. Certainly
such gentlemen will not take that money for distribution, for
the immediate application of which their defenceless country is
now crying aloud, and stretching forth her imploring hands.
"Mr. B. would here avail himself of a voice more potential than
his own to enforce attention to the great object of national
defence, the revival of which he was now attempting. It was
a voice which the senator from South Carolina, the author of
this proposition to squander in distributions the funds which
should be sacred to defence, would instantly recognize. It was
an extract from a message communicated to Congress, December 3,
1822, by President Monroe. Whether considered under the relation
of similarity which it bears to the language and sentiments of
cotemporaneous reports from the then head of the War Department;
the position which the writer of those reports then held in
relation to President Monroe; the right which he possessed,
as Secretary of War, to know, at least, what was put into the
message in relation to measures connected with his department;
considered under any and all of these aspects, the extracts
which he was about to read might be considered as expressing
the sentiments, if not speaking the words, of the gentleman who
now sees no object of utility in providing for the defence of
his country; and who then plead the cause of that defence with
so much truth and energy, and with such commendable excess of
patriotic zeal.
"Mr. B. then read as follows:
"'Should war break out in any of those countries (the European),
who can foretell the extent to which it may be carried, or
the desolation which may spread? Exempt as we are from these
causes (of European civil wars), our internal tranquillity is
secure; and distant as we are from the troubled scene, and
faithful to just principles in regard to other powers, we might
reasonably presume that we should not be molested by them. This,
however, ought not to be calculated on as certain. Unprovoked
injuries are often inflicted, and even the peculiar felicity of
our situation might, with some, be a cause of excitement and
aggression. The history of the late wars in Europe furnishes
a complete demonstration that no system of conduct, however
correct in principle, can protect neutral powers from injury
from any party; that a defenceless position and distinguished
love of peace are the surest invitations to war; and that there
is no way to avoid it, other than by being always prepared,
and willing, for just cause, to meet it. If there be a people
on earth, whose more especial duty it is to be at all times
prepared to defend the rights with which they are blessed, and
to surpass all others in sustaining the necessary burdens, and
in submitting to sacrifices to make such preparations, it is
undoubtedly the people of these States.'
"Mr. B. having read thus far, stopped to make a remark, and but
a remark, upon a single sentiment in it. He would not weaken
the force and energy of the whole passage by going over it in
detail; but he invoked attention upon the last sentiment--our
peculiar duty, so strongly painted, to sustain burdens, and
submit to sacrifices, to accomplish the noble object of putting
our country into an attitude of defence! The ease with which we
can prepare for the same defence now, by the facile operation of
applying to that purpose surpluses of revenue and bank stock,
for which we have no other use, was the point on which he would
invoke and arrest the Senate's attention.
"Mr. B. resumed his reading, and read the next paragraph,
which enumerated all the causes which might lead to general
war in Europe, and our involvement in it, and concluded with
the declaration 'That the reasons for pushing forward all our
measures of defence, with the utmost vigor, appear to me to
acquire new force.' And then added, these causes for European
war are now in as great force as then; the danger of our
involvement is more apparent now than then; the reasons for
sensibility to our national honor are nearer now than then;
and upon all the principles of the passage from which he was
reading, the reasons for pushing forward all our measures of
defence with the utmost vigor, possessed far more force in this
present year 1835, than they did in the year 1822.
"Mr. B. continued to read:
"'The United States owe to the world a great example, and by
means thereof, to the cause of liberty and humanity a generous
support. They have so far succeeded to the satisfaction of the
virtuous and enlightened of every country. There is no reason to
doubt that their whole movement will be regulated by a sacred
regard to principle, all our institutions being founded on that
basis. The ability to support our own cause, under any trial
to which it may be exposed, is the great point on which the
public solicitude rests. It has often been charged against free
governments, that they have neither the foresight nor the virtue
to provide at the proper season for great emergencies; that
their course is improvident and expensive; that war will always
find them unprepared; and, whatever may be its calamities, that
its terrible warnings will be disregarded and forgotten as soon
as peace returns. I have full confidence that this charge, so
far as it relates to the United States, will be shown to be
utterly destitute of truth.'
"Mr. B., as he closed the book, said, he would make a few
remarks upon some of the points in this passage, which he had
last read--the reproach so often charged upon free governments
for want of foresight and virtue, their improvidence and
expensiveness, their proneness to disregard and forget in peace
the warning lessons of the most terrible calamities of war. And
he would take the liberty to suggest that, of all the mortal
beings now alive upon this earth, the author of the report under
discussion ought to be the last to disregard and to forget the
solemn and impressive admonition which the passage conveyed! the
last to so act as to subject his government to the mortifying
charge which has been so often cast upon them! the last to
subject the virtue of the people to the humiliating trial of
deciding between the defence and the plunder of their country!
"Mr. B. dwelt a moment on another point in the passage which
he had read--the great example which this republic owed to the
world, and to the cause of free governments, to prove itself
capable of supporting its cause under every trial; and that by
providing in peace for the dangers of war. It was a striking
point in the passage, and presented a grand and philosophic
conception to the reflecting mind. The example to be shown to
the world, and the duty of this republic to exhibit it, was an
elevated and patriotic conception, and worthy of the genius
which then presided over the War Department. But what is the
example which we are now required to exhibit? It is that of a
people preferring the spoils of their country to its defence!
It is that of the electioneerer, going from city to city, from
house to house, even to the uninformed tenant of the distant
hamlet, who has no means of detecting the fallacies which are
brought from afar to deceive his understanding: it is the
example of this electioneerer, with slate and pencil in his
hand (and here Mr. B. took up an old book cover, and a pencil,
and stooped over it to make figures, as if working out a little
sum in arithmetic), it is the example of this electioneerer,
offering for distribution that money which should be sacred to
the defence of his country; and pointing out for overthrow, at
the next election, every candidate for office who should be
found in opposition to this wretched and deceptive scheme of
distribution. This is the example which it is proposed that we
should now exhibit. And little did it enter into his (Mr. B.'s)
imagination, about the time that message was written, that it
should fall to his lot to plead for the defence of his country
against the author of this report. He admired the grandeur of
conception which the reports of the war office then displayed.
He said he differed from the party with whom he then acted,
in giving a general, though not a universal, support to the
Secretary of War. He looked to him as one who, when mellowed by
age and chastened by experience, might be among the most admired
Presidents that ever filled the presidential chair. [Mr. B., by
a _lapsus linguæ_, said throne, but corrected the expression on
its echo from the galleries.]
"Mr. B. said there was an example which it was worthy to
imitate: that of France; her coast defended by forts and
batteries, behind which the rich city reposed in safety--the
tranquil peasant cultivated his vine in security--while the
proud navy of England sailed innoxious before them, a spectacle
of amusement, not an object of terror. And there was an example
to be avoided: the case of our own America during the late war;
when the approach of a British squadron, upon any point of our
extended coast, was the signal for flight, for terror, for
consternation; when the hearts of the brave and the almost naked
hands of heroes were the sole reliance for defence; and where
those hearts and those hands could not come, the sacred soil of
our country was invaded; the ruffian soldier and the rude sailor
became the insolent masters of our citizens' houses; their
footsteps marked by the desolation of fields, the conflagration
of cities, the flight of virgins, the violation of matrons! the
blood of fathers, husbands, sons! This is the example which we
should avoid!
"But the amendment is to be temporary: it is only to last until
1842. What an idea!--a temporary alteration in a constitution
made for endless ages! But let no one think it will be
temporary, if once adopted. No! if the people once come to taste
that blood; if they once bring themselves to the acceptance
of money from the treasury they are gone for ever. They will
take that money in all time to come; and he that promises
most, receives most votes. The corruption of the Romans, the
debauchment of the voters, the venality of elections, commenced
with the Tribunitial distribution of corn out of the public
granaries; it advanced to the distribution of the spoils of
foreign nations, brought home to Rome by victorious generals and
divided out among the people; it ended in bringing the spoils
of the country into the canvass for the consulship, and in
putting up the diadem of empire itself to be knocked down to the
hammer of the auctioneer. In our America there can be no spoils
of conquered nations to distribute. Her own treasury--her own
lands--can alone furnish the fund. Begin at once, no matter how,
or upon what--surplus revenue, the proceeds of the lands, or the
lands themselves--no matter; the progress and the issue of the
whole game is as inevitable as it is obvious. Candidates bid,
the voters listen; and a plundered and pillaged country--the
empty skin of an immolated victim--is the prize and the spoil of
the last and the highest bidder."
The proposition to amend the constitution to admit of this
distribution was never brought to a vote. In fact it was never
mentioned again after the day of the above discussion. It seemed
to have support from no source but that of its origin; and very
soon events came to scatter the basis on which the whole stress
and conclusion of the report lay. Instead of a surplus of nine
millions to cover the period of two presidential elections, there
was a deficit in the treasury in the period of the first one; and
the government reduced to the humiliating resorts to obtain money
to keep itself in motion--mendicant expeditions to Europe to borrow
money, returning without it--and paper money struck under the name
of treasury notes. But this attempt to amend the constitution to
permit a distribution, becomes a material point in the history of
the working of our government, seeing that a distribution afterwards
took place without the amendment to permit it.
CHAPTER CXXIX.
COMMENCEMENT OF TWENTY-FOURTH CONGRESS--PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE.
The following was the list of the members:
SENATORS:
MAINE--Ether Shepley, John Ruggles.
NEW HAMPSHIRE--Isaac Hill, Henry Hubbard.
MASSACHUSETTS--Daniel Webster, John Davis.
RHODE ISLAND--Nehemiah R. Knight, Asher Robbins.
CONNECTICUT--Gideon Tomlinson, Nathan Smith.
VERMONT--Samuel Prentiss, Benjamin Swift.
NEW-YORK--Nathaniel P. Tallmadge, Silas Wright, jun.
NEW JERSEY--Samuel L. Southard, Garret D. Wall.
PENNSYLVANIA--James Buchanan, Samuel McKean.
DELAWARE--John M. Clayton, Arnold Naudain.
MARYLAND--Robert H. Goldsborough, Jos. Kent.
VIRGINIA--Benjamin Watkins Leigh, John Tyler.
NORTH CAROLINA--Bedford Brown, Willie P. Mangum.
SOUTH CAROLINA--J. C. Calhoun, William C. Preston.
GEORGIA--Alfred Cuthbert, John P. King.
KENTUCKY--Henry Clay, John J. Crittenden.
TENNESSEE--Felix Grundy, Hugh L. White.
OHIO--Thomas Ewing, Thomas Morris.
LOUISIANA--Alexander Porter, Robert C. Nicholas.
INDIANA--Wm. Hendricks, John Tipton.
MISSISSIPPI--John Black, Robert J. Walker.
ILLINOIS--Elias K. Kane, John M. Robinson.
ALABAMA--Wm. R. King, Gabriel P. Moore.
MISSOURI--Lewis F. Linn, Thomas H. Benton.
REPRESENTATIVES:
MAINE--Jeremiah Bailey, George Evans, John Fairfield, Joseph
Hall, Leonard Jarvis, Moses Mason, Gorham Parks, Francis O. J.
Smith--8.
NEW HAMPSHIRE--Benning M. Bean, Robert Burns, Samuel Cushman,
Franklin Pierce, Jos. Weeks--5.
MASSACHUSETTS--John Quincy Adams, Nathaniel B. Borden, George
N. Briggs, William B. Calhoun, Caleb Cushing, George Grennell,
jr., Samuel Hoar, William Jackson, Abbot Lawrence, Levi Lincoln,
Stephen C. Phillips, John Reed--12.
RHODE ISLAND--Dutee J. Pearce, W. Sprague--2.
CONNECTICUT--Elisha Haley, Samuel Ingham, Andrew T. Judson,
Lancelot Phelps, Isaac Toucey, Zalmon Wildman--6.
VERMONT--Heman Allen, Horace Everett, Hiland Hall, Henry F.
Janes, William Slade--5.
NEW-YORK--Samuel Barton, Saml. Beardsley, Abraham Bockee,
Matthias J. Bovee, John W. Brown, C. C. Cambreleng, Graham H.
Chapin, Timothy Childs, John Cramer, Ulysses F. Doubleday,
Valentine Efner, Dudley Farlin, Philo C. Fuller, William K.
Fuller, Ransom H. Gillet, Francis Granger, Gideon Hard, Abner
Hazeltine, Hiram P. Hunt, Abel Huntington, Gerrit Y. Lansing,
George W. Lay, Gideon Lee, Joshua Lee, Stephen B. Leonard,
Thomas C. Love, Abijah Mann, jr., William Mason, John McKeon,
Ely Moore, Sherman Page, Joseph Reynolds, David Russell, William
Seymour, Nicholas Sickles, William Taylor, Joel Turrill, Aaron
Vanderpoel, Aaron Ward, Daniel Wardwell--40.
NEW JERSEY--Philemon Dickerson, Samuel Fowler, Thomas Lee, James
Parker, Ferdinand S. Schenck, William N. Shinn--6.
PENNSYLVANIA--Joseph B. Anthony, Michael W. Ash, John Banks,
Andrew Beaumont, Andrew Buchanan, George Chambers, William P.
Clark, Edward Darlington, Harmar Denny, Jacob Fry, jr., John
Galbraith, James Harper, Samuel S. Harrison, Joseph Henderson,
William Hiester, Edward B. Hubley, Joseph R. Ingersoll, John
Klingensmith, jr., John Laporte, Henry Logan, Job Mann,
Thomas M. T. McKennan, Jesse Miller, Matthias Morris, Henry
A. Muhlenberg, David Potts, jr., Joel B. Sutherland, David D.
Wagener.--28.
DELAWARE.--John J. Milligan.--1.
MARYLAND.--Benjamin C. Howard, Daniel Jenifer, Isaac McKim,
James A. Pearce, John N. Steele, Francis Thomas, James Turner,
George C. Washington.--8.
VIRGINIA.--James M. H. Beale, James W. Bouldin, Nathaniel H.
Claiborne, Walter Coles, Robert Craig, George C. Dromgoole,
James Garland, G. W. Hopkins, Joseph Johnson, John W. Jones,
George Loyall, Edward Lucas, John Y. Mason, William McComas,
Charles F. Mercer, William S. Morgan, John M. Patton, John
Roane, John Robertson, John Taliaferro, Henry A. Wise.--21.
NORTH CAROLINA.--Jesse A. Bynum, Henry W. Connor, Edmund
Deberry, James Graham, Micajah T. Hawkins, James J. McKay,
William Montgomery, Ebenezer Pettigrew, Abraham Rencher,
William B. Shepard, Augustine H. Shepperd, Jesse Speight, Lewis
Williams.--13.
SOUTH CAROLINA.--Robert B. Campbell, William J. Grayson, John
K. Griffin, James H. Hammond, Richard J. Manning, Francis W.
Pickens, Henry L. Pinckney, James Rogers, Waddy Thompson, jr.--9.
GEORGIA.--Jesse F. Cleveland, John Coffee, Thomas Glasscock,
Seaton Grantland, Charles E. Haynes, Hopkins Holsey, Jabez
Jackson, George W. Owens, George W. B. Towns.--9.
ALABAMA.--Reuben Chapman, Joab Lawler, Dixon H. Lewis, Francis
S. Lyon, Joshua L. Martin.--5.
MISSISSIPPI.--David Dickson, J. F. H. Claiborne.--2.
LOUISIANA.--Rice Garland, Henry Johnson, Eleazer W. Ripley.--3.
TENNESSEE.--John Bell, Samuel Bunch, William B. Carter, William
C. Dunlap, John B. Forester, Adam Huntsman, Cave Johnson, Luke
Lea, Abram P. Maury, Balie Peyton, James K. Polk, E. J. Shields,
James Standefer.--13.
KENTUCKY.--Chilton Allan, Lynn Boyd, John Calhoun, John
Chambers, Richard French, Wm. J. Graves, Benjamin Hardin,
James Harlan, Albert G. Hawes, Richard M. Johnson, Joseph R.
Underwood, John White, Sherrod Williams.--13.
MISSOURI.--Wm. H. Ashley, Albert G. Harrison.--2.
ILLINOIS.--Zadok Casey, William L. May, John Reynolds.--3.
INDIANA.--Ratliff Boon, John Carr, John W. Davis, Edward A.
Hannegan, George L. Kinnard, Amos Lane, Jonathan McCarty.--7.
OHIO.--William K. Bond, John Chaney, Thomas Corwin, Joseph H.
Crane, Thomas L. Hamer, Elias Howell, Benjamin Jones, William
Kennon, Daniel Kilgore, Sampson Mason, Jeremiah McLene, William
Patterson, Jonathan Sloane, David Spangler, Bellamy Storer,
John Thompson, Samuel F. Vinton, Taylor Webster, Elisha
Whittlesey.--19.
DELEGATES.
ARKANSAS TERRITORY.--Ambrose H. Sevier.
FLORIDA TERRITORY.--Joseph M. White.
MICHIGAN TERRITORY.--George W. Jones.
Mr. James K. Polk of Tennessee, was elected speaker of the House,
and by a large majority over the late speaker, Mr. John Bell of
the same State. The vote stood one hundred and thirty-two to
eighty-four, and was considered a test of the administration
strength, Mr. Polk being supported by that party, and Mr. Bell
having become identified with those who, in siding with Mr. Hugh L.
White as a candidate for the presidency, were considered as having
divided from the democratic party. Among the eminent names missed
from the list of the House of Representatives, were: Mr. Wayne of
Georgia, appointed to the bench of the Supreme Court of the United
States; and Mr. Edward Everett of Massachusetts, who declined a
re-election.
The state of our relations with France, in the continued non-payment
of the stipulated indemnity, was the prominent feature in the
President's message; and the subject itself becoming more serious
in the apparent indisposition in Congress to sustain his views,
manifested in the loss of the fortification bill, through the
disagreement of the two Houses. The obligation to pay was admitted,
and the money even voted for that purpose; but offence was taken at
the President's message, and payment refused until an apology should
be made. The President had already shown, on its first intimation,
that no offence was intended, nor any disrespect justly deducible
from the language that he had used; and he was now peremptory in
refusing to make the required apology; and had instructed the United
States' _chargé d'affaires_ to demand the money; and, if not paid,
to leave France immediately. The ministers of both countries had
previously withdrawn, and the last link in the chain of diplomatic
communication was upon the point of being broken. The question
having narrowed down to this small point, the President deemed
it proper to give a retrospective view of it, to justify his
determination, neither to apologize nor to negotiate further. He
said:
"On entering upon the duties of my station, I found the United
States an unsuccessful applicant to the justice of France, for
the satisfaction of claims, the validity of which was never
questionable, and has now been most solemnly admitted by France
herself. The antiquity of these claims, their high justice, and
the aggravating circumstances out of which they arose, are too
familiar to the American people to require description. It is
sufficient to say, that, for a period of ten years and upwards,
our commerce was, with but little interruption, the subject of
constant aggressions, on the part of France--aggressions, the
ordinary features of which were condemnations of vessels and
cargoes, under arbitrary decrees, adopted in contravention, as
well of the laws of nations as of treaty stipulations, burnings
on the high seas, and seizures and confiscations, under special
imperial rescripts, in the ports of other nations occupied by
the armies, or under the control of France. Such, it is now
conceded, is the character of the wrongs we suffered; wrongs,
in many cases, so flagrant that even their authors never denied
our right to reparation. Of the extent of these injuries, some
conception may be formed from the fact that, after the burning
of a large amount at sea, and the necessary deterioration in
other cases, by long detention, the American property so seized
and sacrificed at forced sales, excluding what was adjudged
to privateers, before or without condemnation, brought into
the French treasury upwards of twenty-four millions of francs,
besides large custom-house duties.
"The subject had already been an affair of twenty years'
uninterrupted negotiation, except for a short time, when France
was overwhelmed by the military power of united Europe. During
this period, whilst other nations were extorting from her
payment of their claims at the point of the bayonet, the United
States intermitted their demand for justice, out of respect to
the oppressed condition of a gallant people, to whom they felt
under obligations for fraternal assistance in their own days of
suffering and of peril. The bad effects of these protracted and
unavailing discussions, as well upon our relations with France
as upon our national character, were obvious; and the line of
duty was, to my mind, equally so. This was, either to insist
upon the adjustment of our claims, within a reasonable period,
or to abandon them altogether. I could not doubt that, by this
course, the interest and honor of both countries would be best
consulted. Instructions were, therefore, given in this spirit to
the minister, who was sent out once more to demand reparation.
Upon the meeting of Congress, in December, 1829, I felt it my
duty to speak of these claims; and the delays of France, in
terms calculated to call the serious attention of both countries
to the subject. The then French Ministry took exception to the
message, on the ground of its containing a menace, under which
it was not agreeable to the French government to negotiate. The
American minister, of his own accord, refuted the construction
which was attempted to be put upon the message, and, at the
same time, called to the recollection of the French ministry,
that the President's message was a communication addressed,
not to foreign governments, but to the Congress of the United
States, in which it was enjoined upon him, by the constitution,
to lay before that body information of the state of the Union,
comprehending its foreign as well as its domestic relations; and
that if, in the discharge of this duty, he felt it incumbent
upon him to summon the attention of Congress in due time to what
might be the possible consequences of existing difficulties with
any foreign government, he might fairly be supposed to do so,
under a sense of what was due from him in a frank communication
with another branch of his own government, and not from any
intention of holding a menace over a foreign power. The views
taken by him received my approbation, the French government was
satisfied, and the negotiation was continued. It terminated
in the treaty of July 4, 1831, recognizing the justice of
our claims, in part, and promising payment to the amount of
twenty-five millions of francs, in six annual instalments.
"The ratifications of this treaty were exchanged at Washington,
on the 2d of February, 1832; and, in five days thereafter,
it was laid before Congress, who immediately passed the acts
necessary, on our part, to secure to France the commercial
advantages conceded to her in the compact. The treaty had
previously been solemnly ratified by the King of the French,
in terms which are certainly not mere matters of form, and of
which the translation is as follows: 'We, approving the above
convention, in all and each of the depositions which are
contained in it, do declare by ourselves, as well as by our
heirs and successors, that it is accepted, approved, ratified,
and confirmed; and by these presents, signed by our hand, we
do accept, approve, ratify, and confirm it; promising, on the
faith and word of a king, to observe it, and to cause it to be
observed inviolably, without ever contravening it, or suffering
it to be contravened, directly or indirectly, for any cause, or
under any pretence whatsoever.'
"Official information of the exchange of ratifications in
the United States reached Paris, whilst the Chambers were
in session. The extraordinary, and, to us, injurious delays
of the French government, in their action upon the subject
of its fulfilment, have been heretofore stated to Congress,
and I have no disposition to enlarge upon them here. It is
sufficient to observe that the then pending session was allowed
to expire, without even an effort to obtain the necessary
appropriations--that the two succeeding ones were also suffered
to pass away without any thing like a serious attempt to
obtain a decision upon the subject; and that it was not until
the fourth session--almost three years after the conclusion
of the treaty, and more than two years after the exchange of
ratifications--that the bill for the execution of the treaty
was pressed to a vote, and rejected. In the mean time, the
government of the United States, having full confidence that
a treaty entered into and so solemnly ratified by the French
king, would be executed in good faith, and not doubting that
provision would be made for the payment of the first instalment,
which was to become due on the second day of February, 1833,
negotiated a draft for the amount through the Bank of the
United States. When this draft was presented by the holder,
with the credentials required by the treaty to authorize him
to receive the money, the government of France allowed it to
be protested. In addition to the injury in the non-payment of
the money by France, conformably to her engagement, the United
States were exposed to a heavy claim on the part of the bank,
under pretence of damages, in satisfaction of which, that
institution seized upon, and still retains, an equal amount of
the public moneys. Congress was in session when the decision of
the Chambers reached Washington; and an immediate communication
of this apparently final decision of France not to fulfil the
stipulations of the treaty, was the course naturally to be
expected from the President. The deep tone of dissatisfaction
which pervaded the public mind, and the correspondent excitement
produced in Congress by only a general knowledge of the result,
rendered it more than probable, that a resort to immediate
measures of redress would be the consequence of calling the
attention of that body to the subject. Sincerely desirous of
preserving the pacific relations which had so long existed
between the two countries, I was anxious to avoid this course if
I could be satisfied that, by doing so, neither the interests
nor the honor of my country would be compromitted. Without
the fullest assurances upon that point, I could not hope to
acquit myself of the responsibility to be incurred in suffering
Congress to adjourn without laying the subject before them.
Those received by me were believed to be of that character.
"The expectations justly founded upon the promises thus solemnly
made to this government by that of France, were not realized.
The French Chambers met on the 31st of July, 1834, soon after
the election, and although our minister in Paris urged the
French ministry to press the subject before them, they declined
doing so. He next insisted that the Chambers, if prorogued
without acting on the subject, should be reassembled at a period
so early that their action on the treaty might be known in
Washington prior to the meeting of Congress. This reasonable
request was not only declined, but the Chambers were prorogued
on the 29th of December; a day so late, that their decision,
however urgently pressed, could not, in all probability, be
obtained in time to reach Washington before the necessary
adjournment of Congress by the constitution. The reasons given
by the ministry for refusing to convoke the Chambers, at an
earlier period, were afterwards shown not to be insuperable,
by their actual convocation, on the first of December, under a
special call for domestic purposes, which fact, however, did not
become known to this Government until after the commencement of
the last session of Congress.
"Thus disappointed in our just expectations, it became my
imperative duty to consult with Congress in regard to the
expediency of a resort to retaliatory measures, in case the
stipulations of the treaty should not be speedily complied with;
and to recommend such as, in my judgment, the occasion called
for. To this end, an unreserved communication of the case,
in all its aspects, became indispensable. To have shrunk, in
making it, from saying all that was necessary to its correct
understanding, and that the truth would justify, for fear of
giving offence to others, would have been unworthy of us.
To have gone, on the other hand, a single step further, for
the purpose of wounding the pride of a government and people
with whom we had so many motives of cultivating relations of
amity and reciprocal advantage, would have been unwise and
improper. Admonished by the past of the difficulty of making
even the simplest statement of our wrongs, without disturbing
the sensibilities of those who had, by their position, become
responsible for their redress, and earnestly desirous of
preventing further obstacles from that source, I went out of
my way to preclude a construction of the message, by which the
recommendation that was made to Congress might be regarded as a
menace to France, in not only disavowing such a design, but in
declaring that her pride and her power were too well known to
expect any thing from her fears. The message did not reach Paris
until more than a month after the Chambers had been in session;
and such was the insensibility of the ministry to our rightful
claims and just expectations, that our minister had been
informed that the matter, when introduced, would not be pressed
as a cabinet measure.
"Although the message was not officially communicated to the
French government, and notwithstanding the declaration to the
contrary which it contained, the French ministry decided to
consider the conditional recommendation of reprisals a menace
and an insult, which the honor of the nation made it incumbent
on them to resent. The measures resorted to by them to evince
their sense of the supposed indignity were, the immediate
recall of their minister at Washington, the offer of passports
to the American minister at Paris, and a public notice to the
legislative chambers that all diplomatic intercourse with the
United States had been suspended.
"Having, in this manner, vindicated the dignity of France,
they next proceeded to illustrate her justice. To this end a
bill was immediately introduced into the Chamber of Deputies,
proposing to make the appropriations necessary to carry into
effect the treaty. As this bill subsequently passed into a law,
the provisions of which now constitute the main subject of
difficulty between the two nations, it becomes my duty, in order
to place the subject before you in a clear light, to trace the
history of its passage, and to refer, with some particularity,
to the proceedings and discussions in regard to it. The Minister
of Finance, in his opening speech, alluded to the measures
which had been adopted to resent the supposed indignity, and
recommended the execution of the treaty as a measure required
by the honor and justice of France. He, as the organ of the
ministry, declared the message, so long as it had not received
the sanction of Congress, a mere expression of the personal
opinion of the President, for which neither the government
nor people of the United States were responsible; and that an
engagement had been entered into, for the fulfilment of which
the honor of France was pledged. Entertaining these views, the
single condition which the French ministry proposed to annex to
the payment of the money was, that it should not be made until
it was ascertained that the government of the United States
had done nothing to injure the interests of France; or, in
other words, that no steps had been authorized by Congress of a
hostile character towards France.
"What the disposition or action of Congress might be, was then
unknown to the French Cabinet. But, on the 14th of January,
the Senate resolved that it was, at that time inexpedient
to adopt any legislative measures in regard to the state of
affairs between the United States and France, and no action
on the subject had occurred in the House of Representatives.
These facts were known in Paris prior to the 28th of March,
1835, when the committee, to whom the bill of indemnification
had been referred, reported it to the Chamber of Deputies.
That committee substantially re-echoed the sentiments of the
ministry, declared that Congress had set aside the proposition
of the President, and recommended the passage of the bill,
without any other restriction than that originally proposed.
Thus was it known to the French ministry and chambers that if
the position assumed by them, and which had been so frequently
and solemnly announced as the only one compatible with the honor
of France, was maintained, and the bill passed as originally
proposed, the money would be paid, and there would be an end of
this unfortunate controversy.
"But this cheering prospect was soon destroyed by an amendment
introduced into the bill at the moment of its passage, providing
that the money should not be paid until the French government
had received satisfactory explanations of the President's
message of the 2d December, 1834; and, what is still more
extraordinary, the president of the council of ministers adopted
this amendment, and consented to its incorporation in the
bill. In regard to a supposed insult which had been formally
resented by the recall of their minister, and the offer of
passports to ours, they now, for the first time, proposed to
ask explanations. Sentiments and propositions, which they had
declared could not justly be imputed to the government or
people of the United States, are set up as obstacles to the
performance of an act of conceded justice to that government and
people. They had declared that the honor of France required the
fulfilment of the engagement into which the King had entered,
unless Congress adopted the recommendations of the message.
They ascertained that Congress did not adopt them, and yet
that fulfilment is refused, unless they first obtain from the
President explanations of an opinion characterized by themselves
as personal and inoperative."
Having thus traced the controversy down to the point on which it
hung--no payment without an apology first made--the President took
up this condition as a new feature in the case--presenting national
degradation on one side, and twenty-five millions of francs on the
other--and declared his determination to submit to no dishonor, and
repulsed the apology as a stain upon the national character; and
concluded this head of his message with saying:
"In any event, however, the principle involved in the new aspect
which has been given to the controversy is so vitally important
to the independent administration of the government, that it
can neither be surrendered nor compromitted without national
degradation. I hope it is unnecessary for me to say that such a
sacrifice will not be made through any agency of mine. The honor
of my country shall never be stained by an apology from me for
the statement of truth and the performance of duty; nor can I
give any explanation of my official acts, except such as is due
to integrity and justice, and consistent with the principles
on which our institutions have been framed. This determination
will, I am confident, be approved by my constituents. I have
indeed studied their character to but little purpose, if the
sum of twenty-five millions of francs will have the weight of a
feather in the estimation of what appertains to their national
independence: and if, unhappily, a different impression should
at any time obtain, in any quarter, they will, I am sure,
rally round the government of their choice with alacrity and
unanimity, and silence for ever the degrading imputation."
The loss of the fortification bill at the previous session, had been
a serious interruption to our system of defences, and an injury
to the country in that point of view, independently of its effect
upon our relations with France. A system of general and permanent
fortification of the coasts and harbors had been adopted at the
close of the war of 1812; and throughout our extended frontier
were many works in different degrees of completion, the stoppage
of which involved loss and destruction, as well as delay, in this
indispensable work. Looking at the loss of the bill in this point of
view, the President said:
"Much loss and inconvenience have been experienced, in
consequence of the failure of the bill containing the ordinary
appropriations for fortifications which passed one branch of the
national legislature at the last session, but was lost in the
other. This failure was the more regretted, not only because it
necessarily interrupted and delayed the progress of a system
of national defence, projected immediately after the last war,
and since steadily pursued, but also because it contained a
contingent appropriation, inserted in accordance with the views
of the Executive, in aid of this important object, and other
branches of the national defence, some portions of which might
have been most usefully applied during the past season. I
invite your early attention to that part of the report of the
Secretary of War which relates to this subject, and recommend an
appropriation sufficiently liberal to accelerate the armament
of the fortifications agreeably to the proposition submitted
by him, and to place our whole Atlantic seaboard in a complete
state of defence. A just regard to the permanent interests of
the country evidently requires this measure. But there are also
other reasons which at the present juncture give it peculiar
force, and make it my duty to call the subject to your special
consideration."
The plan for the removal of the Indians to the west of the
Mississippi being now in successful progress and having well nigh
reached its consummation, the President took the occasion, while
communicating that gratifying fact, to make an authentic exposition
of the humane policy which had governed the United States in
adopting this policy. He showed that it was still more for the
benefit of the Indians than that of the white population who were
relieved of their presence--that besides being fully paid for all
the lands they abandoned, and receiving annuities often amounting
to thirty dollars a head, and being inducted into the arts of
civilized life, they also received in every instance more land than
they abandoned, of better quality, better situated for them from
its frontier situation, and in the same parallels of latitude. This
portion of his message will be read with particular gratification
by all persons of humane dispositions, and especially so by all
candid persons who had been deluded into the belief of injustice and
oppression practised upon these people. He said:
"The plan of removing the aboriginal people who yet remain
within the settled portions of the United States, to the country
west of the Mississippi River, approaches its consummation. It
was adopted on the most mature consideration of the condition
of this race, and ought to be persisted in till the object
is accomplished, and prosecuted with as much vigor as a just
regard to their circumstances will permit, and as fast as
their consent can be obtained. All preceding experiments for
the improvement of the Indians have failed. It seems now to be
an established fact, that they cannot live in contact with a
civilized community and prosper. Ages of fruitless endeavors
have, at length, brought us to a knowledge of this principle
of intercommunication with them. The past we cannot recall,
but the future we can provide for. Independently of the treaty
stipulations into which we have entered with the various tribes,
for the usufructuary rights they have ceded to us, no one can
doubt the moral duty of the government of the United States
to protect, and, if possible, to preserve and perpetuate, the
scattered remnants of this race, which are left within our
borders. In the discharge of this duty, an extensive region in
the West has been assigned for their permanent residence. It has
been divided into districts, and allotted among them. Many have
already removed, and others are preparing to go; and with the
exception of two small bands, living in Ohio and Indiana, not
exceeding 1,500 persons, and of the Cherokees, all the tribes
on the east side of the Mississippi, and extending from Lake
Michigan to Florida, have entered into engagements which will
lead to their transplantation.
"The plan for their removal and re-establishment is founded upon
the knowledge we have gained of their character and habits,
and has been dictated by a spirit of enlarged liberality. A
territory exceeding in extent that relinquished, has been
granted to each tribe. Of its climate, fertility, and capacity
to support an Indian population, the representations are highly
favorable. To these districts the Indians are removed at the
expense of the United States, and with certain supplies of
clothing, arms, ammunition, and other indispensable articles,
they are also furnished gratuitously with provisions for the
period of a year after their arrival at their new homes. In that
time, from the nature of the country, and of the products raised
by them, they can subsist themselves by agricultural labor, if
they choose to resort to that mode of life. If they do not, they
are upon the skirts of the great prairies, where countless herds
of buffalo roam, and a short time suffices to adapt their own
habits to the changes which a change of the animals destined for
their food may require. Ample arrangements have also been made
for the support of schools. In some instances, council-houses
and churches are to be erected, dwellings constructed for the
chiefs, and mills for common use. Funds have been set apart for
the maintenance of the poor. The most necessary mechanical arts
have been introduced, and blacksmiths, gunsmiths, wheelwrights,
millwrights, &c. are supported among them. Steel and iron, and
sometimes salt, are purchased for them, and ploughs and other
farming utensils, domestic animals, looms, spinning-wheels,
cars, &c., are presented to them. And besides these beneficial
arrangements, annuities are in all cases paid, amounting in
some instances to more than thirty dollars for each individual
of the tribe; and in all cases sufficiently great, if justly
divided, and prudently expended, to enable them, in addition to
their own exertions, to live comfortably. And as a stimulus for
exertion, it is now provided by law, that, 'in all cases of the
appointment of interpreters, or other persons employed for the
benefit of the Indian, a preference shall be given to persons of
Indian descent, if such can be found who are properly qualified
for the discharge of the duties.'"
The effect of the revival of the gold currency was a subject of
great congratulation with the President, and its influence was felt
in every department of industry. Near twenty millions of dollars had
entered the country--a sum far above the average circulation of the
Bank of the United States in its best days, and a currency of a kind
to diffuse itself over the country, and remain where there was a
demand for it, and for which, different from a bank paper currency,
no interest was paid for its use, and no danger incurred of its
becoming useless. He thus referred to this gratifying circumstance:
"Connected with the condition of the finances, and the
flourishing state of the country in all its branches of
industry, it is pleasing to witness the advantages which have
been already derived from the recent laws regulating the value
of the gold coinage. These advantages will be more apparent in
the course of the next year, when the branch mints authorized to
be established in North Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana, shall
have gone into operation. Aided, as it is hoped they will be,
by further reforms in the banking systems of the States, and by
judicious regulations on the part of Congress in relation to the
custody of the public moneys, it may be confidently anticipated
that the use of gold and silver as a circulating medium will
become general in the ordinary transactions connected with the
labor of the country. The great desideratum, in modern times,
is an efficient check upon the power of banks, preventing that
excessive issue of paper whence arise those fluctuations in
the standard of value which render uncertain the rewards of
labor. It was supposed by those who established the Bank of
the United States, that, from the credit given to it by the
custody of the public moneys, and other privileges, and the
precautions taken to guard against the evils which the country
had suffered in the bankruptcy of many of the State institutions
of that period, we should derive from that institution all the
security and benefits of a sound currency, and every good end
that was attainable under that provision of the constitution
which authorizes Congress alone to coin money and regulate the
value thereof. But it is scarcely necessary now to say that
these anticipations have not been realized. After the extensive
embarrassment and distress recently produced by the Bank of
the United States, from which the country is now recovering,
aggravated as they were by pretensions to power which defied the
public authority, and which, if acquiesced in by the people,
would have changed the whole character of our government, every
candid and intelligent individual must admit that, for the
attainment of the great advantages of a sound currency, we must
look to a course of legislation radically different from that
which created such an institution."
Railroads were at this time still in their infancy in the United
States; they were but few in number and comparatively feeble; but
the nature of a monopoly is the same under all circumstances and
the United States, in their post-office department, had begun to
feel the effects of the extortion and overbearing of monopolizing
companies, clothed with chartered privileges intended to be for
the public as well as private advantage, but usually perverted to
purposes of self-enrichment, and of oppression. The evil had already
become so serious as to require the attention of Congress; and the
President thus recommended the subject to its consideration:
"Particular attention is solicited to that portion of the
report of the postmaster-general which relates to the carriage
of the mails of the United States upon railroads constructed
by private corporations under the authority of the several
States. The reliance which the general government can place
on those roads as a means of carrying on its operations, and
the principles on which the use of them is to be obtained,
cannot too soon be considered and settled. Already does the
spirit of monopoly begin to exhibit its natural propensities
in attempts to exact from the public, for services which it
supposes cannot be obtained on other terms, the most extravagant
compensation. If these claims be persisted in, the question may
arise whether a combination of citizens, acting under charters
of incorporation from the States, can, by a direct refusal or
the demand of an exorbitant price, exclude the United States
from the use of the established channels of communication
between the different sections of the country; and whether the
United States cannot, without transcending their constitutional
powers, secure to the post-office department the use of those
roads, by an act of Congress which shall provide within itself
some equitable mode of adjusting the amount of compensation.
To obviate, if possible, the necessity of considering this
question, it is suggested whether it be not expedient to
fix, by law, the amounts which shall be offered to railroad
companies for the conveyance of the mails, graduated according
to their average weight, to be ascertained and declared by the
postmaster-general. It is probable that a liberal proposition of
that sort would be accepted."
The subject of slavery took a new turn of disturbance between the
North and South about this time. The particular form of annoyance
which it now wore was that of the transmission into the slave
States, through the United States mail, of incendiary publications,
tending to excite servile insurrections. Societies, individuals and
foreigners were engaged in this diabolical work--as injurious to the
slaves by the further restrictions which it brought upon them, as to
the owners whose lives and property were endangered. The President
brought this practice to the notice of Congress, with a view to its
remedy. He said:
"In connection with these provisions in relation to the
post-office department, I must also invite your attention to
the painful excitement produced in the South by attempts to
circulate through the mails inflammatory appeals addressed to
the passions of the slaves, in prints, and in various sorts of
publications, calculated to stimulate them to insurrection, and
to produce all the horrors of a servile war. There is doubtless
no respectable portion of our countrymen who can be so far
misled, as to feel any other sentiment than that of indignant
regret at conduct so destructive of the harmony and peace of
the country, and so repugnant to the principles of our national
compact and to the dictates of humanity and religion. Our
happiness and prosperity essentially depend upon peace within
our borders: and peace depends upon the maintenance, in good
faith, of those compromises of the constitution upon which the
Union is founded. It is fortunate for the country that the good
sense, the generous feeling, and the deep-rooted attachment
of the people of the non-slaveholding States, to the Union,
and to their fellow-citizens of the same blood in the South,
have given so strong and impressive a tone to the sentiments
entertained against the proceedings of the misguided persons
who have engaged in these unconstitutional and wicked attempts,
and especially against the emissaries from foreign parts, who
have dared to interfere in this matter, as to authorize the
hope that those attempts will no longer be persisted in. But if
these expressions of the public will, shall not be sufficient
to effect so desirable a result, not a doubt can be entertained
that the non-slaveholding States, so far from countenancing
the slightest interference with the constitutional rights
of the South, will be prompt to exercise their authority in
suppressing, so far as in them lies, whatever is calculated
to produce this evil. In leaving the care of other branches
of this interesting subject to the State authorities, to whom
they properly belong, it is nevertheless proper for Congress to
take such measures as will prevent the post-office department,
which was designed to foster an amicable intercourse and
correspondence between all the members of the confederacy,
from being used as an instrument of an opposite character. The
general government, to which the great trust is confided of
preserving inviolate the relations created among the States, by
the constitution, is especially bound to avoid in its own action
any thing that may disturb them. I would, therefore, call the
special attention of Congress to the subject, and respectfully
suggest the propriety of passing such a law as will prohibit,
under severe penalties, the circulation in the Southern States,
through the mail, of incendiary publications intended to
instigate the slaves to insurrection."
The President in this impressive paragraph makes a just distinction
between the conduct of misguided men, and of wicked emissaries,
engaged in disturbing the harmony of the Union, and the patriotic
people of the non-slaveholding States who discountenance their
work and repress their labors. The former receive the brand of
reprobation, and are pointed out for criminal legislation: the
latter receive the applause due to good citizens.
The President concludes this message, as he had done many others,
with a recurrence to the necessity of reform in the mode of electing
the two first officers of the Republic. His convictions must have
been deep and strong thus to bring him back so many times to the
fundamental point of direct elections by the people, and total
suppression of all intermediate agencies. He says:
"I felt it to be my duty in the first message which I
communicated to Congress, to urge upon its attention
the propriety of amending that part of the constitution
which provides for the election of the President and the
Vice-President of the United States. The leading object which
I had in view was the adoption of some new provision, which
would secure to the people the performance of this high duty,
without any intermediate agency. In my annual communications
since, I have enforced the same views, from a sincere conviction
that the best interests of the country would be promoted by
their adoption. If the subject were an ordinary one, I should
have regarded the failure of Congress to act upon it, as an
indication of their judgment, that the disadvantages which
belong to the present system were not so great as those which
would result from any attainable substitute that had been
submitted to their consideration. Recollecting, however, that
propositions to introduce a new feature in our fundamental laws
cannot be too patiently examined, and ought not to be received
with favor, until the great body of the people are thoroughly
impressed with their necessity and value, as a remedy for
real evils, I feel that in renewing the recommendation I have
heretofore made on this subject, I am not transcending the
bounds of a just deference to the sense of Congress, or to the
disposition of the people. However much we may differ in the
choice of the measures which should guide the administration
of the government, there can be but little doubt in the minds
of those who are really friendly to the republican features of
our system, that one of its most important securities consists
in the separation of the legislative and executive powers, at
the same time that each is held responsible to the great source
of authority, which is acknowledged to be supreme, in the will
of the people constitutionally expressed. My reflection and
experience satisfy me, that the framers of the constitution,
although they were anxious to mark this feature as a settled
and fixed principle in the structure of the government, did not
adopt all the precautions that were necessary to secure its
practical observance, and that we cannot be said to have carried
into complete effect their intentions until the evils which
arise from this organic defect are remedied. All history tells
us that a free people should be watchful of delegated power,
and should never acquiesce in a practice which will diminish
their control over it. This obligation, so universal in its
application to all the principles of a Republic, is peculiarly
so in ours, where the formation of parties, founded on sectional
interests, is so much fostered by the extent of our territory.
These interests, represented by candidates for the Presidency,
are constantly prone, in the zeal of party and selfish objects,
to generate influences, unmindful of the general good, and
forgetful of the restraints which the great body of the people
would enforce, if they were, in no contingency, to lose the
right of expressing their will. The experience of our country
from the formation of the government to the present day,
demonstrates that the people cannot too soon adopt some stronger
safeguard for their right to elect the highest officers known to
the constitution, than is contained in that sacred instrument as
it now stands."
CHAPTER CXXX.
ABOLITION OF SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Mr. Buchanan presented the memorial of the religious society of
"Friends," in the State of Pennsylvania, adopted at their Caln
quarterly meeting, requesting Congress to abolish slavery and the
slave trade, in the District of Columbia. He said the memorial did
not emanate from fanatics, endeavoring to disturb the peace and
security of society in the Southern States, by the distribution of
incendiary publications, but from a society of Christians, whose
object had always been to promote good-will and peace among men.
It was entitled to respect from the character of the memorialists;
but he dissented from the opinion which they expressed and the
request which they made. The constitution recognized slavery; it
existed here; was found here when the District was ceded to the
United States; the slaves here were the property of the inhabitants;
and he was opposed to the disturbance of their rights. Congress
had no right to interfere with slavery in the States. That was
determined in the first Congress that ever sat--in the Congress
which commenced in 1789 and ended in 1791--and in the first session
of that Congress. The Religious Society of Friends then petitioned
Congress against slavery, and it was resolved, in answer to that
petition, that Congress had no authority to interfere in the
emancipation of slaves, or with their treatment, in any of the
States: and that was the answer still to be given. He then adverted
to the circumstances under which the memorial was presented. A
number of fanatics, led on by foreign incendiaries, have been
scattering firebrands through the Southern States--publications
and pictures exciting the slaves to revolt, and to the destruction
of their owners. Instead of benefiting the slaves by this conduct,
they do them the greatest injury, causing the bonds to be drawn
tighter upon them; and postponing emancipation even in those States
which might eventually contemplate it. These were his opinions on
slavery, and on the prayer of this memorial. He was opposed to
granting the prayer, but was in favor of receiving the petition
as the similar one had been received, in 1790, and giving it the
same answer; and, he had no doubt, with the same happy effect of
putting an end to such applications, and giving peace and quiet to
the country. He could not vote for the motion of the senator from
South Carolina, Mr. Calhoun, to reject it. He thought rejection
would inflame the question: reception and condemnation would quiet
it. Mr. Calhoun had moved to reject all petitions of the kind--not
reject upon their merits, after consideration, but beforehand, when
presented for reception. This was the starting point of a long and
acrimonious contest in the two Houses of Congress, in which the
right of petition was maintained on one side, and the good policy
of quieting the question by reception and rejection: on the other
side, it was held that the rights, the peace, and the dignity of the
States required all anti-slavery petitions to be repulsed, at the
first presentation, without reception or consideration. The author
of this View aspired to no lead in conducting this question; he
thought it was one to be settled by policy; that is to say, in the
way that would soonest quiet it. He thought there was a clear line
of distinction between mistaken philanthropists, and mischievous
incendiaries--also between the free States themselves and the
incendiary societies and individuals within them; and took an
early moment to express these opinions in order to set up the line
between what was mistake and what was crime--and between the acts of
individuals, on one hand, and of States, on the other; and in that
sense delivered the following speech:
"Mr. Benton rose to express his concurrence in the suggestion of the
senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Buchanan), that the consideration of
this subject be postponed until Monday. It had come up suddenly and
unexpectedly to-day, and the postponement would give an opportunity
for senators to reflect, and to confer together, and to conclude
what was best to be done, where all were united in wishing the same
end, namely, to allay, and not to produce, excitement. He had risen
for this purpose; but, being on his feet he would say a few words
on the general subject, which the presentation of these petitions
had so suddenly and unexpectedly brought up. With respect to the
petitioners, and those with whom they acted, he had no doubt but
that many of them were good people, aiming at benevolent objects,
and endeavoring to ameliorate the condition of one part of the human
race, without inflicting calamities on another part; but they were
mistaken in their mode of proceeding; and so far from accomplishing
any part of their object, the whole effect of their interposition
was to aggravate the condition of those in whose behalf they were
interfering. But there was another part, and he meant to speak of
the abolitionists, generally, as the body containing the part of
which he spoke; there was another part whom he could not qualify
as good people, seeking benevolent ends by mistaken means, but
as incendiaries and agitators, with diabolical objects in view,
to be accomplished by wicked and deplorable means. He did not go
into the proofs now to establish the correctness of his opinion of
this latter class, but he presumed it would be admitted that every
attempt to work upon the passions of the slaves, and to excite them
to murder their owners, was a wicked and diabolical attempt, and the
work of a midnight incendiary. Pictures of slave degradation and
misery, and of the white man's luxury and cruelty, were attempts
of this kind; for they were appeals to the vengeance of slaves,
and not to the intelligence or reason of those who legislated for
them. He (Mr. B.) had had many pictures of this kind, as well as
many diabolical publications, sent to him on this subject, during
the last summer; the whole of which he had cast into the fire,
and should not have thought of referring to the circumstance at
this time, as displaying the character of the incendiary part of
the abolitionists, had he not, within these few days past, and
while abolition petitions were pouring into the other end of the
Capitol, received one of these pictures, the design of which could
be nothing but mischief of the blackest dye. It was a print from
an engraving (and Mr. B. exhibited it, and handed it to senators
near him), representing a large and spreading tree of liberty,
beneath whose ample shade a slave owner was at one time luxuriously
reposing, with slaves fanning him; at another, carried forth in a
palanquin, to view the half-naked laborers in the cotton field,
whom drivers, with whips, were scourging to the task. The print
was evidently from the abolition mint, and came to him by some
other conveyance than that of the mail, for there was no post-mark
of any kind to identify its origin, and to indicate its line of
march. For what purpose could such a picture be intended, unless
to inflame the passions of slaves? And why engrave it, except to
multiply copies for extensive distribution? But it was not pictures
alone that operated upon the passions of the slaves, but speeches,
publications, petitions presented in Congress, and the whole
machinery of abolition societies. None of these things went to the
understandings of the slaves, but to their passions, all imperfectly
understood, and inspiring vague hopes, and stimulating abortive and
fatal insurrections. Societies, especially, were the foundation of
the greatest mischiefs. Whatever might be their objects, the slaves
never did, and never can, understand them but in one way: as allies
organized for action, and ready to march to their aid on the first
signal of insurrection! It was thus that the massacre of San Domingo
was made. The society in Paris, _Les Amis des Noirs_, Friends of
the Blacks, with its affiliated societies throughout France and
in London, made that massacre. And who composed that society? In
the beginning, it comprised the extremes of virtue and of vice;
it contained the best and the basest of human kind! Lafayette and
the Abbé Gregoire, those purest of philanthropists; and Marat and
Anacharsis Clootz, those imps of hell in human shape. In the end
(for all such societies run the same career of degeneration), the
good men, disgusted with their associates, retired from the scene;
and the wicked ruled at pleasure. Declamations against slavery,
publications in gazettes, pictures, petitions to the constituent
assembly, were the mode of proceeding; and the fish-women of
Paris--he said it with humiliation, because American females had
signed the petitions now before us--the fish-women of Paris,
the very _poissardes_ from the quays of the Seine, became the
obstreperous champions of West India emancipation. The effect upon
the French islands is known to the world; but what is not known
to the world, or not sufficiently known to it, is that the same
societies which wrapt in flames and drenched in blood the beautiful
island, which was then a garden and is now a wilderness, were
the means of exciting an insurrection upon our own continent: in
Louisiana, where a French slave population existed, and where the
language of _Les Amis des Noirs_ could be understood, and where
their emissaries could glide. The knowledge of this event (Mr. B.
said) ought to be better known, both to show the danger of these
societies, however distant, and though oceans may roll between them
and their victims, and the fate of the slaves who may be excited
to insurrection by them on any part of the American continent. He
would read the notice of the event from the work of Mr. Charles
Gayarre, lately elected by his native State to a seat on this floor,
and whose resignation of that honor he sincerely regretted, and
particularly for the cause which occasioned it, and which abstracted
talent from a station that it would have adorned. Mr. B. read
from the work, '_Essai Historique sur la Louisiane_:' 'The white
population of Louisiana was not the only part of the population
which was agitated by the French revolution. The blacks, encouraged
without doubt by the success which their race had obtained in San
Domingo, dreamed of liberty, and sought to shake off the yoke.
The insurrection was planned at Pointe Coupeé, which was then an
isolated parish, and in which the number of slaves was considerable.
The conspiracy took birth on the plantation of Mr. Julien Poydras,
a rich planter, who was then travelling in the United States, and
spread itself rapidly throughout the parish. The death of all the
whites was resolved. Happily the conspirators could not agree upon
the day for the massacre; and from this disagreement resulted a
quarrel, which led to the discovery of the plot. The militia of the
parish immediately took arms, and the Baron de Carondelet caused
them to be supported by the troops of the line. It was resolved
to arrest, and to punish the principal conspirators. The slaves
opposed it; but they were quickly dispersed, with the loss of
twenty of their number killed on the spot. Fifty of the insurgents
were condemned to death. Sixteen were executed in different parts
of the parish; the rest were put on board a galley and hung at
intervals, all along the river, as far as New Orleans (a distance
of one hundred and fifty miles). The severity of the chastisement
intimidated the blacks, and all returned to perfect order.'
"Resuming his remarks, Mr. B. said he had read this passage to show
that our white population had a right to dread, nay, were bound
to dread, the mischievous influence of these societies, even when
an ocean intervened, and much more when they stood upon the same
hemisphere, and within the bosom of the same country. He had also
read it to show the miserable fate of their victims, and to warn all
that were good and virtuous--all that were honest, but mistaken--in
the three hundred and fifty affiliated societies, vaunted by the
individuals who style themselves their executive committee, and
who date, from the commercial emporium of this Union, their high
manifesto against the President; to warn them at once to secede from
associations which, whatever may be their designs, can have no other
effect than to revive in the Southern States the tragedy, not of San
Domingo, but of the parish of Pointe Coupeé.
"Mr. B. went on to say that these societies had already perpetrated
more mischief than the joint remainder of all their lives spent in
prayers of contrition, and in works of retribution, could ever atone
for. They had thrown the state of the emancipation question fifty
years back. They had subjected every traveller, and every emigrant,
from the non-slaveholding States, to be received with coldness, and
viewed with suspicion and jealousy, in the slaveholding States. They
had occasioned many slaves to lose their lives. They had caused
the deportation of many ten thousands from the grain-growing to
the planting States. They had caused the privileges of all slaves
to be curtailed, and their bonds to be more tightly drawn. Nor was
the mischief of their conduct confined to slaves; it reached the
free colored people, and opened a sudden gulf of misery to that
population. In all the slave States, this population has paid the
forfeit of their intermediate position; and suffered proscription
as the instruments, real or suspected, of the abolition societies.
In all these States, their exodus had either been enforced or was
impending. In Missouri there was a clause in the constitution which
prohibited their emigration to the State; but that clause had
remained a dead letter in the book until the agitation produced
among the slaves by the distant rumbling of the abolition thunder,
led to the knowledge in some instances, and to the belief in others,
that these people were the antennæ of the abolitionists; and their
medium for communicating with the slaves, and for exciting them
to desertion first, and to insurrection eventually. Then ensued
a painful scene. The people met, resolved, and prescribed thirty
days for the exodus of the obnoxious caste. Under that decree a
general emigration had to take place at the commencement of winter.
Many worthy and industrious people had to quit their business and
their homes, and to go forth under circumstances which rendered
them objects of suspicion wherever they went, and sealed the door
against the acquisition of new friends while depriving them of the
protection of old ones. He (Mr. B.) had witnessed many instances of
this kind, and had given certificates to several, to show that they
were banished, not for their offences, but for their misfortunes;
for the misfortune of being allied to the race which the abolition
societies had made the object of their gratuitous philanthropy.
"Having said thus much of the abolition societies in the
non-slaveholding States, Mr. B. turned, with pride and exultation,
to a different theme--the conduct of the great body of the people
in all these States. Before he saw that conduct, and while the
black question, like a portentous cloud was gathering and darkening
on the Northeastern horizon, he trembled, not for the South, but
for the Union. He feared that he saw the fatal work of dissolution
about to begin, and the bonds of this glorious confederacy about
to snap; but the conduct of the great body of the people in all
the non-slaveholding States quickly dispelled that fear, and in
its place planted deep the strongest assurance of the harmony and
indivisibility of the Union which he had felt for many years. Their
conduct was above all praise, above all thanks, above all gratitude.
They had chased off the foreign emissaries, silenced the gabbling
tongues of female dupes, and dispersed the assemblages, whether
fanatical, visionary, or incendiary, of all that congregated to
preach against evils which afflicted others not them; and to propose
remedies to aggravate the disease which they pretended to cure. They
had acted with a noble spirit. They had exerted a vigor beyond all
law. They had obeyed the enactments, not of the statute book, but of
the heart; and while that spirit was in the heart, he cared nothing
for laws written in a book. He would rely upon that spirit to
complete the good work it has begun; to dry up these societies; to
separate the mistaken philanthropist from the reckless fanatic and
the wicked incendiary, and put an end to publications and petitions
which, whatever may be their design, can have no other effect than
to impede the object which they invoke, and to aggravate the evil
which they deplore.
"Turning to the immediate question before the Senate, that of the
rejection of the petitions, Mr. B. said his wish was to give that
vote which would have the greatest effect in putting down these
societies. He thought the vote to be given to be rather one of
expediency than of constitutional obligation. The clause in the
constitution so often quoted in favor of the right of petitioning
for a redress of grievances would seem to him to apply rather to
the grievances felt by ourselves than to those felt by others, and
which others might think an advantage, what we thought a grievance.
The petitioners from Ohio think it a grievance that the people of
the District of Columbia should suffer the institution of slavery,
and pray for the redress of that grievance; the people of the
District think the institution an advantage, and want no redress;
now, which has the right of petitioning? Looking to the past action
of the Senate, Mr. B. saw that, about thirty years ago, a petition
against slavery, and that in the States, was presented to this body
by the society of Quakers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey; and that
the same question upon its reception was made, and decided by yeas
and nays, 19 to 9, in favor of receiving it. He read the names, to
show that the senators from the slave and non-slaveholding States
voted some for and some against the reception, according to each
one's opinion, and not according to the position or the character
of the State from which he came. Mr. B. repeated that he thought
this question to be one of expediency, and that it was expedient to
give the vote which would go furthest towards quieting the public
mind. The quieting the South depended upon quieting the North; for
when the abolitionists were put down in the former place, the latter
would be at ease. It seemed to him, then, that the gentlemen of the
non-slaveholding States were the proper persons to speak first. They
knew the temper of their own constituents best, and what might have
a good or an ill effect upon them, either to increase the abolition
fever, or to allay it. He knew that the feeling of the Senate was
general; that all wished for the same end; and the senators of the
North as cordially as those of the South."
CHAPTER CXXXI.
MAIL CIRCULATION OF INCENDIARY PUBLICATIONS.
Mr. Calhoun moved that so much of the President's message as related
to the mail transmission of incendiary publications be referred
to a select committee. Mr. King, of Alabama, opposed the motion,
urging that the only way that Congress could interfere would be by
a post-office regulation; and that all such regulation properly
referred itself to the committee on post-offices and post-roads. He
did not look to the particular construction of the committee, but
had no doubt the members of that committee could see the evil of
these incendiary transmissions through the mails, and would provide
a remedy which they should deem constitutional, proper and adequate;
and he expressed a fear that, by giving the subject too much
importance, an excitement might be got up. Mr. Calhoun replied that
the Senator from Alabama had mistaken his object--that it was not to
produce any unnecessary excitement, but to adopt such a course as
would secure a committee which would calmly and dispassionately go
into an examination of the whole subject; which would investigate
the character of those publications, to ascertain whether they were
incendiary or not; and, if so, on that ground to put a check on
their transmission through the mails. He could not but express his
astonishment at the objection which had been taken to his motion,
for he knew that the Senator from Alabama felt that deep interest in
the subject which pervaded the feelings of every man in the South.
He believed that the post-office committee would be fully occupied
with the regular business which would be brought before them; and
it was this consideration, and no party feeling, which had induced
him to make his motion. Mr. Grundy, chairman of the committee on
post-offices and post-roads, said that his position was such as to
have imposed silence upon him, if that silence might not have been
misunderstood. In reply to the objection that a majority of the
committee were not from the slave States, that circumstance might
be an advantage; it might give the greater weight to their action,
which it was known would be favorable to the object of the motion.
He would say that the federal government could do but little on
this subject except through a post-office regulation, and thereby
aiding the efficiency of the State laws. He did not desire to see
any power exercised which would have the least tendency to interfere
with the sovereignty of the States. Mr. Calhoun adhering to his
desire for a select committee, and expressing his belief that a
great constitutional question was to be settled, and that the crisis
required calmness and firmness, and the action of a committee that
came mainly from the endangered part of the Union--his request was
granted; and a committee of five appointed, composed as he desired;
namely, Mr. Calhoun chairman, Mr. King of Georgia, Mr. Mangum
of North Carolina, Mr. Davis of Massachusetts, and Mr. Lewis F.
Linn of Missouri. A bill and a report were soon brought in by the
committee--a bill subjecting to penalties any post-master who should
knowingly receive and put into the mail any publication, or picture
touching the subject of slavery, to go into any State or territory
in which the circulation of such publication, or picture, should
be forbid by the State laws. When the report was read Mr. Mangum
moved the printing of 5000 extra copies of it. This motion brought a
majority of the committee to their feet, to disclaim their assent to
parts of the report; and to absolve themselves from responsibility
for its contents. A conversational debate ensued on this point, on
which Mr. Davis, Messrs. King of Alabama and Georgia, Mr. Linn and
Mr. Calhoun thus expressed themselves:
"Mr. Davis said that, as a motion had been made to print the
paper purporting to be a report from the select committee of
which he was a member, he would remark that the views contained
in it did not entirely meet his approbation, though it contained
many things which he approved of. He had risen for no other
purpose than to make this statement, lest the impression should
go abroad with the report that he assented to those portions of
it which did not meet his approbation."
"Mr. King, of Georgia, said that, lest the same misunderstanding
should go forth with respect to his views, he must state that
the report was not entirely assented to by himself. However,
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun), in making this
report, had already stated that the majority of the committee
did not agree to the whole of it, though many parts of it were
concurred in by all."
"Mr. Davis said he would add further, that he might have taken
the usual course, and made an additional report, containing all
his views on the subject, but thought it hardly worth while, and
he had contented himself with making the statement that he had
just made."
"Mr. King, of Alabama, said this was a departure from the usual
course--by it a minority might dissent; and yet, when the report
was published, it would seem to be a report of the committee of
the Senate, and not a report of two members of it. It was proper
that the whole matter should go together with the bill, that the
report submitted by the minority might be read with the bill,
to show that the reading of the report was not in conflict with
the principles of the bill reported. He thought the senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Mangum) had better modify his motion, so as
to have the report and bill published together."
"Mr. Linn remarked that, being a member of the committee, it
was but proper for him to say that he had assented to several
parts of the report, though he did not concur with it in all its
parts. Should it become necessary, he would, when the subject
again came before the Senate, explain in what particulars he
had coincided with the views given in the report, and how far
he had dissented from them. The bill, he said, had met with his
approbation."
"Mr. Calhoun said he hoped his friend from North Carolina would
modify his motion, so as to include the printing of the bill
with the report. It would be seen, by comparing both together,
that there was no _non sequitur_ in the bill, coming as it did
after this report."
"Mr. King, of Alabama, had only stated his impressions from
hearing the report and bill read. It appeared to him unusual
that a report should be made by a minority, and merely
acquiesced in by the committee, and that the bill should be
adverse to it."
"Mr. Davis said the report was, as he understood it to be read
from the chair, the report of the committee. He had spoken for
himself only, and for nobody else, lest the impression might go
abroad that he concurred in all parts of the report, when he
dissented from some of them."
"Mr. Calhoun said that a majority of the committee did not
concur in the report, though there were two members of it,
himself and the gentleman from North Carolina, who concurred
throughout; three other gentlemen concurred with the greater
part of the report, though they dissented from some parts of it;
and two gentlemen concurred also with some parts of it. As to
the bill, two of the committee would have preferred a different
one, though they had rather have that than none at all; another
gentleman was opposed to it altogether. The bill, however, was a
natural consequence of the report, and the two did not disagree
with each other."
The parts of the report which were chiefly exceptionable were two:
1. The part which related to the nature of the federal government,
as being founded in "compact;" which was the corner-stone of the
doctrine of nullification, and its corollary that the laws of
nations were in full force between the several States, as sovereign
and independent communities except as modified by the compact; 2.
The part that argued, as upon a subsisting danger, the evils by an
abolition of slavery in the slave States by interference from other
States. On the first of these points the report said:
"That the States which form our Federal Union are sovereign and
independent communities, bound together by a constitutional
compact, and are possessed of all the powers belonging to
distinct and separate States, excepting such as are delegated
to be exercised by the general government, is assumed as
unquestionable. The compact itself expressly provides that all
powers not delegated are reserved to the States and the people.
To ascertain, then, whether the power in question is delegated
or reserved, it is only necessary to ascertain whether it is to
be found among the enumerated powers or not. If it be not among
them, it belongs, of course, to the reserved powers. On turning
to the constitution, it will be seen that, while the power of
defending the country against external danger is found among
the enumerated, the instrument is wholly silent as to the power
of defending the internal peace and security of the States; and
of course, reserves to the States this important power, as it
stood before the adoption of the constitution, with no other
limitation, as has been stated, except such as are expressly
prescribed by the instrument itself. From what has been stated,
it may be inferred that the right of a State to defend itself
against internal dangers is a part of the great, primary, and
inherent right of self-defence, which, by the laws of nature,
belongs to all communities; and so jealous were the States of
this essential right, without which their independence could not
be preserved, that it is expressly provided by the constitution,
that the general government shall not assist a State, even in
case of domestic violence, except on the application of the
authorities of the State itself; thus excluding, by a necessary
consequence, its interference in all other cases.
"Having now shown that it belongs to the slaveholding States,
whose institutions are in danger, and not to Congress, as is
supposed by the message, to determine what papers are incendiary
and intended to excite insurrection among the slaves, it remains
to inquire, in the next place, what are the corresponding duties
of the general government, and the other States, from within
whose limits and jurisdiction their institutions are attacked; a
subject intimately connected with that with which the committee
are immediately charged, and which, at the present juncture,
ought to be fully understood by all the parties. The committee
will begin with the first. It remains next to inquire into the
duty of the States from within whose limits and jurisdiction
the internal peace and security of the slaveholding States are
endangered. In order to comprehend more fully the nature and
extent of their duty, it will be necessary to make a few remarks
on the relations which exist between the States of our Federal
Union, with the rights and obligations reciprocally resulting
from such relations. It has already been stated that the States
which compose our Federal Union are sovereign and independent
communities, united by a constitutional compact. Among its
members the laws of nations are in full force and obligation,
except as altered or modified by the compact; and, of course,
the States possess, with that exception, all the rights, and
are subject to all the duties, which separate and distinct
communities possess, or to which they are subject. Among these
are comprehended the obligation which all States are under to
prevent their citizens from disturbing the peace or endangering
the security of other States; and in case of being disturbed
or endangered, the right of the latter to demand of the former
to adopt such measures as will prevent their recurrence, and
if refused or neglected, to resort to such measures as its
protection may require. This right remains, of course, in
force among the States of this Union, with such limitations
as are imposed expressly by the constitution. Within their
limits, the rights of the slaveholding States are as full to
demand of the States within whose limits and jurisdiction their
peace is assailed, to adopt the measures necessary to prevent
the same, and if refused or neglected, to resort to means to
protect themselves, as if they were separate and independent
communities."
This part of the report was that which, in founding the federal
government in compact, as under the old articles of the
confederation, and in bringing the law of nations to apply between
the States as independent and sovereign communities, except where
limited by the compact, was supposed to contain the doctrine of
nullification and secession; and the concluding part of the report
is an argument in favor of the course recommended in the _Crisis_
in the event that New-York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania did not
suppress the abolition societies. The report continues:
"Their professed object is the emancipation of slaves in the
Southern States, which they propose to accomplish through
the agencies of organized societies, spread throughout the
non-slaveholding States, and a powerful press, directed mainly
to excite, in the other States, hatred and abhorrence against
the institutions and citizens of the slaveholding States, by
addresses, lectures, and pictorial representations, abounding
in false and exaggerated statements. If the magnitude of the
mischief affords, in any degree, the measure by which to judge
of the criminality of a project, few have ever been devised
to be compared with the present, whether the end be regarded,
or the means by which it is proposed to be accomplished. The
blindness of fanaticism is proverbial. With more zeal than
understanding, it constantly misconceives the nature of the
object at which it aims, and towards which it rushes with
headlong violence, regardless of the means by which it is to
be effected. Never was its character more fully exemplified
than in the present instance. Setting out with the abstract
principle that slavery is an evil, the fanatical zealots come
at once to the conclusion that it is their duty to abolish
it, regardless of all the disasters which must follow. Never
was conclusion more false or dangerous. Admitting their
assumption, there are innumerable things which, regarded in
the abstract, are evils, but which it would be madness to
attempt to abolish. Thus regarded, government itself is an
evil, with most of its institutions intended to protect life
and property, comprehending the civil as well as the criminal
and military code, which are tolerated only because to abolish
them would be to increase instead of diminishing the evil. The
reason is equally applicable to the case under consideration,
to illustrate which, a few remarks on slavery, as it actually
exists in the Southern States, will be necessary.
"He who regards slavery in those States simply under the
relation of master and slave, as important as that relation is,
viewed merely as a question of property to the slaveholding
section of the Union, has a very imperfect conception of the
institution, and the impossibility of abolishing it without
disasters unexampled in the history of the world. To understand
its nature and importance fully, it must be borne in mind that
slavery, as it exists in the Southern States (including under
the Southern all the slaveholding States), involves not only
the relation of master and slave, but, also, the social and
political relations of two races, of nearly equal numbers, from
different quarters of the globe, and the most opposite of all
others in every particular that distinguishes one race of men
from another. Emancipation would destroy these relations--would
divest the masters of their property, and subvert the relation,
social and political, that has existed between the races from
almost the first settlement of the Southern States. It is not
the intention of the committee to dwell on the pecuniary aspect
of this vital subject, the vast amount of property involved,
equal at least to $950,000,000; the ruin of families and
individuals; the impoverishment and prostration of an entire
section of the Union, and the fatal blow that would be given to
the productions of the great agricultural staples, on which the
commerce, the navigation, the manufactures, and the revenue of
the country, almost entirely depend. As great as these disasters
would be, they are nothing, compared to what must follow the
subversion of the existing relation between the two races, to
which the committee will confine their remarks. Under this
relation, the two races have long lived in peace and prosperity,
and if not disturbed, would long continue so to live. While the
European race has rapidly increased in wealth and numbers, and
at the same time has maintained an equality, at least, morally
and intellectually, with their brethren of the non-slaveholding
States; the African race has multiplied with not less rapidity,
accompanied by great improvement, physically and intellectually,
and the enjoyment of a degree of comfort with which the laboring
class in few countries can compare, and confessedly greatly
superior to what the free people of the same race possess in the
non-slaveholding States. It may, indeed, be safely asserted,
that there is no example in history in which a savage people,
such as their ancestors were when brought into the country,
have ever advanced in the same period so rapidly in numbers
and improvement. To destroy the existing relations would be to
destroy this prosperity, and to place the two races in a state
of conflict, which must end in the expulsion or extirpation of
one or the other. No other can be substituted, compatible with
their peace or security. The difficulty is in the diversity of
the races. So strongly drawn is the line between the two, in
consequence of it, and so strengthened by the force of habit,
and education, that it is impossible for them to exist together
in the same community, where their numbers are so nearly equal
as in the slaveholding States, under any other relation than
which now exists. Social and political equality between them is
impossible. No power on earth can overcome the difficulty. The
causes resisting lie too deep in the principles of our nature
to be surmounted. But, without such equality, to change the
present condition of the African race, were it possible, would
be but to change the form of slavery. It would make them the
slaves of the community, instead of the slaves of individuals,
with less responsibility and interest in their welfare on the
part of the community than is felt by their present masters;
while it would destroy the security and independence of the
European race, if the African should be permitted to continue
in their changed condition within the limits of those States.
They would look to the other States for support and protection,
and would become, virtually, their allies and dependents; and
would thus place in the hands of those States the most effectual
instrument to destroy the influence and control the destiny of
the rest of the Union. It is against this relation between the
two races that the blind and criminal zeal of the abolitionists
is directed--a relation that now preserves in quiet and
security more than 6,500,000 of human beings, and which cannot
he destroyed without destroying the peace and prosperity of
nearly half the States of the Union, and involving their entire
population in a deadly conflict, that must terminate either in
the expulsion or extirpation of those who are the object of the
misguided and false humanity of those who claim to be their
friends. He must be blind, indeed, who does not perceive that
the subversion of a relation which must be followed with such
disastrous consequences can only be effected by convulsions that
would devastate the country, burst asunder the bonds of Union,
and ingulf in a sea of blood the institutions of the country. It
is madness to suppose that the slaveholding States would quietly
submit to be sacrificed. Every consideration--interest, duty,
and humanity, the love of country, the sense of wrong, hatred
of oppressors, and treacherous and faithless confederates,
and finally despair--would impel them to the most daring and
desperate resistance in defence of property, family, country,
liberty, and existence. But wicked and cruel as is the end
aimed at, it is fully equalled by the criminality of the means
by which it is proposed to be accomplished. These, as has been
stated, consist in organized societies and a powerful press,
directed mainly with a view to excite the bitterest animosity
and hatred of the people of the non-slaveholding States against
the citizens and institutions of the slaveholding States. It
is easy to see to what disastrous results such means must
tend. Passing over the more obvious effects, their tendency to
excite to insurrection and servile war, with all its horrors,
and the necessity which such tendency must impose on the
slaveholding States to resort to the most rigid discipline and
severe police, to the great injury of the present condition
of the slaves, there remains another, threatening incalculable
mischief to the country. The inevitable tendency of the means
to which the abolitionists have resorted to effect their object
must, if persisted in, end in completely alienating the two
great sections of the Union. The incessant action of hundreds
of societies, and a vast printing establishment, throwing
out daily thousands of artful and inflammatory publications,
must make, in time, a deep impression on the section of the
Union where they freely circulate, and are mainly designed to
have effect. Tho well-informed and thoughtful may hold them
in contempt, but the young, the inexperienced, the ignorant,
and thoughtless, will receive the poison. In process of time,
when the number of proselytes is sufficiently multiplied, the
artful and profligate, who are ever on the watch to seize on
any means, however wicked and dangerous, will unite with the
fanatics, and make their movements the basis of a powerful
political party, that will seek advancement by diffusing, as
widely as possible, hatred against the slaveholding States. But,
as hatred begets hatred, and animosity animosity, these feelings
would become reciprocal, till every vestige of attachment
would cease to exist between the two sections, when the Union
and the constitution, the offspring of mutual affection and
confidence, would forever perish. Such is the danger to which
the movements of the abolitionists expose the country. If the
force of the obligation is in proportion to the magnitude of the
danger, stronger cannot be imposed, than is at present, on the
States within whose limits the danger originates, to arrest its
further progress--a duty they owe, not only to the States whose
institutions are assailed, but to the Union and constitution, as
has been shown, and, it may be added, to themselves."
The insidiousness of this report was in the assumption of an actual
impending danger of the abolition of slavery in all the slave
States--the destruction of nine hundred and fifty millions of
property--the ocean of blood to be shed--the war of extermination
between two races--and the necessity for extraordinary means to
prevent these dire calamities; when the fact was, that there was
not one particle of any such danger. The assumption was contrary to
fact: the report was inflammatory and disorganizing: and if there
was any thing enigmatical in its conclusions, it was sufficiently
interpreted in the contemporaneous publications in the Southern
slave States, which were open in their declarations that a cause for
separation had occurred, limited only by the conduct of the free
States in suppressing within a given time the incendiary societies
within their borders. This limitation would throw the responsibility
of disunion upon the non-slaveholding States failing to suppress
these societies: for disunion, in that case, was foreshadowed in
another part of this report, and fully avowed in contemporary
Southern publications. Thus the report said:
"Those States, on the other hand, are not only under all
the obligations which independent communities would be, to
adopt such measures, but also under the obligation which the
constitution superadds, rendered more sacred, if possible, by
the fact that, while the Union imposes restrictions on the right
of the slaveholding States to defend themselves, it affords the
medium through which their peace and security are assailed. It
is not the intention of the committee to inquire what those
restrictions are, and what are the means which, under the
constitution, are left to the slaveholding States to protect
themselves. The period has not yet come, and they trust never
will, when it may be necessary to decide those questions; but
come it must, unless the States whose duty it is to suppress
the danger shall see in time its magnitude and the obligations
which they are under to adopt speedy and effectual measures
to arrest its further progress. That the full force of this
obligation may be understood by all parties, the committee
propose, in conclusion, to touch briefly on the movements of
the abolitionists, with the view of showing the dangerous
consequences to which they must lead if not arrested."
These were ominous intimations, to receive their full interpretation
elsewhere, and indissolubly connecting themselves with the late
disunion attitude of South Carolina--the basis of discontent only
changed. Mr. King of Georgia said that positions had been assumed
and principles insisted upon by Mr. Calhoun, not only inconsistent
with the bill reported, but he thought inconsistent with the
"existence of the Union itself, and which if established and
carried into practice, must hastily end in its dissolution." Mr.
Calhoun in his reply pretty well justified these conclusions of
the Georgia senator. He made it a point that the non-slaveholding
States had done nothing yet to suppress the incendiary societies
within their limits; and joining that non-action of these States
with a refusal of Congress to pass this bill, he looked upon it as
in vain to expect security or protection for the slaveholding States
except from themselves--from State interposition, as authorized
in the Virginia resolutions of 1798; and as recently carried out
by South Carolina in her nullification proceedings; and declared
that nothing was wanted but "concert" among themselves to place
their domestic institutions, their peace and security under their
own protection and beyond the reach of danger. All this was thus
intelligibly, and ominously stated in his reply to Mr. King:
"Thus far (I say it with regret) our just hopes have not been
realized. The legislatures of the South, backed by the voice
their constituents expressed through innumerable meetings,
have called upon the non-slaveholding States to repress the
movements made within the jurisdiction of those States against
their peace and security. Not a step has been taken; not a law
has been passed, or even proposed; and I venture to assert that
none will be; not but what there is a favorable disposition
towards us in the North, but I clearly see the state of
political parties there presents insuperable impediments to
any legislation on the subject. I rest my opinion on the fact
that the non-slaveholding States, from the elements of their
population, are, and will continue to be, divided and distracted
by parties of nearly equal strength; and that each will always
be ready to seize on every movement of the other which may give
them the superiority, without much regard to consequences,
as affecting their own States, and much less, remote and
distant sections. Nor have we been less disappointed as to the
proceedings of Congress. Believing that the general government
has no right or authority over the subject of slavery, we had
just grounds to hope Congress would refuse all jurisdiction in
reference to it, in whatever form it might be presented. The
very opposite course has been pursued. Abolition petitions have
not only been received in both Houses, but received on the most
obnoxious and dangerous of all grounds--that we are bound to
receive them; that is, to take jurisdiction of the question
of slavery whenever the abolitionists may think proper to
petition for its abolition, either here or in the States. Thus
far, then, we of the slaveholding States have been grievously
disappointed. One question still remains to be decided that
is presented by this bill. To refuse to pass this bill would
be virtually to co-operate with the abolitionists--would be
to make the officers and agents of the post-office department
in effect their agents and abettors in the circulation of
their incendiary publications, in violation of the laws of the
States. It is your unquestionable duty, as I have demonstrably
proved, to abstain from their violation; and, by refusing or
neglecting to discharge that duty, you would clearly enlist,
in the existing controversy, on the side of the abolitionists
against the Southern States. Should such be your decision,
by refusing to pass this bill, I shall say to the people of
the South, look to yourselves--you have nothing to hope from
others. But I must tell the Senate, be your decision what it
may, the South will never abandon the principles of this
bill. If you refuse co-operation with our laws, and conflict
should ensue between your and our law, the Southern States will
never yield to the superiority of yours. We have a remedy in
our hands, which, in such events, we shall not fail to apply.
We have high authority for asserting that, in such cases,
'State interposition is the rightful remedy'--a doctrine first
announced by Jefferson--adopted by the patriotic and republican
State of Kentucky by a solemn resolution, in 1798, and finally
carried out into successful practice on a recent occasion, ever
to be remembered, by the gallant State which I, part, have the
honor to represent. In this well-tested and efficient remedy,
sustained by the principles developed in the report and asserted
in this bill, the slaveholding States have an ample protection.
Let it be fixed, let it be riveted in every Southern mind, that
the laws of the slaveholding States for the protection of their
domestic institutions are paramount to the laws of the general
government in regulation of commerce and the mail, and that the
latter must yield to the former in the event of conflict; and
that, if the government should refuse to yield, the States have
a right to interpose, and we are safe. With these principles,
nothing but concert would be wanting to bid defiance to the
movements of the abolitionists, whether at home or abroad, and
to place our domestic institutions, and, with them, our security
and peace, under our own protection, and beyond the reach of
danger."
These were very significant intimations. Congress itself was to
become the ally of the abolitionists, and enlist in their cause, if
it did not pass his bill, which was opposed by Southern senators and
founded upon a minority report of a Southern committee selected by
Mr. Calhoun himself. It was well known it was not to pass; and in
view of that fact it was urged upon the South to nullify and secede.
Thus, within two short years after the "compromise" of 1833
had taken Mr. Calhoun out of the hands of the law, he publicly
and avowedly relapsed into the same condition; recurring again
to secession for a new grievance; and to be resorted to upon
contingencies which he knew to be certain; and encouraged in
this course by the success of the first trial of strength with
the federal government. It has been told at the proper place--in
the chapter which gave the secret history of the compromise of
1833--that Mr. Webster refused to go into that measure, saying that
the time had come to try the strength of the constitution and of
the government: and it now becomes proper to tell that Mr. Clay,
after seeing the relapse of Mr. Calhoun, became doubtful of the
correctness of his own policy in that affair; and often said to his
friends that, "in looking back upon the whole case, he had seriously
doubted the policy of his interference." Certainly it was a most
deplorable interference, arresting the process of the law when it
was on the point of settling every thing without hurting a hair of
any man's head, and putting an end to nullification for ever; and
giving it a victory, real or fancied, to encourage a new edition of
the same proceedings in a far more dangerous and pervading form. But
to return to the bill before the Senate.
"Mr. Webster addressed the Senate at length in opposition to
the bill, commencing his argument against what he contended was
its vagueness and obscurity, in not sufficiently defining what
were the publications the circulation of which it intended to
prohibit. The bill provided that it should not be lawful for
any deputy postmaster, in any State, territory, or district of
the United States, knowingly to deliver to any person whatever,
any pamphlet, newspaper, handbill, or other printed paper or
pictorial representation, touching the subject of slavery,
where, by the laws of the said State, district, or territory,
their circulation was prohibited. Under this provision, Mr.
W. contended that it was impossible to say what publications
might not be prohibited from circulation. No matter what
was the publication, whether for or against slavery, if it
touched the subject in any shape or form, it would fall under
the prohibition. Even the constitution of the United States
might be prohibited; and the person who was clothed with the
power to judge in this delicate matter was one of the deputy
postmasters, who, notwithstanding the difficulties with which
he was encompassed in coming to a correct decision, must decide
correctly, under pain of being removed from office. It would be
necessary, also, he said, for the deputy postmasters referred to
in this bill, to make themselves acquainted with all the various
laws passed by the States, touching the subject of slavery, and
to decide on them, no matter how variant they might be with
each other. Mr. W. also contended that the bill conflicted with
that provision in the constitution which prohibited Congress
from passing any law to abridge the freedom of speech or of the
press. What was the liberty of the press? he asked. It was the
liberty of printing as well as the liberty of publishing, in all
the ordinary modes of publication; and was not the circulation
of papers through the mails an ordinary mode of publication?
He was afraid that they were in some danger of taking a step
in this matter that they might hereafter have cause to regret,
by its being contended that whatever in this bill applies to
publications touching slavery, applies to other publications
that the States might think proper to prohibit; and Congress
might, under this example, be called upon to pass laws to
suppress the circulation of political, religious, or any other
description of publications which produced excitement in the
States. Was this bill in accordance with the general force and
temper of the constitution and its amendments? It was not in
accordance with that provision of the instrument under which
the freedom of speech and of the press was secured. Whatever
laws the State legislatures might pass on the subject, Congress
was restrained from legislating in any manner whatever, with
regard to the press. It would be admitted, that if a newspaper
came directed to him, he had a property in it; and how could any
man, then, take that property and burn it without due form of
law? and he did not know how this newspaper could be pronounced
an unlawful publication, and having no property in it, without
a legal trial. Mr. W. argued against the right to examine into
the nature of publications sent to the post-office, and said
that the right of an individual in his papers was secured to
him in every free country in the world. In England, it was
expressly provided that the papers of the subject shall be free
from all unreasonable searches and seizures--language, he said,
to be found in our constitution. This principle established
in England, so essential to liberty, had been followed out in
France, where the right of printing and publishing was secured
in the fullest extent; the individual publishing being amenable
to the laws for what he published; and every man printed and
published what he pleased, at his peril. Mr. Webster went on,
at some length, to show that the bill was contrary to that
provision of the constitution which prohibits Congress to pass
any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press."
Mr. Clay spoke against the bill, saying:
"The evil complained of was the circulation of papers having a
certain tendency. The papers, unless circulated, did no harm,
and while in the post-office or in the mail, they were not
circulated--it was the circulation solely which constituted the
evil. It was the taking them out of the mail, and the use that
was to be made of them, that constituted the mischief. Then it
was perfectly competent to the State authorities to apply the
remedy. The instant that a prohibited paper was handed out,
whether to a citizen or sojourner, he was subject to the laws
which might compel him either to surrender them or burn them.
He considered the bill not only unnecessary, but as a law of
a dangerous, if not a doubtful, authority. It was objected
that it was vague and indefinite in its character; and how is
that objection got over? The bill provided that it shall not
be lawful for any deputy postmaster, in any State, territory,
or district of the United States, knowingly to deliver to any
person whatever, any pamphlet, newspaper, handbill, or other
printed paper or pictorial representation, touching the subject
of slavery, where, by the laws of the said State, territory,
or district, their circulation is prohibited. Now, what could
be more vague and indefinite than this description? Now, could
it be decided, by this description, what publications should
be withheld from distribution? The gentleman from Pennsylvania
said that the laws of the States would supply the omission. He
thought the senator was premature in saying that there would be
precision in State laws, before he showed it by producing the
law. He had seen no such law, and he did not know whether the
description in the bill was applicable or not. There was another
objection to this part of the bill; it applied not only to the
present laws of the States, but to any future laws that might
pass. Mr. C. denied that the bill applied to the slaveholding
States only; and went on to argue that it could be applied to
all the States, and to any publication touching the subject of
slavery whatever, whether for or against it, if such publication
was only prohibited by the laws of such State. Thus, for
instance, a non-slaveholding State might prohibit publications
in defence of the institution of slavery, and this bill would
apply to it as well as to the laws of the slaveholding States;
but the law would be inoperative: it declared that the deputy
postmaster should not be amenable, unless he knowingly shall
deliver, &c. Why, the postmaster might plead ignorance, and of
course the law would be inoperative.
"But he wanted to know whence Congress derived the power to pass
this law. It was said that it was to carry into effect the laws
of the States. Where did they get such authority? He thought
that their only authority to pass laws was in pursuance of the
constitution; but to pass laws to carry into effect the laws
of the States, was a most prolific authority, and there was no
knowing where it was to stop; it would make the legislation of
Congress dependent upon the legislation of twenty-four different
sovereignties. He thought the bill was of a most dangerous
tendency. The senator from Pennsylvania asked if the post-office
power did not give them the right to regulate what should be
carried in the mails. Why, there was no such power as that
claimed in the bill; and if they passed such a law, it would
be exercising a most dangerous power. Why, if such doctrine
prevailed, the government might designate the persons, or
parties, or classes, who should have the benefit of the mails,
excluding all others."
At last the voting came on; and, what looks sufficiently curious on
the outside view, there were three tie votes successively--two on
amendments, and one on the engrossment of the bill. The two ties on
amendments stood fifteen to fifteen--the absentees being eighteen:
one third of the Senate: the tie on engrossment was eighteen to
eighteen--the absentees being twelve: one fourth of the Senate. It
was Mr. Calhoun who called for the yeas and nays on each of these
questions. It was evident that there was a design to throw the
bill into the hands of the Vice-President--a New-Yorker, and the
prominent candidate for the presidency. In committee of the whole he
did not vote in the case of a tie; but it was necessary to establish
an equilibrium of votes there to be ready for the immediate vote in
Senate on the engrossment; and when the committee tie was deranged
by the accession of three votes on one side, the equilibrium was
immediately re-established by three on the other. Mr. Van Buren,
at the moment of this vote (on the engrossment) was out of the
chair, and walking behind the colonnade back of the presiding
officer's chair. My eyes were wide open to what was to take place.
Mr. Calhoun, not seeing him, eagerly and loudly asked where was the
Vice-President? and told the Sergeant-at-arms to look for him. But
he needed no looking for. He was within hearing of all that passed,
and ready for the contingency: and immediately stepping up to his
chair, and standing up, promptly gave the casting vote in favor of
the engrossment. I deemed it a political vote, that is to say, given
from policy; and I deemed it justifiable under the circumstances.
Mr. Calhoun had made the rejection of the bill a test of alliance
with Northern abolitionists, and a cause for the secession of the
Southern States: and if the bill had been rejected by Van Buren's
vote, the whole responsibility of its loss would have been thrown
upon him and the North; and the South inflamed against those States
and himself--the more so as Mr. White, of Tennessee, the opposing
democratic candidate for the presidency, gave his votes for the
bill. Mr. Wright also, as I believe, voted politically, and on all
the votes both in the committee and the Senate. He was the political
and the personal friend of the Vice-President, most confidential
with him, and believed to be the best index to his opinions. He was
perfectly sensible of his position, and in every vote on the subject
voted with Mr. Calhoun. Several other senators voted politically,
and without compunction, although it was a bad bill, as it was known
it would not pass. The author of this View would not so vote. He was
tired of the eternal cry of dissolving the Union--did not believe
in it--and would not give a repugnant vote to avoid the trial. The
tie vote having been effected, and failed of its expected result,
the Senate afterwards voted quite fully on the final passage of the
bill, and rejected it--twenty-five to nineteen: only four absent.
The yeas were: Messrs. Black, Bedford, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun,
Cuthbert of Georgia, Grundy, King of Alabama, King of Georgia,
Mangum, Moore, Nicholas of Louisiana, Alexander Porter, Preston of
South Carolina, Rives, Robinson, Tallmadge, Walker of Mississippi,
White of Tennessee, Silas Wright. The nays were: Messrs. Benton,
Clay, Crittenden, Davis of Massachusetts, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing
of Ohio, Goldsborough of Maryland, Hendricks, Hubbard, Kent, Knight,
Leigh, McKean of Pennsylvania, Thomas Morris of Ohio, Naudain
of Delaware, Niles of Connecticut, Prentiss, Ruggles, Shepley,
Southard, Swift, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall of New Jersey, Webster:
majority six against the bill; and seven of them, if the solecism
may be allowed, from the slave States. And thus was accomplished one
of the contingencies in which "State interposition" was again to
be applied--the "rightful remedy of nullification" again resorted
to--and the "domestic institutions" of the Southern States, by
"concert" among themselves, "to be placed beyond the reach of
danger."
CHAPTER CXXXII.
FRENCH AFFAIRS--APPROACH OF A FRENCH SQUADRON--APOLOGY REQUIRED.
In his annual message at the commencement of the session the
President gave a general statement of our affairs with France, and
promised a special communication on the subject at an early day.
That communication was soon made, and showed a continued refusal
on the part of France to pay the indemnity, unless an apology was
first made; and also showed that a French fleet was preparing for
the American seas, under circumstances which implied a design either
to overawe the American government, or to be ready for expected
hostilities. On the subject of the apology, the message said:
"Whilst, however, the government of the United States was
awaiting the movements of the French government, in perfect
confidence that the difficulty was at an end, the Secretary
of State received a call from the French chargé d'affaires in
Washington, who desired to read to him a letter he had received
from the French minister of foreign affairs. He was asked
whether he was instructed or directed to make any official
communication, and replied that he was only authorized to
read the letter, and furnish a copy if requested. It was an
attempt to make known to the government of the United States,
privately, in what manner it could make explanations, apparently
voluntary, but really dictated by France, acceptable to her,
and thus obtain payment of the twenty-five millions of francs.
No exception was taken to this mode of communication, which
is often used to prepare the way for official intercourse;
but the suggestions made in it were, in their substance,
wholly inadmissible. Not being in the shape of an official
communication to this government, it did not admit of reply or
official notice; nor could it safely be made the basis of any
action by the Executive or the legislature; and the Secretary of
State did not think proper to ask a copy, because he could have
no use for it."
One cannot but be struck with the extreme moderation with which
the President gives the history of this private attempt to obtain
a dictated apology from him. He recounts it soberly and quietly,
without a single expression of irritated feeling; and seems to have
met and put aside the attempt in the same quiet manner, it was
a proof of his extreme indisposition to have any collision with
France, and of his perfect determination to keep himself on the
right side in the controversy, whatever aspect it might assume. But
that was not the only trial to which his temper was put. The attempt
to obtain the apology being civilly repulsed, and the proffered copy
of the dictated terms refused to be taken, an attempt was made to
get that copy placed upon the archives of the government, with the
view to its getting to Congress, and through Congress to the people;
to become a point of attack upon the President for not giving the
apology, and thereby getting the money from France, and returning to
friendly relations with her. Of this attempt to get a refused paper
upon our archives, and to make it operate as an appeal to the people
against their own government, the President (still preserving all
his moderation), gives this account:
"Copies of papers, marked Nos. 9, 10, and 11 show an attempt
on the part of the French chargé d'affaires, many weeks
afterwards, to place a copy of this paper among the archives
of this government, which for obvious reasons, was not allowed
to be done; but the assurance before given was repeated, that
any official communication which he might be authorized to
make in the accustomed form would receive a prompt and just
consideration. The indiscretion of this attempt was made
more manifest by the subsequent avowal of the French chargé
d'affaires, that the object was to bring the letter before
Congress and the American people. If foreign agents, on a
subject of disagreement between their government and this,
wish to prefer an appeal to the American people, they will
hereafter, it is hoped, better appreciate their own rights, and
the respect due to others, than to attempt to use the Executive
as the passive organ of their communications. It is due to the
character of our institutions that the diplomatic intercourse of
this government should be conducted with the utmost directness
and simplicity, and that, in all cases of importance, the
communications received or made by the Executive should assume
the accustomed official form. It is only by insisting on this
form that foreign powers can be held to full responsibility;
that their communications can be officially replied to; or
that the advice or interference of the legislature can, with
propriety, be invited by the President. This course is also best
calculated, on the one hand, to shield that officer from unjust
suspicions; and, on the other, to subject this portion of his
acts to public scrutiny, and, if occasion shall require it,
to constitutional animadversion. It was the more necessary to
adhere to these principles in the instance in question, inasmuch
as, in addition to other important interests, it very intimately
concerned the national honor; a matter, in my judgment, much
too sacred to be made the subject of private and unofficial
negotiation."
Having shown the state of the question, the President next gave
his opinion of what ought to be done by Congress; which was, the
interdiction of our ports to the entry of French vessels and French
products:--a milder remedy than that of reprisals which he had
recommended at the previous session. He said:
"It is time that this unequal position of affairs should cease,
and that legislative action should be brought to sustain
Executive exertion in such measures as the case requires.
While France persists in her refusal to comply with the terms
of a treaty, the object of which was, by removing all causes
of mutual complaint, to renew ancient feelings of friendship,
and to unite the two nations in the bonds of amity, and of
a mutually beneficial commerce, she cannot justly complain
if we adopt such peaceful remedies as the law of nations and
the circumstances of the case may authorize and demand. Of
the nature of these remedies I have heretofore had occasion
to speak; and, in reference to a particular contingency, to
express my conviction that reprisals would be best adapted to
the emergency then contemplated. Since that period, France,
by all the departments of her government, has acknowledged
the validity of our claims and the obligations of the treaty,
and has appropriated the moneys which are necessary to its
execution; and though payment is withheld on grounds vitally
important to our existence as an independent nation, it is
not to be believed that she can have determined permanently
to retain a position so utterly indefensible. In the altered
state of the questions in controversy, and under all existing
circumstances, it appears to me that, until such a determination
shall have become evident, it will be proper and sufficient to
retaliate her present refusal to comply with her engagements
by prohibiting the introduction of French products and the
entry of French vessels into our ports. Between this and the
interdiction of all commercial intercourse, or other remedies,
you, as the representatives of the people, must determine. I
recommend the former, in the present posture of our affairs, as
being the least injurious to our commerce, and as attended with
the least difficulty of returning to the usual state of friendly
intercourse, if the government of France shall render us the
justice that is due; and also as a proper preliminary step to
stronger measures, should their adoption be rendered necessary
by subsequent events."
This interdiction of the commerce of France, though a milder measure
than that of reprisals, would still have been a severe one--severe
at any time, and particularly so since the formation of this treaty,
the execution of which was so much delayed by France; for that was
a treaty of two parts--something to be done on each side. On the
part of France to pay us indemnities: on our side to reduce the
duties on French wines: and this reduction had been immediately made
by Congress, to take effect from the date of the ratification of
the treaty; and the benefit of that reduction had now been enjoyed
by French commerce for near four years. But that was not the only
benefit which this treaty brought to France from the good feeling it
produced in America: it procured a discrimination in favor of silks
imported from this side of the Cape of Good Hope--a discrimination
inuring, and intended to inure, to the benefit of France. The author
of this View was much instrumental in procuring that discrimination,
and did it upon conversations with the then resident French minister
at Washington, and founding his argument upon data derived from
him. The data were to show that the discrimination would be
beneficial to the trade of both countries; but the inducing cause
was good-will to France, and a desire to bury all recollection of
past differences in our emulation of good works. This view of the
treaty, and a statement of the advantages which France had obtained
from it, was well shown by Mr. Buchanan in his speech in support of
the message on French affairs; in which be said:
"The government of the United States proceeded immediately
to execute their part of the treaty. By the act of the 13th
July, 1832, the duties on French wines were reduced according
to its terms, to take effect from the day of the exchange of
ratifications. At the same session, the Congress of the United
States, impelled, no doubt, by their kindly feelings towards
France, which had been roused into action by what they believed
to be a final and equitable settlement of all our disputes,
voluntarily reduced the duty upon silks coming from this side
of the Cape of Good Hope, to five per cent., whilst those from
beyond were fixed at ten per cent. And at the next session,
on the 2d of March, 1833, this duty of five per cent. was
taken off altogether; and ever since, French silks have been
admitted into our country free of duty. There is now, in fact, a
discriminating duty of ten per cent. in their favor, over silks
from beyond the Cape of Good Hope.
"What has France gained by these measures in duties on her
wines and her silks, which she would otherwise have been bound
to pay? I have called upon the Secretary of the Treasury, for
the purpose of ascertaining the amount. I now hold in my hand
a tabular statement, prepared at my request, which shows, that
had the duties remained what they were, at the date of the
ratification of the treaty, these articles, since that time
would have paid into the Treasury, on the 30th September, 1834,
the sum of $3,061,525. Judging from the large importations which
have since been made, I feel no hesitation in declaring it as my
opinion, that, at the present moment, these duties would amount
to more than the whole indemnity which France has engaged to
pay to our fellow-citizens. Before the conclusion of the ten
years mentioned in the treaty, she will have been freed from
the payment of duties to an amount considerably above twelve
millions of dollars."
It is almost incomprehensible that there should have been such
delay in complying with a treaty on the part of France bringing her
such advantages; and it is due to the King, Louis Philippe to say,
that he constantly referred the delay to the difficulty of getting
the appropriation through the French legislative chambers. He
often applied for the appropriation, but could not venture to make
it an administration question; and the offensive demand for the
apology came from that quarter, in the shape of an unprecedented
proviso to the law (when it did pass), that the money was not to
be paid until there had been an apology. The only objection to the
King's conduct was that he did not make the appropriation a cabinet
measure, and try issues with the chambers; but that objection has
become less since; and in fact totally disappeared, from seeing a
few years afterwards, the ease with which the King was expelled
from his throne, and how unable he was to try issues with the
chambers. The elder branch of the Bourbons, and all their adherents,
were unfriendly to the United States, considering the American
revolution as the cause of the French revolution; and consequently
the source of all their twenty-five years of exile, suffering and
death. The republicans were also inimical to him, and sided with the
legitimists.
The President concluded his message with stating that a large French
naval armament was under orders for our seas; and said:
"Of the cause and intent of these armaments I have no authentic
information, nor any other means of judging, except such as
are common to yourselves and to the public; but whatever may
be their object, we are not at liberty to regard them as
unconnected with the measures which hostile movements on the
part of France may compel us to pursue. They at least deserve
to be met by adequate preparations on our part, and I therefore
strongly urge large and speedy appropriations for the increase
of the navy, and the completion of our coast defences.
"If this array of military force be really designed to affect
the action of the government and people of the United States on
the questions now pending between the two nations, then indeed
would it be dishonorable to pause a moment on the alternative
which such a state of things would present to us. Come what may,
the explanation which France demands can never be accorded;
and no armament, however powerful and imposing, at a distance,
or on our coast, will, I trust, deter us from discharging the
high duties which we owe to our constituents, to our national
character, and to the world."
Mr. Buchanan sustained the message in a careful and well-considered
review of this whole French question, showing that the demand of
an apology was an insult in aggravation of the injury, and could
not be given without national degradation; joining the President in
his call for measures for preserving the rights and honor of the
country; declaring that if hostilities came they were preferable to
disgrace, and that the whole world would put the blame on France.
Mr. Calhoun took a different view of it, declaring that the state
of our affairs with France was the effect of the President's
mismanagement, and that if war came it would be entirely his fault;
and affirmed his deliberate belief that it was the President's
design to have war with France. He said:
"I fear that the condition in which the country is now placed
has been the result of a deliberate and systematic policy.
I am bound to speak my sentiments freely. It is due to my
constituents and the country, to act with perfect candor and
truth on a question in which their interests is so deeply
involved. I will not assert that the Executive has deliberately
aimed at war from the commencement; but I will say that,
from the beginning of the controversy to the present moment,
the course which the President has pursued is precisely the
one calculated to terminate in a conflict between the two
nations. It has been in his power, at every period, to give
the controversy a direction by which the peace of the country
might be preserved, without the least sacrifice of reputation
or honor; but he has preferred the opposite. I feel (said Mr.
C.) how painful it is to make these declarations; how unpleasant
it is to occupy a position which might, by any possibility,
be construed in opposition to our country's cause; but, in my
conception, the honor and the interests of the country can only
be maintained by pursuing the course that truth and justice may
dictate. Acting under this impression, I do not hesitate to
assert, after a careful examination of the documents connected
with this unhappy controversy, that, if war must come, we are
the authors--we are the responsible party. Standing, as I fear
we do, on the eve of a conflict, it would to me have been a
source of pride and pleasure to make an opposite declaration;
but that sacred regard to truth and justice, which, I trust,
will ever be my guide under the most difficult circumstances,
would not permit."
Mr. Benton maintained that it was the conduct of the Senate at the
last session which had given to the French question its present
and hostile aspect: that the belief of divided counsels, and of a
majority against the President, and that we looked to money and
not to honor, had encouraged the French chambers to insult us by
demanding an apology, and to attempt to intimidate us by sending a
fleet upon our coasts. He said:
"It was in March last that the three millions and the
fortification bill were lost; since then the whole aspect of
the French question is changed. The money is withheld, and
explanation is demanded, an apology is prescribed, and a French
fleet approaches. Our government, charged with insulting France,
when no insult was intended by us, and none can be detected in
our words by her, is itself openly and vehemently insulted. The
apology is to degrade us; the fleet to intimidate us; and the
two together constitute an insult of the gravest character.
There in no parallel to it, except in the history of France
herself; but not France of the 19th century, nor even of the
18th, but in the remote and ill-regulated times of the 17th
century, and in the days of the proudest of the French Kings,
and towards one of the smallest Italian republics. I allude,
sir, to what happened between Louis XIV. and the Doge of Genoa,
and will read the account of it from the pen of Voltaire, in his
Age of Louis XIV.
"'The Genoese had built four galleys for the service of Spain;
the King (of France) forbade them, by his envoy, St. Olon, one
of his gentlemen in ordinary, to launch those galleys. The
Genoese, incensed at this violation of their liberties, and
depending too much on the support of Spain, refused to obey the
order. Immediately fourteen men of war, twenty galleys, ten
bomb-ketches, with several frigates, set sail from the port of
Toulon. They arrived before Genoa, and the ten bomb-ketches
discharged 14,000 shells into the town, which reduced to ashes
a principal part of those marble edifices which had entitled
this city to the name of Genoa the Proud. Four thousand men were
then landed, who marched up to the gates, and burnt the suburb
of St. Peter, of Arena. It was now thought prudent to submit,
in order to prevent the total destruction of the city. The King
exacted that the Doge of Genoa, with four of the principal
senators, should come and implore his clemency in the palace
of Versailles; and, lest the Genoese should elude the making
this satisfaction, and lessen in any manner the pomp of it, he
insisted further that the Doge, who was to perform this embassy,
should be continued in his magistracy, notwithstanding the
perpetual law of Genoa, which deprives the Doge of his dignity
who is absent but a moment from the city. Imperialo Lercaro,
Doge of Genoa, attended by the senators Lomellino, Garibaldi,
Durazzo, and Salvago, repaired to Versailles, to submit to what
was required of him. The Doge appeared in his robes of state,
his head covered with a bonnet of red velvet, which he often
took off during his speech; made his apology, the very words
and demeanor of which were dictated and prescribed to him by
Seignelai,' (the French Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs).
"Thus, said Mr. B., was the city of Genoa, and its Doge, treated
by Louis XIV. But it was not the Doge who was degraded by this
indignity, but the republic of which he was chief magistrate,
and all the republics of Italy, besides, which felt themselves
all humbled by the outrage which a king had inflicted upon one
of their number. So of the apology demanded, and of the fleet
sent upon us, and in presence of which President Jackson,
according to the _Constitutionnel_, is to make his decision,
and to remit it to the Tuileries. It is not President Jackson
that is outraged, but the republic of which he is President; and
all existing republics, wheresoever situated. Our whole country
is insulted, and that is the feeling of the whole country;
and this feeling pours in upon us every day, in every manner
in which public sentiment can be manifested, and especially
in the noble resolves of the States whose legislatures are
in session, and who hasten to declare their adherence to the
policy of the special message. True, President Jackson is not
required to repair to the Tuileries, with four of his most
obnoxious senators, and there recite, in person, to the King
of the French, the apology which he had first rehearsed to the
Duke de Broglie; true, the bomb-ketches of Admiral Mackau have
not yet fired 14,000 shells on one of our cities; but the mere
demand for an apology, the mere dictation of its terms, and the
mere advance of a fleet, in the present state of the world, and
in the difference of parties, is a greater outrage to us than
the actual perpetration of the enormities were to the Genoese.
This is not the seventeenth century. President Jackson is not
the Doge of a trading city. We are not Italians, to be trampled
upon by European kings; but Americans, the descendants of
that Anglo-Saxon race, which, for a thousand years, has known
how to command respect, and to preserve its place at the head
of nations. We are young, but old enough to prove that the
theory of the Frenchman, the Abbé Raynal, is as false in its
application to the people of this hemisphere as it is to the
other productions of nature; and that the belittling tendencies
of the New World are no more exemplified in the human race than
they are in the exhibition of her rivers and her mountains, and
in the indigenous races of the mammoth and the mastodon. The
Duke de Broglie has made a mistake, the less excusable, because
he might find in his own country, and perhaps in his own family,
examples of the extreme criticalness of attempting to overawe
a community of freemen. There was a Marshal Broglie, who was
Minister at War, at the commencement of the French Revolution,
and who advised the formation of a camp of 20,000 men to
overawe Paris. The camp was formed. Paris revolted; captured
the Bastile; marched to Versailles; stormed the Tuileries;
overset the monarchy; and established the Revolution. So much
for attempting to intimidate a city. And yet, here is a nation
of freemen to be intimidated: a republic of fourteen millions of
people, and descendants of that Anglo-Saxon race which, from the
days of Agincourt and Cressy, of Blenheim and Ramillies, down to
the days of Salamanca and Waterloo, have always known perfectly
well how to deal with the impetuous and fiery courage of the
French."
Mr. Benton also showed that there was a party in the French
Chambers, working to separate the President of the United States
from the people of the United States, and to make him responsible
for the hostile attitude of the two countries. In this sense acted
the deputy, Mons. Henry de Chabaulon, who spoke thus:
"The insult of President Jackson comes from himself only. This
is more evident, from the refusal of the American Congress to
concur with him in it. The French Chamber, by interfering,
would render the affair more serious, and make its arrangement
more difficult, and even dangerous. Let us put the case to
ourselves. Suppose the United States had taken part with General
Jackson, we should have had to demand satisfaction, not from
him, but from the United States; and, instead of now talking
about negotiation, we should have had to make appropriations
for a war, and to intrust to our heroes of Navarino and Algiers
the task of teaching the Americans that France knows the way to
Washington as well as England."
This language was received with applause in the Chamber, by the
extremes. It was the language held six weeks after the rise of
Congress, and when the loss of the three millions asked by the
President for contingent preparation, and after the loss of the
fortification bill, were fully known in Paris. Another speaker in
the Chamber, Mons. Rancé, was so elated by these losses as to allow
himself to discourse thus:
"Gentlemen, we should put on one side of the tribune the
twenty-five millions, on the other the sword of France.
When the Americans see this good long sword, this very long
sword, gentlemen (for it struck down every thing from Lisbon
to Moscow), they will perhaps recollect what it did for the
independence of their country; they will, perhaps, too, reflect
upon what it could do to support and avenge the honor and
dignity of France, when outraged by an ungrateful people. [Cries
of 'well said!'] Believe me, gentlemen, they would sooner
touch your money than dare to touch your sword; and for your
twenty-five millions they will bring you back the satisfactory
receipt, which it is your duty to exact."
And this also was received with great approbation, in the
Chamber, by the two extremes and was promptly followed by two
royal ordinances, published in the _Moniteur_, under which the
Admiral Mackau was to take command of a "squadron of observation,"
and proceed to the West Indies. The _Constitutionnel_, the
demi-official paper of the government, stated that this measure was
warranted by the actual state of the relations between France and
the United States--that the United States had no force to oppose to
it--and applauded the government for its foresight and energy. Mr.
Benton thus commented upon the approach of this French squadron:
"A French fleet of sixty vessels of war, to be followed by sixty
more, now in commission, approaches our coast; and approaches
it for the avowed purpose of observing our conduct, in relation
to France. It is styled, in the French papers, a squadron
of observation; and we are sufficiently acquainted with the
military vocabulary of France to know what that phrase means.
In the days of the great Emperor, we were accustomed to see the
armies which demolished empires at a blow, wear that pacific
title up to the moment that the blow was ready to be struck.
These grand armies assembled on the frontiers of empires, gave
emphasis to negotiation, and crushed what resisted. A squadron
of observation, then, is a squadron of intimidation first, and
of attack eventually; and nothing could be more palpable than
that such was the character of the squadron in question. It
leaves the French coast contemporaneously with the departure of
our diplomatic agent, and the assembling of our Congress; it
arrives upon our coast at the very moment that we shall have
to vote upon French affairs; and it takes a position upon our
Southern border--that border, above all others, on which we are,
at this time, peculiarly sensitive to hostile approach.
"What have we done, continued Mr. B., to draw this squadron
upon us? We have done no wrong to France; we are making no
preparations against her; and not even ordinary preparations
for general and permanent security. We have treaties, and are
executing them, even the treaty that she does not execute. We
have been executing that treaty for four years, and may say that
we have paid France as much under it as we have in vain demanded
from her, as the first instalment of the indemnity; not, in
fact, by taking money out of our treasury and delivering to
her, but, what is better for her, namely, leaving her own money
in her own hands, in the shape of diminished duties upon her
wines, as provided for in this same treaty, which we execute,
and which she does not. In this way, France has gained one or
two millions of dollars from us, besides the encouragement to
her wine trade. On the article of silks, she is also gaining
money from us in the same way, not by treaty, but by law. Our
discriminating duties in favor of silks, from this side the Cape
of Good Hope, operate almost entirely in her favor. Our great
supplies of silks are from France, England, and China. In four
years, and under the operation of this discriminating duty, our
imports of French silks have risen from two millions of dollars
per annum to six millions and a half; from England, they have
risen from a quarter of a million to three quarters; from China,
they have sunk from three millions and a quarter to one million
and a quarter. This discriminating duty has left between one and
two millions of dollars in the pockets of Frenchmen, besides
the encouragement to the silk manufacture and trade. Why, then,
has she sent this squadron, to observe us first, and to strike
us eventually? She knows our pacific disposition towards her
not only from our own words and actions, but from the official
report of her own officers: from the very officer sent out last
spring, in a brig, to carry back the recalled minister."
Mr. Benton then went on to charge the present state of our affairs
with France distinctly and emphatically upon the conduct of the
Senate, in their refusal to attend to the national defences--in
their opposition to the President--and in the disposition manifested
rather to pull down the President, in a party contest, than to
sustain him against France--rather to plunder their own country than
to defend it, by taking the public money for distribution instead of
defence. To this effect, he said:
"He had never spoken unkindly of the French nation, neither
in his place here, as a senator, nor in his private capacity
elsewhere. Born since the American Revolution, bred up in
habitual affection for the French name, coming upon the stage
of life when the glories of the republic and of the empire were
filling the world and dazzling the imagination, politically
connected with the party which, a few years ago, was called
French, his bosom had glowed with admiration for that people;
and youthful affection had ripened into manly friendship. He
would not now permit himself to speak unkindly, much less to use
epithets; but he could not avoid fixing his attention upon the
reason assigned in the _Constitutionnel_ for the present advance
of the French squadron upon us. That reason is this: 'America
will have no force capable of being opposed to it.' This is the
reason. Our nakedness, our destitution, has drawn upon us the
honor of this visit; and we are now to speak, and vote, and
so to demean ourselves, as men standing in the presence of a
force which they cannot resist, and which had taught the lesson
of submission to the Turk and the Arab! And here I change the
theme: I turn from French intimidation to American legislation;
and I ask how it comes that we have no force to oppose to this
squadron which comes here to take a position upon our borders,
and to show us that it knows the way to Washington as well as
the English? This is my future theme; and I have to present the
American Senate as the responsible party for leaving our country
in this wretched condition. First, there is the three million
appropriation which was lost by the opposition of the Senate,
and which carried down with it the whole fortification bill, to
which it was attached. That bill, besides the three millions,
contained thirteen specific appropriations for works of defence,
part originating in the House of Representatives, and part in
the Senate, and appropriating $900,000 to the completion and
armament of forts.
"All these specific appropriations, continued Mr. B., were lost
in the bill which was sunk by the opposition of the Senate to
the three millions, which were attached to it by the House of
Representatives. He (Mr. B.) was not a member of the conference
committee which had the disagreement of the two Houses committed
to its charge, and could go into no detail as to what happened
in that conference; he took his stand upon the palpable ground
that the opposition which the Senate made to the three million
appropriation, the speeches which denounced it, and the
prolonged invectives against the President, which inflamed the
passions and consumed the precious time at the last moment of
the session, were the true causes of the loss of that bill; and
so leaves the responsibility for the loss on the shoulders of
the Senate.
"Mr. B. recalled attention to the reason demi-officially
assigned in the _Constitutionnel_, for the approach of the
French fleet of observation, and to show that it came because
'America had no force capable of being opposed to it.' It was
a subsidiary argument, and a fair illustration of the dangers
and humiliations of a defenceless position. It should stimulate
us to instant and vigorous action; to the concentration of all
our money, and all our hands, to the sacred task of national
defence. For himself, he did not believe there would be war,
because he knew that there ought not to be war; but that belief
would have no effect upon his conduct. He went for national
defence, because that policy was right in itself, without regard
to times and circumstances. He went for it now, because it was
the response, and the only response, which American honor could
give to the visit of Admiral Mackau. Above all, he went for
it because it was the way, and the only manly way, of letting
France know that she had committed a mistake in sending this
fleet upon us. In conclusion, he would call for the yeas and
nays, and remark that our votes would have to be given under the
guns of France, and under the eyes of Europe."
The reproach cast by Mr. Benton on the conduct of the Senate, in
causing the loss of the defence bills, and the consequent insult
from France, brought several members to their feet in defence of
themselves and the body to which they belonged.
"Mr. Webster said his duty was to take care that neither in
nor out of the Senate there should be any mistake, the effect
of which should be to produce an impression unfavorable or
reproachful to the character and patriotism of the American
people. He remembered the progress of that bill (the bill
alluded to by Mr. Benton), the incidents of its history, and the
real cause of its loss. And he would satisfy any man that the
loss of it was not attributable to any member or officer of the
Senate. He would not, however, do so until the Senate should
again have been in session on executive business. As soon as
that took place, he should undertake to show that it was not to
any dereliction of duty on the part of the Senate that the loss
of that bill was to be attributed.
"Mr. Preston of South Carolina said every senator had concurred
in general appropriations to put the navy and army in a state
of defence. This undefined appropriation was not the only
exception. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Benton) had said
this appropriation was intended to operate as a permanent
defence. The senator from Missouri (Mr. Benton) had preferred
a general indictment against the Senate before the people of
the United States. It was strange the gentleman should ask the
departments for calculations to enable us to know how much was
necessary to appropriate, when the information was not given to
us when we rejected the undefined appropriations. I rejoice,
said Mr. P., that the gentleman has said even to my fears there
will be no French war. France was not going to squabble with
America on a little point of honor, that might do for duellists
to quarrel about, but not for nations. There was no reason why
blood should be poured out like water in righting this point of
honor. If this matter was placed on its proper basis, his hopes
would be lit up into a blaze of confidence. The President had
recommended making reprisals, if France refused payment. France
had refused, but the remedy was not pursued. It may be, said
he, that this fleet is merely coming to protect the commerce
of France. If the President of the United States, at the last
session of Congress, had suggested the necessity of making this
appropriation, we would have poured out the treasury; we would
have filled his hands for all necessary purposes. There was one
hundred thousand dollars appropriated that had not been called
for. He did not know whether he was permitted to go any further
and say to what extent any of the departments were disposed to
go in this matter.
"Mr. Clayton of Delaware was surprised at the suggestion of
an idea that the American Senate was not disposed to make the
necessary appropriations for the defence of the country; that
they had endeavored to prevent the passage of a bill, the
object of which was to make provision for large appropriations
for our defence. The senator from Missouri had gone into a
liberal attack of the Senate. He (Mr. C.) was not disposed to
say any thing further of the events of the last night of the
session. He took occasion to say there were other matters in
connection with this appropriation. Before any department or
any friend of the administration had named an appropriation for
defence, he made the motion to appropriate five hundred thousand
dollars. It was on his motion that the Committee on Military
Affairs made the appropriation to increase the fortifications.
Actuated by the very same motives which induced him to move that
appropriation, he had moved an additional appropriation to Fort
Delaware. The motion was to increase the seventy-five thousand
to one hundred and fifty thousand, and elicited a protracted
debate. The next question was, whether, in the general bill,
five hundred thousand dollars should be appropriated. He
recollected the honorable chairman of the Committee on Finance
told them there was an amendment before that committee of
similar tenor. As chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs,
he felt disinclined to give it up. The amendment fell on the
single ground, by one vote, that the Committee on Finance had
before it the identical proposition made by the Committee on
Military Affairs. He appealed to the country whether, under
those circumstances, they were to be arraigned before the
people of the country on a charge of a want of patriotism. He
had always felt deeply affected when those general remarks
were made impugning the motives of patriotism of the senators.
He was willing to go as far as he who goes farthest in making
appropriations for the national protection. Nay, he would be in
advance of the administration."
Mr. Benton returned to his charge that the defence bills of the last
session were lost through the conduct of the Senate. It was the
Senate which disagreed to the House amendment of three millions to
the fortification bill (which itself contained appropriations to the
amount of $900,000); and it was the Senate which moved to "adhere"
to its disagreement, thereby adopting the harsh measure which so
much endangers legislation. And, in support of his views, he said:
"The bill died under lapse of time. It died because not acted
upon before midnight of the last day of the session. Right or
wrong, the session was over before the report of the conferees
could be acted on. The House of Representatives was without a
quorum, and the Senate was about in the same condition. Two
attempts in the Senate to get a vote on some printing moved by
his colleague (Mr. Linn), were both lost for want of a quorum.
The session then was at an end, for want of quorums, whether the
legal right to sit had ceased or not. The bill was not rejected
either in the House of Representatives or in the Senate, but it
died for want of action upon it; and that action was prevented
by want of time. Now, whose fault was it that there was no time
left for acting on the report of the conferees? That was the
true question, and the answer to it would show where the fault
lay. This answer is as clear as mid-day, though the transaction
took place in the darkness of midnight. It was this Senate!
The bill came to the Senate in full time to have been acted
upon, if it had been treated as all bills must be treated that
are intended to be passed in the last hours of the session. It
is no time for speaking. All speaking is then fatal to bills,
and equally fatal, whether for or against them. Yet, what was
the conduct of the Senate with respect to this bill? Members
commenced speaking upon it with vehemence and perseverance, and
continued at it, one after another. These speeches were fatal
to the bill. They were numerous, and consumed much time to
deliver them. They were criminative, and provoked replies. They
denounced the President without measure; and, by implication,
the House of Representatives, which sustained him. They were
intemperate, and destroyed the temper of others. In this way
the precious time was consumed in which the bill might have
been acted upon; and, for want of which time, it is lost. Every
one that made a speech helped to destroy it; and nearly the
whole body of the opposition spoke, and most of them at much
length, and with unusual warmth and animation. So certain was
he of the ruinous effect of this speaking, that he himself
never opened his mouth nor uttered one word upon it. Then came
the fatal motion to adhere, the effect of which was to make
bad worse, and to destroy the last chance, unless the House of
Representatives had humbled itself to ask a conference from
the Senate. The fatal effect of this motion to adhere, Mr. B.
would show from Jefferson's Manual; and read as follows: 'The
regular progression in this case is, that the Commons disagree
to the amendment; the Lords insist on it; the Commons insist on
their disagreement; the Lords adhere to their amendment; the
Commons adhere to their disagreement; the term of insisting
may be repeated as often as they choose to keep the question
open; but the first adherence by either renders it necessary
for the other to recede or to adhere also; when the matter is
usually suffered to fall. (10 Grey, 148.) Latterly, however,
there are instances of their having gone to a second adherence.
There must be an absolute conclusion of the subject somewhere,
or otherwise transactions between the Houses would become
endless. (3 Hatsell, 268, 270.) The term of insisting, we are
told by Sir John Trevor, was then (1678) newly introduced into
parliamentary usage by the Lords. (7 Grey, 94.) It was certainly
a happy innovation, as it multiplies the opportunities of trying
modifications, which may bring the Houses to a concurrence.
Either House, however, is free to pass over the term of
insisting, and to adhere in the first instance. (10 Grey,
146.) But it is not respectful to the other. In the ordinary
parliamentary course, there are two free conferences at least
before an adherence. (10 Grey, 147.)'
"This is the regular progression in the case of amendments,
and there are five steps in it. 1. To agree. 2. To disagree.
3. To recede. 4. To insist. 5. To adhere. Of these five steps
adherence is the last, and yet it was the first adopted by the
Senate. The effect of its adoption was, in parliamentary usage,
to put an end to the matter. It was, by the law of Parliament,
a disrespect to the House. No conference was even asked by the
Senate after the adherence, although, by the parliamentary law,
there ought to have been two free conferences at least before
the adherence was voted. All this was fully stated to the Senate
that night, and before the question to adhere was put. It was
fully stated by you, sir (said Mr. B., addressing himself to
Mr. King, of Alabama, who was then in the Vice-President's
chair). This vote to adhere, coupled with the violent speeches,
denouncing the President, and, by implication, censuring the
House of Representatives, and coupled with the total omission
of the Senate to ask for a conference, seemed to indicate a
fatal purpose to destroy the bill; and lost it would have been
upon the spot, if the House of Representatives, forgetting the
disrespect with which it had been treated, and passing over the
censure impliedly cast upon it, had not humbled itself to come
and ask for a conference. The House humbled itself; but it was a
patriotic and noble humiliation; it was to serve their country.
The conference was granted, and an amendment was agreed upon
by the conferees, by which the amount was reduced, and the sum
divided, and $300,000 allowed to the military, and $500,000 to
the naval service. This was done at last, and after all the
irritating speeches and irritating conduct of the Senate; but
the precious time was gone. The hour of midnight was not only
come, but members were dispersed; quorums were unattainable; and
the bill died for want of action. And now (said Mr. B.) I return
to my question. I resume, and maintain my position upon it. I
ask how it came to pass, if want of specification was really the
objection--how it came to pass that the Senate did not do at
first what it did at last? Why did it not amend, by the easy,
natural, obvious, and parliamentary process of disagreeing,
insisting, and asking for a committee of conference?
"Mr. B. would say but a word on the new calendar, which
would make the day begin in the middle. It was sufficient to
state such a conception to expose it to ridicule. A farmer
would be sadly put out if his laborers should refuse to come
until mid-day. The thing was rather too fanciful for grave
deliberation. Suffice it to say there are no fractions of days
in any calendar. There is no three and one fourth, three and one
half, and three and three fourths of March, or any other month.
When one day ends, another begins, and midnight is the turning
point both in law and in practice. All our laws of the last day
are dated the 3d of March; and, in point of fact, Congress,
for every beneficial purpose, is dissolved at midnight. Many
members will not act, and go away; and such was the practice of
the venerable Mr. Macon, of North Carolina, who always acted
precisely as President Jackson did. He put on his hat and went
away at midnight; he went away when his own watch told him it
was midnight; after which he believed he had no authority to act
as a legislator, nor the Senate to make him act as such. This
was President Jackson's course. He stayed in the Capitol until a
quarter after one, to sign all the bills which Congress should
pass before midnight. He stayed until a majority of Congress was
gone, and quorums unattainable. He stayed in the Capitol, in
a room convenient to the Senate, to act upon every thing that
was sent to him, and did not have to be waked up, as Washington
was, to sign after midnight; a most unfortunate reference to
Washington, who, by going to bed at midnight, showed that he
considered the business of the day ended; and by getting up and
putting on his night gown, and signing a bill at two o'clock in
the morning of the 4th, showed that he would sign at that hour
what had passed before midnight; and does not that act bear date
the 3d of March?"
Mr. Webster earnestly defended the Senate's conduct and his own; and
said:
"This proposition, sir, was thus unexpectedly and suddenly put
to us, at eight o'clock in the evening of the last day of the
session. Unusual, unprecedented, extraordinary, as it obviously
is, on the face of it, the manner of presenting it was still
more extraordinary. The President had asked for no such grant
of money; no department had recommended it; no estimate had
suggested it; no reason whatever was given for it. No emergency
had happened, and nothing new had occurred; every thing known
to the administration at that hour, respecting our foreign
relations, had certainly been known to it for days and for weeks
before.
"With what propriety, then, could the Senate be called on to
sanction a proceeding so entirely irregular and anomalous?
Sir, I recollect the occurrences of the moment very well,
and I remember the impression which this vote of the House
seemed to make all around the Senate. We had just come out of
executive session; the doors were but just opened; and I hardly
remember whether there was a single spectator in the hall or
the galleries. I had been at the clerk's table, and had not
reached my seat when the message was read. All the senators
were in the chamber. I heard the message certainly with great
surprise and astonishment; and I immediately moved the Senate
to disagree to this vote of the House. My relation to the
subject, in consequence of my connection with the Committee on
Finance, made it my duty to propose some course, and I had not
a moment's doubt or hesitation what that course ought to be. I
took upon myself, then, sir, the responsibility of moving that
the Senate should disagree to this vote, and I now acknowledge
that responsibility. It might be presumptuous to say that I
took a leading part, but I certainly took an early part, a
decided part, and an earnest part, in rejecting this broad grant
of three millions of dollars, without limitation of purpose
or specification of object; called for by no recommendation,
founded on no estimate, made necessary by no state of things
which was made known to us. Certainly, sir, I took a part in
its rejection; and I stand here, in my place in the Senate,
to-day, ready to defend the part so taken by me; or rather,
sir. I disclaim all defence, and all occasion of defence, and I
assert it as meritorious to have been among those who arrested,
at the earliest moment, this extraordinary departure from all
settled usage, and, as I think, from plain constitutional
injunction--this indefinite voting of a vast sum of money to
mere executive discretion, without limit assigned, without
object specified, without reason given, and without the least
control under heaven.
"Sir, I am told that, in opposing this grant, I spoke with
warmth, and I suppose I may have done so. If I did, it was
a warmth springing from as honest a conviction of duty as
ever influenced a public man. It was spontaneous, unaffected,
sincere. There had been among us, sir, no consultation, no
concert. There could have been none. Between the reading of the
message and my motion to disagree there was not time enough for
any two members of the Senate to exchange five words on the
subject. The proposition was sudden and perfectly unexpected. I
resisted it, as irregular, as dangerous in itself, and dangerous
in its precedent, as wholly unnecessary, and as violating the
plain intention, if not the express words, of the constitution.
Before the Senate I then avowed, and before the country I now
avow, my part in this opposition. Whatsoever is to fall on those
who sanctioned it, of that let me have my full share.
"The Senate, sir, rejected this grant by a vote of twenty-nine
against nineteen. Those twenty-nine names are on the journal;
and whensoever the expunging process may commence, or how far
soever it may be carried, I pray it, in mercy, not to erase
mine from that record. I beseech it, in its sparing goodness,
to leave me that proof of attachment to duty and to principle.
It may draw around it, over it, or through it, black lines, or
red lines, or any lines; it may mark it in any way which either
the most prostrate and fantastical spirit of man-worship, or
the most ingenious and elaborate study of self-degradation may
devise, if only it will leave it so that those who inherit my
blood, or who may hereafter care for my reputation, shall be
able to behold it where it now stands.
"The House, sir, insisted on this amendment. The Senate adhered
to its disagreement. The House asked a conference, to which
request the Senate immediately acceded. The committees of
conference met, and, in a short time, came to an agreement. They
agreed to recommend to their respective Houses, as a substitute
for the vote proposed by the House, the following:
"'As an additional appropriation for arming the fortifications
of the United States, three hundred thousand dollars.'
"As an additional appropriation for the repair and equipment
of ships of war of the United States, five hundred thousand
dollars.'
"I immediately reported this agreement of the committees of
conference to the Senate; but, inasmuch as the bill was in the
House of Representatives, the Senate could not act further on
the matter until the House should first have considered the
report of the committees, decided thereon, and sent us the bill.
I did not myself take any note of the particular hour of this
part of the transaction. The honorable member from Virginia (Mr.
Leigh) says he consulted his watch at the time, and he knows
that I had come from the conference, and was in my seat, at a
quarter past eleven. I have no reason to think that he is under
any mistake in this particular. He says it so happened that he
had occasion to take notice of the hour, and well remembers it.
It could not well have been later than this, as any one will be
satisfied who will look at our journals, public and executive,
and see what a mass of business was dispatched after I came from
the committees, and before the adjournment of the Senate. Having
made the report, sir, I had no doubt that both Houses would
concur in the result of the conference, and looked every moment
for the officer of the House bringing the bill. He did not come,
however, and I pretty soon learned that there was doubt whether
the committee on the part of the House would report to the House
the agreement of the conferees. At first I did not at all credit
this; but it was confirmed by one communication after another,
until I was obliged to think it true. Seeing that the bill was
thus in danger of being lost, and intending, at any rate, that
no blame should justly attach to the Senate, I immediately moved
the following resolution:
"'_Resolved_, That a message be sent to the honorable the
House of Representatives, respectfully to remind the House of
the report of the committee of conference appointed on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the
House to the amendment of the Senate to the bill respecting the
fortifications of the United States.'
"You recollect this resolution, sir, having, as I well remember,
taken some part on the occasion.
"This resolution was promptly passed; the Secretary carried
it to the House, and delivered it. What was done in the House
on the receipt of this message now appears from the printed
journal. I have no wish to comment on the proceedings there
recorded--all may read them, and each be able to form his own
opinion. Suffice it to say, that the House of Representatives,
having then possession of the bill, chose to retain that
possession, and never acted on the report of the committee.
The bill, therefore, was lost. It was lost in the House of
Representatives. It died there, and there its remains are to
be found. No opportunity was given to the members of the House
to decide whether they would agree to the report of the two
committees or not. From a quarter past eleven, when the report
was agreed to by the committees, until two or three o'clock in
the morning, the House remained in session. If at any time there
was not a quorum of members present, the attendance of a quorum,
we are to presume, might have been commanded, as there was
undoubtedly a great majority of the members still in the city.
"But now, sir, there is one other transaction of the evening
which I feel bound to state, because I think it quite important,
on several accounts, that it should be known.
"A nomination was pending before the Senate, for a judge of the
Supreme Court. In the course of the sitting, that nomination
was called up, and, on motion, was indefinitely postponed. In
other words, it was rejected; for an indefinite postponement
is a rejection. The office, of course, remained vacant, and
the nomination of another person to fill it became necessary.
The President of the United States was then in the capitol,
as is usual on the evening of the last day of the session, in
the chamber assigned to him, and with the heads of departments
around him. When nominations are rejected under these
circumstances, it has been usual for the President immediately
to transmit a new nomination to the Senate; otherwise the
office must remain vacant till the next session, as the vacancy
in such case has not happened in the recess of Congress. The
vote of the Senate, indefinitely postponing this nomination,
was carried to the President's room by the Secretary of the
Senate. The President told the Secretary that it was more than
an hour past twelve o'clock, and that he could receive no
further communications from the Senate, and immediately after,
as I have understood, left the capitol. The Secretary brought
back the paper containing the certified copy of the vote of the
Senate, and indorsed thereon the substance of the President's
answer, and also added that, according to his own watch, it was
a quarter past one o'clock."
This was the argument of Mr. Webster in defence of the Senate
and himself; but it could not alter the facts of the case--that
the Senate disagreed to the House appropriation--that it adhered
harshly--that it consumed the time in elaborate speeches against
the President--and that the bill was lost upon lapse of time, the
existence of the Congress itself expiring while this contention,
began by the Senate, was going on.
Mr. Webster dissented from the new doctrine of counting years by
fractions of a day, as a thing having no place in the constitution,
in law, or in practice;--and which was besides impracticable, and
said:
"There is no clause of the constitution, nor is there any law,
which declares that the term of office of members of the House
of Representatives shall expire at twelve o'clock at night
on the 3d of March. They are to hold for two years, but the
precise hour for the commencement of that term of two years
is nowhere fixed by constitutional or legal provision. It has
been established by usage and by inference, and very properly
established, that, since the first Congress commenced its
existence on the first Wednesday in March, 1789, which happened
to be the 4th day of that month, therefore, the 4th of March
is the day of the commencement of each successive term, but
no hour is fixed by law or practice. The true rule is, as I
think, most undoubtedly, that the session holden on the last
day, constitutes the last day, for all legislative and legal
purposes. While the session commenced on that day continues,
the day itself continues, according to the established practice
both of legislative and judicial bodies. This could not well be
otherwise. If the precise moment of actual time were to settle
such a matter, it would be material to ask, who shall settle
the time? Shall it be done by public authority; or shall every
man observe the tick of his own watch? If absolute time is to
furnish a precise rule, the excess of a minute, it is obvious,
would be as fatal as the excess of an hour. Sir, no bodies,
judicial or legislative, have ever been so hypercritical,
so astute to no purpose, so much more nice than wise, as to
govern themselves by any such ideas. The session for the day,
at whatever hour it commences, or at whatever hour it breaks
up, is the legislative day. Every thing has reference to the
commencement of that diurnal session. For instance, this is the
14th day of January; we assembled here to day at twelve o'clock;
our journal is dated January 14th, and if we should remain until
five o'clock to-morrow morning (and the Senate has sometimes
sat so late) our proceedings would still all bear date of the
14th of January; they would be so stated upon the journal, and
the journal is a record, and is a conclusive record, so far as
respects the proceedings of the body."
But he adduced practice to the contrary, and showed that the
expiring Congress had often sat after midnight, on the day of
the 3d of March, in the years when that day was the end of the
Congress; and in speaking of what had often occurred, he was right.
I have often seen it myself; but in such cases there was usually an
acknowledgment of the wrong by stopping the Senate clock, or setting
it back; and I have also seen the hour called and marked on the
journal after twelve, and the bills sent to the President, noted
as passed at such an hour of the morning of the fourth; when they
remained untouched by the President; and all bills and acts sent to
him on the morning of the fourth are dated of the third; and that
date legalizes them, although erroneous in point of fact. But, many
of the elder members, such as Mr. Macon, would have nothing to do
with these contrivances, and left the chamber at midnight, saying
that the Congress was constitutionally extinct, and that they had
no longer any power to sit and act as a Senate. Upon this point Mr.
Grundy, of Tennessee, a distinguished jurist as well as statesman,
delivered his opinion, and in consonance with the best authorities.
He said:
"A serious question seems now to be made, as to what time
Congress constitutionally terminates. Until lately, I have not
heard it seriously urged that twelve o'clock, on the 3d of
March, at night, is not the true period. It is now insisted,
however, that at twelve o'clock on the 4th of March is the true
time; and the argument in support of this is, that the first
Congress met at twelve o'clock, on the 4th of March. This is
not placing the question on the true ground; it is not when the
Congress did meet, or when the President was qualified by taking
the oath of office, but when did they have the constitutional
right to meet? This certainly was, and is, in all future cases,
on the 4th of March; and if the day commence, according to the
universal acceptation and understanding of the country, at the
first moment after twelve o'clock at night on the 3d of March,
the constitutional right or power of the new Congress commences
at that time; and if called by the Chief Magistrate to meet at
that time, they might then qualify and open their session. There
would be no use in arguing away the common understanding of the
country, and it would seem as reasonable to maintain that the
4th of March ended when the first Congress adjourned, as it is
to say that it began when they met. From twelve o'clock at night
until twelve o'clock at night is the mode of computing a day by
the people of the United States, and I do not feel authorized
to establish a different mode of computation for Congress. At
what hour does Christmas commence? When does the first day of
the year, or the first of January, commence? Is it at midnight
or at noon? If the first day of a year or month begins and ends
at midnight, does not every other day? Congress has always acted
upon the impression that the 3d of March ended at midnight;
hence that setting back of clocks which we have witnessed on the
3d of March, at the termination of the short session.
"In using this argument, I do not wish to be understood as
censuring those who have transacted the public business here
after twelve o'clock on the 3d of March. From this error, if
it be one, I claim no exemption. With a single exception, I
believe, I have always remained until the final adjournment
of both Houses. As to the President of the United States, he
remained until after one o'clock on the 4th of March. This was
making a full and fair allowance for the difference that might
exist in different instruments for keeping time; and he then
retired from his chamber in the Capitol. The fortification bill
never passed Congress; it never was offered to him for his
signature; he, therefore, can be in no fault. It was argued that
many acts of Congress passed on the 4th of March, at the short
session, are upon our statute books, and that these acts are
valid and binding. It should be remembered that they all bear
date on the 3d of March; and so high is the authenticity of our
records, that, according to the rules of evidence, no testimony
can be received to contradict any thing which appears upon the
face of our acts."
To show the practice of the Senate, when its attention was called to
the true hour, and to the fact that the fourth day of March was upon
them, the author of this View, in the course of this debate, showed
the history of the actual termination of the last session--the
one at which the fortification bill was lost. Mr. Hill, of New
Hampshire, was speaking of certain enormous printing jobs which were
pressed upon the Senate in its expiring moments, and defeated after
midnight; Mr. Benton asked leave to tell the secret history of this
defeat; which being granted, he stood up, and said:
"He defeated these printing jobs after midnight, and by speaking
against time. He had avowed his determination to speak out the
session; and after speaking a long time against time, he found
that time stood still; that the hands of our clock obstinately
refused to pass the hour of twelve; and thereupon addressed
the presiding officer (Mr. Tyler, the President _pro tem._),
to call to his attention the refractory disposition of the
clock; which, in fact, had been set back by the officers of the
House, according to common usage on the last night, to hide from
ourselves the fact that our time was at an end. The presiding
officer (Mr. B. said) directed an officer of the House to put
forward the clock to the right time; which was done; and not
another vote was taken that night, except the vote to adjourn."
This was a case, as the lawyers say, in point. It was the refusal
of the Senate the very night in question, to do any thing except
to give the adjourning vote after the attention of the Senate was
called to the hour.
In reply to Mr. Calhoun's argument against American arming, and that
such arming would be war on our side, Mr. Grundy replied:
"But it is said by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Calhoun), that, if we arm, we instantly make war: it is war. If
this be so, we are placed in a most humiliating situation. Since
this controversy commenced, the French nation has armed; they
have increased their vessels of war; they have equipped them;
they have enlisted or pressed additional seamen into the public
service; they have appointed to the command of this large naval
force one of their most experienced and renowned naval officers;
and this squadron, thus prepared, and for what particular
purpose we know not, is now actually in the neighborhood of
the American coast. I admit the proceeding on the part of the
French government is neither war, nor just cause of war on our
part; but, seeing this, shall we be told, if we do similar
acts, designed to defend our own country, we are making war?
As I understand the public law, every nation has the right to
judge for itself of the extent of its own military and naval
armaments, and no other nation has a right to complain or call
it in question. It appears to me that, although the preparations
and armaments of the French government are matters not to be
excepted to, still they should admonish us to place our country
in a condition in which it could be defended in the event the
present difficulties between the two nations should lead to
hostilities."
In the course of the debate the greater part of the opposition
senators declared their intention to sustain measures of defence; on
which Mr. Benton congratulated the country, and said:
"A good consequence had resulted from an unpleasant debate.
All parties had disclaimed the merit of sinking the
fortification bill of the last session, and a majority had
evinced a determination to repair the evil by voting adequate
appropriations now. This was good. It bespoke better results
in time to come, and would dispel that illusion of divided
counsels on which the French government had so largely
calculated. The rejection of the three millions, and the loss
of the fortification bill, had deceived France; it had led her
into the mistake of supposing that we viewed every question in
a mercantile point of view; that the question of profit and
loss was the only rule we had to go by; that national honor
was no object; and that, to obtain these miserable twenty-five
millions of francs, we should be ready to submit to any quantity
of indignity, and to wade through any depth of national
humiliation. The debate which has taken place will dispel that
illusion; and the first dispatch which the young Admiral Mackau
will have to send to his government will be to inform it that
there has been a mistake in this business--that these Americans
wrangle among themselves, but unite against foreigners; and that
many opposition senators are ready to vote double the amount
of the twenty-five millions to put the country in a condition
to sustain that noble sentiment of President Jackson, that the
honor of his country shall never be stained by his making an
apology for speaking truth in the performance of duty."
CHAPTER CXXXIII.
FRENCH INDEMNITIES: BRITISH MEDIATION: INDEMNITIES PAID.
The message of the President in relation to French affairs had been
referred to the Senate's committee on foreign relations, and before
any report had been received from that committee a further message
was received from the President informing the Senate that Great
Britain had offered her friendly mediation between the United States
and France--that it had been accepted by the governments both of
France and the United States; and recommending a suspension of all
retaliatory measures against France; but a vigorous prosecution of
the national works of general and permanent defence. The message
also stated that the mediation had been accepted on the part of
the United States with a careful reservation of the points in the
controversy which involved the honor of the country, and which
admitted of no compromise--a reservation which, in the vocabulary
of General Jackson, was equivalent to saying that the indemnities
must be paid, and no apologies made. And such in fact was the case.
Within a month from the date of that message the four instalments
of the indemnities then due, wore fully paid and without waiting
for any action on the part of the mediator. In communicating the
offer of the British mediation the President expressed his high
appreciation of the "elevated and disinterested motives of that
offer." The motives were, in fact, both elevated and disinterested;
and presents one of those noble spectacles in the conduct of nations
on which history loves to dwell. France and the United States had
fought together against Great Britain; now Great Britain steps
between France and the United States to prevent them from fighting
each other. George the Third received the combined attacks of
French and Americans; his son, William the Fourth, interposes to
prevent their arms from being turned against each other. It was
a noble intervention, and a just return for the good work of the
Emperor Alexander in offering his mediation between the United
States and Great Britain--good works these peace mediations, and as
nearly divine as humanity can reach;--worthy of all praise, of long
remembrance, and continual imitation;--the more so in this case of
the British mediation when the event to be prevented would have been
so favorable to British interests--would have thrown the commerce
of the United States and of France into her hands, and enriched her
at the expense of both. Happily the progress of the age which, in
cultivating good will among nations, elevates great powers above
all selfishness, and permits no unfriendly recollection--no selfish
calculation--to balk the impulsions of a noble philanthropy.
I have made a copious chapter upon the subject of this episodical
controversy with France--more full, it might seem, than the subject
required, seeing its speedy and happy termination: but not without
object. Instructive lessons result from this history; both from the
French and American side of it. The wrong to the United States came
from the French chamber of deputies--from the opposition part of it,
composed of the two extremes of republicans and legitimists, deadly
hostile to each other, but combined in any attempt to embarrass
a king whom both wished to destroy: and this French opposition
inflamed the question there. In the United States there was also
an opposition, composed of two, lately hostile parties (the modern
whigs and the southern dissatisfied democracy); and this opposition,
dominant in the Senate, and frustrating the President's measures,
gave encouragement to the French opposition: and the two together,
brought their respective countries to the brink of war. The two
oppositions are responsible for the hostile attitude to which the
two countries were brought. That this is not a harsh opinion, nor
without foundation, may be seen by the history which is given of the
case in the chapter dedicated to it; and if more is wanting, it may
be found in the recorded debates of the day; in which things were
said which were afterwards regretted; and which, being regretted,
the author of this View has no desire to repeat:--the instructive
lesson of history which he wishes to inculcate, being complete
without the exhumation of what ought to remain buried. Nor can
the steadiness and firmness of President Jackson be overlooked in
this reflective view. In all the aspects of the French question
he remained inflexible in his demand for justice, and in his
determination, so far as it depended upon him to have it. In his
final message, communicating to congress the conclusion of the
affair, he gracefully associated congress with himself in their
joy at the restoration of the ancient cordial relations between
two countries, of ancient friendship, which misconceptions had
temporarily alienated from each other.
CHAPTER CXXXIV.
PRESIDENT JACKSON'S FOREIGN DIPLOMACY.
A view of President Jackson's foreign diplomacy has been reserved
for the last year of his administration, and to the conclusion of
his longest, latest, and most difficult negotiation; and is now
presented in a single chapter, giving the history of his intercourse
with foreign nations. From no part of his administration was more
harm apprehended, by those who dreaded the election of General
Jackson, than from this source. From his military character they
feared embroilments; from his want of experience as a diplomatist,
they feared mistakes and blunders in our foreign intercourse. These
apprehensions were very sincerely entertained by a large proportion
of our citizens; but, as the event proved, entirely without
foundation. No part of his administration, successful, beneficial,
and honorable as it was at home, was more successful, beneficial
and honorable than that of his foreign diplomacy. He obtained
indemnities for all outrages committed on our commerce before
his time, and none were committed during his time. He made good
commercial treaties with some nations from which they could not be
obtained before--settled some long-standing and vexatious questions;
and left the whole world at peace with his country, and engaged in
the good offices of trade and hospitality. A brief detail of actual
occurrences will justify this general and agreeable statement,
1. THE DIRECT TRADE WITH THE BRITISH WEST INDIES.--I have already
shown, in a separate chapter, the recovery, in the first year of
his administration, of this valuable branch of our commerce, so
desirable to us from the nearness of those islands to our shore,
the domestic productions which they took from us, the employment
it gave to our navigation, the actual large amount of the trade,
the acceptable articles it gave in return, and its satisfactory
establishment on a durable basis after fifty years of interrupted,
and precarious, and restricted enjoyment: and I add nothing more on
that head. I proceed to new cases of indemnities obtained, or of new
treaties formed.
2. At the head of these stands the FRENCH INDEMNITY TREATY.--The
commerce of the United States had suffered greatly under the decrees
of the Emperor Napoleon, and redress had been sought by every
administration, and in vain, from that of Mr. Madison to that of
Mr. John Quincy Adams, inclusively. President Jackson determined
from the first moment of his administration to prosecute the claims
on France with vigor; and that not only as a matter of right,
but of policy. There were other secondary powers, such as Naples
and Spain, subject to the same kind of reclamation, and which
had sheltered their refusal behind that of France; and with some
show of reason, as France, besides having committed the largest
depredation, was the origin of the system under which they acted,
and the inducing cause of their conduct. France was the strong
power in this class of wrong-doers, and as such was the one first
to be dealt with. In his first annual message to the two Houses of
Congress, President Jackson brought this subject before that body,
and disclosed his own policy in relation to it. He took up the
question as one of undeniable wrong which had already given rise
to much unpleasant discussion, and which might lead to possible
collision between the two governments; and expressed a confident
hope that the injurious delays of the past would find a redress in
the equity of the future. This was pretty clear language, and stood
for something in the message of a President whose maxim of foreign
policy was, to "ask nothing but what was right, and to submit to
nothing that was wrong." At the same time, Mr. William C. Rives,
of Virginia, was sent to Paris as minister plenipotentiary and
envoy extraordinary, and especially charged with this reclamation.
His mission was successful; and at the commencement of the session
1831-'32, the President had the gratification to communicate
to both Houses of Congress and to submit to the Senate for its
approbation, the treaty which closed up this long-standing head of
complaint against an ancient ally. The French government agreed
to pay twenty-five millions of francs to American citizens "for
(such was the language of the treaty) unlawful seizures, captures,
sequestrations, confiscations or destruction of their vessels,
cargoes or other property;" subject to a deduction of one million
and a half of francs for claims of French citizens, or the royal
treasury, for "ancient supplies or accounts," or for reclamations
on account of commercial injury. Thus all American claims for
spoliation in the time of the Emperor Napoleon were acknowledged
and agreed to be satisfied, and the acknowledgment and agreement
for satisfaction made in terms which admitted the illegality and
injustice of the acts in which they originated. At the same time
all the French claims upon the United States, from the time of
our revolution, of which two (those of the heirs of Beaumarchais
and of the Count Rochambeau) had been a subject of reclamation
for forty years, were satisfied. The treaty was signed July 4th,
1831, one year after the accession of Louis Phillippe to the
French throne--and to the natural desire of the new king (under
the circumstances of his elevation) to be on good terms with the
United States; and to the good offices of General Lafayette, then
once more influential in the councils of France, as well as to the
zealous exertions of our minister, the auspicious conclusion of
this business is to be much attributed. The indemnity payable in
six annual equal instalments, was satisfactory to government and
to the claimants; and in communicating information of the treaty
to Congress, President Jackson, after a just congratulation on
putting an end to a subject of irritation which for many years
had, in some degree, alienated two nations from each other, which,
from interest as well as from early recollections, ought to cherish
the most friendly relations--and (as if feeling all the further
consequential advantages of this success) went on to state, as some
of the good effects to result from it, that it gave encouragement
to persevere in demands for justice from other nations; that it
would be an admonition that just claims would be prosecuted to
satisfactory conclusions, and give assurance to our own citizens
that their own government will exert all its constitutional power to
obtain redress for all their foreign wrongs. This latter declaration
was afterwards put to the proof, in relation to the execution of
the treaty itself, and was kept to the whole extent of its letter
and spirit, and with good results both to France and the United
States. It so happened that the French legislative chambers refused
to vote appropriations necessary to carry the treaty into effect.
An acrimonious correspondence between the two governments took
place, becoming complicated with resentment on the part of France
for some expressions, which she found to be disrespectful, in a
message of President Jackson. The French minister was recalled from
the United States; the American minister received his passport;
and reprisals were recommended to Congress by the President. But
there was no necessity for them. The intent to give offence, or to
be disrespectful, was disclaimed; the instalments in arrear were
paid; the two nations returned to their accustomed good feeling;
and no visible trace remains of the brief and transient cloud
which for a while overshadowed them. So finished, in the time of
Jackson, with entire satisfaction to ourselves, and with honor to
both parties, the question of reclamations from France for injuries
done our citizens in the time of the Great Emperor; and which the
administrations of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and John Quincy Adams
had been unable to enforce.
3. DANISH TREATY.--This was a convention for indemnity for
spoliations on American commerce, committed twenty years before the
time of General Jackson's administration. They had been committed
during the years 1808, 1809, 1810, and 1811, that is to say, during
the last year of Mr. Jefferson's administration and the three first
years of Mr. Madison's. They consisted of illegal seizures and
illegal condemnations or confiscations of American vessels and
their cargoes in Danish ports, during the time when the British
orders in council and the French imperial decrees were devastating
the commerce of neutral nations, and subjecting the weaker powers
of Europe to the course of policy which the two great belligerent
powers had adopted. The termination of the great European contest,
and the return of nations to the accustomed paths of commercial
intercourse and just and friendly relations, furnished a suitable
opportunity for the United States, whose citizens had suffered so
much, to demand indemnity for these injuries. The demand had been
made; and had been followed up with zeal during each succeeding
administration, but without effect, until the administration of Mr.
John Quincy Adams. During that administration, and in the hands of
the American Chargé d'Affaires (Mr. Henry Wheaton), the negotiation
made encouraging progress. General Jackson did not change the
negotiator--did not incur double expense, a year's delay, and
substitute a raw for a ripe minister--and the negotiation went on
to a speedy and prosperous conclusion. The treaty was concluded in
March, 1830, and extended to a complete settlement of all questions
of reclamation on both sides. The Danish government renounced
all pretension to the claims which it had preferred, and agreed
to pay the sum of six hundred and fifty thousand dollars to the
government of the United States, to be by it distributed among the
American claimants. This convention, which received the immediate
ratification of the President and Senate, terminated all differences
with a friendly power, with whom the United States never had any
but kind relations (these spoliations excepted), and whose trade to
her West India islands, lying at our door, and taking much of our
domestic productions, was so desirable to us.
4. NEAPOLITAN INDEMNITY TREATY.--When Murat was King of Naples,
and acting upon the system of his brother-in-law, the Emperor
Napoleon, he seized and confiscated many vessels and their cargoes,
belonging to citizens of the United States. The years 1809, 1810,
1811 and 1812 were the periods of these wrongs. Efforts had been
made under each administration, from Mr. Madison to Mr. John Quincy
Adams, to obtain redress, but in vain. Among others, the special
mission of Mr. William Pinkney, the eminent orator and jurist,
was instituted in the last year of Mr. Madison's administration,
exclusively charged, at that court, with soliciting indemnity for
the Murat spoliations. A Bourbon was then upon the throne, and this
'legitimate,' considering Murat as an usurper who had taken the
kingdom from its proper owners, and done more harm to them than to
any body else, was naturally averse to making compensation to other
nations for his injurious acts. This repugnance had found an excuse
in the fact that France, the great original wrongdoer in all these
spoliations, and under whose lead and protection they were all
committed, had not yet been brought to acknowledge the wrong and to
make satisfaction. The indemnity treaty with France, in July 1831,
put an end to this excuse; and the fact of the depredations being
clear, and the law of nations indisputably in our favor, a further
and more earnest appeal was made to the Neapolitan government. Mr.
John Nelson, of Maryland, was appointed United States Chargé to
Naples, and concluded a convention for the payment of the claims.
The sum of two millions one hundred and fifteen thousand Neapolitan
ducats was stipulated to be paid to the United States government,
to be by it distributed among the claimants; and, being entirely
satisfactory, the convention immediately received the American
ratification. Thus, another head of injury to our citizens, and
of twenty years' standing, was settled by General Jackson, and in
a case in which the strongest prejudice and the most revolting
repugnance had to be overcome. Murat had been shot by order of the
Neapolitan king, for attempting to recover the kingdom; he was
deemed a usurper while he had it; the exiled royal family thought
themselves sufficiently wronged by him in their own persons, without
being made responsible for his wrongs to others; and although bound
by the law of nations to answer for his conduct while king in point
of fact, yet for almost twenty years--from their restoration in
1814 to 1832--they had resisted and repulsed the incessant and just
demands of the United States. Considering the sacrifice of pride, as
well as the large compensation, which this branch of the Bourbons
had to make in paying a bill of damages against an intrusive king
of the Bonaparte dynasty, and this indemnity obtained from Naples
in the third year of General Jackson's first presidential term,
which had been refused to his three predecessors--Messrs. Madison,
Monroe and John Quincy Adams--may be looked upon as one of the most
remarkable of his diplomatic successes.
SPANISH INDEMNITY TREATY.--The treaty of 1819 with Spain, by
which we gained Florida and lost Texas, and paid five millions of
dollars to our own citizens for Spanish spoliations, settled up
all demands upon that power up to that time; but fresh causes of
complaint soon grew up. All the Spanish-American states had become
independent--had established their own forms of government--and
commenced political and commercial communications with all the
world. Spanish policy revolted at this escape of colonies from its
hands; and although unable to subdue the new governments, was able
to refuse to acknowledge their independence--able to issue paper
blockades, and to seize and confiscate the American merchant vessels
trading to the new states. In this way much damage had been done to
American commerce, even in the brief interval between the date of
the treaty of 1819 and General Jackson's election to the presidency,
ten years thereafter. A new list of claims for spoliations had
grown up; and one of the early acts of the new President was to
institute a mission to demand indemnity. Mr. Cornelius Van Ness,
of New-York, was the minister appointed; and having been refused
in his first application, and given an account of the refusal to
his government, President Jackson dispatched a special messenger to
the American minister at Madrid, with instructions, "once more" to
bring the subject to the consideration of the Spanish government;
informing Congress at the same time, that he had made his last
demand; and that, if justice was not done, he would bring the case
before that body, "as the constitutional judge of what was proper to
be done when negotiation fails to obtain redress for wrongs." But
it was not found necessary to bring the case before Congress. On a
closer examination of the claims presented and for the enforcement
of which the power of the government had been invoked, it was
found that there had occurred in this case what often takes place
in reclamation upon foreign powers; that claims were preferred
which were not founded in justice, and which were not entitled
to the national interference. Faithful to his principle to ask
nothing but what was right, General Jackson ordered these unfounded
claims to be dropped, and the just claims only to be insisted
upon; and in communicating this fact to Congress, he declared his
policy characteristically with regard to foreign nations, and in
terms which deserve to be remembered. He said: "Faithful to the
principle of asking nothing but what was clearly right, additional
instructions have been sent to modify our demands, so as to embrace
those only on which, according to the laws of nations, we had a
strict right to insist upon." Under these modified instructions
a treaty of indemnity was concluded (February, 1834), and the
sum of twelve millions of reals vellon stipulated to be paid to
the government of the United States, for distribution among the
claimants. Thus, another instance of spoliation upon our foreign
commerce, and the last that remained unredressed, was closed up and
satisfied under the administration of General Jackson; and this
last of the revolutionary men had the gratification to restore
unmixed cordial intercourse with a power which had been our ally in
the war of the Revolution; which had ceded to us the Floridas, to
round off with a natural boundary our Southern territory; which was
our neighbor, conterminous in dominions, from the Atlantic to the
Pacific; and which, notwithstanding the jars and collisions to which
bordering nations are always subject, had never committed an act of
hostility upon the United States. The conclusion of this affair was
grateful to all the rememberers of our revolutionary history, and
equally honorable to both parties: to General Jackson, who renounced
unfounded claims, and to the Spanish government, which paid the good
as soon as separated from the bad.
6. RUSSIAN COMMERCIAL TREATY.--Our relations with Russia had been
peculiar--politically, always friendly; commercially, always
liberal--yet, no treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation, to
assure these advantages and guarantee their continuance. The United
States had often sought such a treaty. Many special missions, and of
the most eminent citizens, and at various times, and under different
administrations, and under the Congress of the confederation
before there was any administration, had been instituted for that
purpose--that of Mr. Francis Dana of Massachusetts (under whom
the young John Quincy Adams, at the age of sixteen, served his
diplomatic apprenticeship as private secretary), in 1784, under
the old Congress; that of Mr. Rufus King, under the first Mr.
Adams; that of Mr. John Quincy Adams, Mr. Albert Gallatin, Mr.
James A. Bayard, and Mr. William Pinkney, under Mr. Monroe; that
of Mr. George Washington Campbell, and Mr. Henry Middleton, under
Mr. Monroe (the latter continued under Mr. John Quincy Adams);
and all in vain. For some cause, never publicly explained, the
guaranty of a treaty had been constantly declined, while the actual
advantages of the most favorable one had been constantly extended
to us. A convention with us for the definition of boundaries on the
northwest coast of America, and to stipulate for mutual freedom
of fishing and navigation in the North Pacific Ocean, had been
readily agreed upon by the Emperor Alexander, and wisely, as by
separating his claims, he avoided such controversies as afterwards
grew up between the United States and Great Britain, on account
of their joint occupation; but no commercial treaty. Every thing
else was all that our interest could ask, or her friendship extend.
Reciprocity of diplomatic intercourse was fully established;
ministers regularly appointed to reside with us--and those of my
time (I speak only of those who came within my Thirty Years' View),
the Chevalier de Politica, the Baron Thuyl, the Baron Krudener,
and especially the one that has remained longest among us, and
has married an American lady, M. Alexandre de Bodisco--all of a
personal character and deportment to be most agreeable to our
government and citizens, well fitted to represent the feelings
of the most friendly sovereigns, and to promote and maintain the
most courteous and amicable intercourse between the two countries.
The Emperor Alexander had signally displayed his good will in
offering his mediation to terminate the war with Great Britain;
and still further, in consenting to become arbitrator between the
United States and Great Britain in settling their difference in
the construction of the Ghent treaty, in the article relating to
fugitive and deported slaves. We enjoyed in Russian ports all the
commercial privileges of the most favored nation; but it was by
an unfixed tenure--at the will of the reigning sovereign; and the
interests of commerce required a more stable guaranty. Still, up to
the commencement of General Jackson's administration, there was no
American treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation with that great
power. The attention of President Jackson was early directed to this
anomalous point; and Mr. John Randolph of Roanoke, then retired from
Congress, was induced, by the earnest persuasions of the President,
and his Secretary of State, Mr. Van Buren, to accept the place of
envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the Court of
St. Petersburg--to renew the applications for the treaty which had
so long been made in vain. Repairing to that post, Mr. Randolph
found that the rigors of a Russian climate were too severe for the
texture of his fragile constitution; and was soon recalled at his
own request. Mr. James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, was then appointed
in his place; and by him the long-desired treaty was concluded,
December, 1832--the Count Nesselrode the Russian negotiator, and
the Emperor Nicholas the reigning sovereign. It was a treaty of
great moment to the United States; for, although it added nothing to
the commercial privileges actually enjoyed, yet it gave stability
to their enjoyment; and so imparted confidence to the enterprise
of merchants. It was limited to seven years' duration, but with a
clause of indefinite continuance, subject to termination upon one
year's notice from either party. Near twenty years have elapsed: no
notice for its termination has ever been given; and the commerce
between the two countries feels all the advantages resulting from
stability and national guaranties. And thus was obtained, in the
first term of General Jackson's administration, an important treaty
with a great power, which all previous administrations and the
Congress of the Confederation had been unable to obtain.
7. PORTUGUESE INDEMNITY.--During the years 1829 and '30, during the
blockade of Terceira, several illegal seizures were made of American
vessels, by Portuguese men-of-war, for alleged violations of the
blockade. The United States _chargé d'affairs_ at Lisbon, Mr. Thomas
L. Brent, was charged with the necessary reclamations, and had no
difficulty in coming to an amicable adjustment. Indemnity in the
four cases of seizure was agreed upon in March, 1832, and payment
in instalments stipulated to be made. There was default in all the
instalments after the first--not from bad faith, but from total
inability--although the instalments were, in a national point of
view, of small amount. It deserves to be recorded, as an instance
of the want to which a kingdom, whose very name had been once
the synonym of gold regions and diamond mines, may be reduced by
wretched government, that in one of the interviews of the American
_chargé_ (then Mr. Edward Kavanagh), with the Portuguese Minister of
Finance, the minister told him "that no persons in the employment of
the government, except the military, had been paid any part of their
salaries for a long time; and that, on that day, there was not one
hundred dollars in the treasury." In this total inability to pay,
and with the fact of having settled fairly, further time was given
until the first day of July, 1837; when full and final payment was
made, to the satisfaction of the claimants.
Indemnity was made to the claimants by allowing interest on the
delayed payments, and an advantage was granted to an article
of American commerce by admitting rice of the United States in
Portuguese ports at a reduced duty. The whole amount paid was
about $140,000, which included damages to some other vessels, and
compensation to the seamen of the captured vessels for imprisonment
and loss of clothes--the sum of about $1,600 for these latter
items--so carefully and minutely were the rights of American
citizens guarded in Jackson's time. Some other claims on Portugal,
considered as doubtful, among them the case of the brave Captain
Reid, of the privateer General Armstrong, were left open for future
prosecution, without prejudice from being omitted in the settlement
of the Terceira claims, which were a separate class.
8. TREATY WITH THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE.--At the commencement of the
annual session of Congress of 1830-'31, President Jackson had the
gratification to lay before the Senate a treaty of friendship and
commerce between the United States and the Turkish emperor--the
Sultan Mahmoud, noted for his liberal foreign views, his domestic
reforms, his protection of Christians, and his energetic suppression
of the janissaries--those formidable barbarian cohorts, worse than
prætorian, which had so long dominated the Turkish throne. It was
the first American treaty made with that power, and so declared in
the preamble (and in terms which implied a personal compliment from
the Porte in doing now what it had always refused to do before),
and was eminently desirable to us for commercial, political and
social reasons. The Turkish dominions include what was once nearly
the one half of the Roman world, and countries which had celebrity
before Rome was founded. Sacred and profane history had given these
dominions a venerable interest in our eyes. They covered the seat
which was the birth-place of the human race, the cradle of the
Christian religion; the early theatre of the arts and sciences; and
contained the city which was founded by the first Roman Christian
emperor. Under good government it had always been the seat of rich
commerce and of great wealth. Under every aspect it was desirable
to the United States to have its social, political and commercial
intercourse with these dominions placed on a safe and stable footing
under the guaranty of treaty stipulations; and this object was now
accomplished. These were the general considerations; particular and
recent circumstances gave them additional weight.
Exclusion of our commerce from the Black Sea, and the advantages
which some nations had lately gained by the treaty of Adrianople,
called for renewed exertions on our part; and they were made by
General Jackson. A commissioner was appointed (Mr. Charles Rhind)
to open negotiations with the Sublime Porte; and with him were
associated the United States naval commander in the Mediterranean
(Commodore Biddle), and the United States consul at Smyrna (Mr.
David Offley). Mr. Rhind completed the negotiation, though the other
gentlemen joined in the signature of the treaty. By the provisions
of this treaty, our trade with the Turkish dominions was placed on
the footing of the most favored nation; and being without limitation
as to time, may be considered as perpetual, subject only to be
abrogated by war, in itself improbable, or by other events not to
be expected. The right of passing the Dardanelles and of navigating
the Black Sea was secured to our merchant ships, in ballast or with
cargo, and to carry the products of the United States and of the
Ottoman empire, except the prohibited articles. The flag of the
United States was to be respected. Factors, or commercial brokers,
of any religion were allowed to be employed by our merchants.
Consuls were placed on a footing of security, and travelling
with passports was protected. Fairness and justice in suits and
litigations were provided for. In questions between a citizen of
the United States and a subject of the Sublime Porte, the parties
were not to be heard, nor judgment pronounced, unless the American
interpreter (dragoman) was present. In questions between American
citizens the trial was to be before the United States minister or
consul. "Even when they (the American citizens, so runs the fourth
article), shall have committed some offence, they shall not be
arrested and put in prison by the local authorities, but shall be
tried by the minister or consul, and punished according to the
offence." By this treaty all that was granted to other nations by
the treaty of Adrianople is also granted to the United States, with
the additional stipulation, to be always placed on the footing of
the most favored nation--a stipulation wholly independent of the
treaty exacted by Russia at Adrianople as the fruit of victories,
and of itself equivalent to a full and liberal treaty; and the
whole guaranteed by a particular treaty with ourselves, which
makes us independent of the general treaty of Adrianople. A spirit
of justice, liberality and kindness runs through it. Assistance
and protection is to be given throughout the Turkish dominions to
American wrecked vessels and their crews; and all property recovered
from a wreck is to be delivered up to the American consul of the
nearest port, for the benefit of the owners. Ships of war of the two
countries are to exhibit towards each other friendly and courteous
conduct, and Turkish ships of war are to treat American merchant
vessels with kindness and respect. This treaty has now been in force
near twenty years, observed with perfect good faith by each, and
attended by all the good consequences expected from it. The valuable
commerce of the Black Sea, and of all the Turkish ports of Asia
Minor, Europe and Africa (once the finest part of the Roman world),
travelling, residence, and the pursuit of business throughout the
Turkish dominions, are made as safe to our citizens as in any of
the European countries; and thus the United States, though amongst
the youngest in the family of nations, besides securing particular
advantages to her own citizens, has done her part in bringing those
ancient countries into the system of modern European commercial
policy, and in harmonizing people long estranged from each other.
9. RENEWAL OF THE TREATY WITH MOROCCO.--A treaty had been made with
this power in the time of the old Congress under the Confederation;
and it is honorable to Morocco to see in that treaty, at the time
when all other powers on the Barbary coast deemed the property
of a Christian, lawful prey, and his person a proper subject for
captivity, entering into such stipulations as these following,
with a nation so young as the United States: "Neither party to
take commissions from an enemy; persons and property captured in
an enemy's vessel to be released; American citizens and effects to
be restored; stranded vessels to be protected; vessels engaged in
gunshot of forts to be protected; enemies' vessels not allowed to
follow out of port for twenty-four hours; American commerce to be
on the most favored footing; exchange of prisoners in time of war;
no compulsion in buying or selling goods; no examination of goods
on board, except contraband was proved; no detention of vessels;
disputes between Americans to be settled by their consuls, and the
consul assisted when necessary; killing punished by the law of the
country; the effects of persons dying intestate to be taken care of,
and delivered to the consul, and, if no consul, to be deposited with
some person of trust; no appeal to arms unless refusal of friendly
arrangements; in case of war, nine months to be allowed to citizens
of each power residing in the dominions of the other to settle their
affairs and remove." This treaty, made in 1787, was the work of
Benjamin Franklin (though absent at the signature), John Adams, at
London, and Thomas Jefferson, at Paris, acting through the agent,
Thomas Barclay, at Fez; and was written with a plainness, simplicity
and beauty, which I have not seen equalled in any treaty, between
any nations, before or since. It was extended to fifty years, and
renewed by General Jackson, in the last year of his administration,
for fifty years more; and afterwards until twelve months' notice of
a desire to abridge it should be given by one of the parties. The
resident American consul at Tangier, Mr. James R. Leib, negotiated
the renewal; and all the parties concerned had the good taste to
preserve the style and language of the original throughout. It will
stand, both for the matter and the style, a monument to the honor of
our early statesmen.
10. TREATY OF AMITY AND COMMERCE WITH SIAM.--This was concluded in
March, 1833, Mr. Edmund Roberts the negotiator on the part of the
United States, and contained the provisions in behalf of American
citizens and commerce which had been agreed upon in the treaty with
the Sublime Porte, which was itself principally framed upon that
with Morocco in 1787; and which may well become the model of all
that may be made, in all time to come, with all the Oriental nations.
11. THE SAME WITH THE SULTAN OF MUSCAT.
Such were the fruits of the foreign diplomacy of President Jackson.
There were other treaties negotiated under his administration--with
Austria, Mexico, Chili, Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela--but being in the
ordinary course of foreign intercourse, do not come within the scope
of this View, which confines itself to a notice of such treaties
as were new or difficult--which were unattainable by previous
administrations; and those which brought indemnity to our citizens
for spoliations committed upon them in the time of General Jackson's
predecessors. In this point of view, the list of treaties presented,
is grand and impressive; the bare recital of which, in the most
subdued language of historical narrative, places the foreign
diplomacy of General Jackson on a level with the most splendid
which the history of any nation has presented. First, the direct
trade with the British West Indies, which had baffled the skill and
power of all administrations, from Washington to John Quincy Adams
inclusive, recovered, established, and placed on a permanent and
satisfactory footing. Then indemnities from France, Spain, Denmark,
Naples, Portugal, for injuries committed on our commerce in the
time of the great Napoleon. Then original treaties of commerce and
friendship with great powers from which they never could be obtained
before--Russia, Austria, the Sublime Porte. Then leaving his country
at peace with all the world, after going through an administration
of eight years which brought him, as a legacy from his predecessors,
the accumulated questions of half an age to settle with the great
powers. This is the eulogy of FACTS, worth enough, in the plainest
language, to dispense with eulogium of WORDS.
CHAPTER CXXXV.
SLAVERY AGITATION.
"It is painful to see the unceasing efforts to alarm the South by
imputations against the North of unconstitutional designs on the
subject of slavery. You are right, I have no doubt, in believing
that no such intermeddling disposition exists in the body of our
Northern brethren. Their good faith is sufficiently guaranteed
by the interest they have as merchants, as ship owners, and as
manufacturers, in preserving a Union with the slaveholding States.
On the other hand what madness in the South to look for greater
safety in disunion. It would be worse than jumping into the fire
for fear of the frying pan. The danger from the alarms is, that
the pride and resentment exerted by them may be an overmatch for
the dictates of prudence; and favor the project of a Southern
convention, insidiously revived, as promising by its councils,
the best securities against grievances of every sort from the
North."--So wrote Mr. Madison to Mr. Clay, in June 1833. It is a
writing every word of which is matter for grave reflection, and
the date at the head of all. It is dated just three months after
the tariff "compromise" of 1833, which, in arranging the tariff
question for nine years, was supposed to have quieted the South--put
an end to agitation, and to the idea of a Southern convention--and
given peace and harmony to the whole Union. Not so the fact--at
least not so the fact in South Carolina. Agitation did not cease
there on one point, before it began on another: the idea of a
Southern convention for one cause, was hardly abandoned before it
was "insidiously revived" upon another. I use the language of Mr.
Madison in qualifying this revival with a term of odious import: for
no man was a better master of our language than he was--no one more
scrupulously just in all his judgments upon men and things--and no
one occupying a position either personally, politically, or locally,
to speak more advisedly on the subject of which he spoke. He was
pained to see the efforts to alarm the South on the subject of
slavery, and the revival of the project for a Southern convention;
and he feared the effect which these alarms should have on the
pride and resentment of Southern people. His letter was not to
a neighbor, or to a citizen in private life, but to a public man
on the theatre of national action, and one who had acted a part
in composing national difficulties. It was evidently written for
a purpose. It was in answer to Mr. Clay's expressed belief, that
no design hostile to Southern slavery existed in the body of the
Northern people--to concur with him in that belief--and to give him
warning that the danger was in another quarter--in the South itself:
and that it looked to a dissolution of the Union. It was to warn an
eminent public man of a new source of national danger, more alarming
than the one he had just been composing.
About the same time, and to an old and confidential friend (Edward
Coles, Esq., who had been his private secretary when President),
Mr. Madison also wrote: "On the other hand what more dangerous
than nullification, or more evident than the progress it continues
to make, either in its original shape or in the disguises it
assumes? Nullification has the effect of putting powder under
the constitution and the Union, and a match in the hand of every
party to blow them up at pleasure. And for its progress, hearken
to the tone in which it is now preached: cast your eyes on its
increasing minorities in the most of the Southern States, without
a decrease in any of them. Look at Virginia herself, and read in
the gazettes, and in the proceedings of popular meetings, the
figure which the anarchical principle now makes, in contrast with
the scouting reception given to it but a short time ago. It is not
probable that this offspring of the discontents of South Carolina
will ever approach success in a majority of the States: but a
susceptibility of the contagion in the Southern States is visible:
and the danger not to be concealed, that the sympathy arising
from known causes, and the inculcated impression of a permanent
incompatibility of interests between the South and the North, may
put it in the power of popular leaders, aspiring to the highest
stations, to unite the South on some critical occasion, in a course
that will end in creating a new theatre of great though inferior
interest. In pursuing this course, the first and most obvious step
is nullification, the next secession, and the last a farewell
separation."
In this view of the dangers of nullification in its new
"disguise"--the susceptibility of the South to its contagious
influence--its fatal action upon an "inculcated incompatibility
of interests" between the North and the South--its increase in
the slave States--its progress, first to secession, and then to
"farewell separation:" in this view of the old danger under its
new disguise, Mr. Madison, then eighty-four years old, writes with
the wisdom of age, the foresight of experience; the spirit of
patriotism, and the "pain" of heart which a contemplation of the
division of those States excited which it had been the pride, the
glory, and the labor of his life to unite. The slavery turn which
was given to the Southern agitation was the aspect of the danger
which filled his mind with sorrow and misgiving:--and not without
reason. A paper published in Washington City, and in the interest
of Mr. Calhoun, was incessant in propagating the slavery alarm--in
denouncing the North--in exhorting the Southern States to unity of
feeling and concert of action as the only means of saving their
domestic institutions. The language had become current in some parts
of the South, that it was impossible to unite the Southern States
upon the tariff question: that the sugar interest in Louisiana would
prevent her from joining: that it was a mistake to have made that
issue: that the slavery question was the right one. And coincident
with this current language were many publications, urging a Southern
convention, and concert of action. Passing by all these, which might
be deemed mere newspaper articles, there was one which bore the
impress of thought and authenticity--which assumed the convention
to be a certainty, the time only remaining to be fixed, and the
cause for it to be in full operation in the Northern States. It
was published in the Charleston Mercury in 1835,--was entitled the
"Crisis"--and had the formality of a manifesto; and after dilating
upon the aggressions and encroachments of the North, proceeded thus:
"The proper time for a convention of the slaveholding States
will be when the legislatures of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts
and New-York shall have adjourned without passing laws for the
suppression of the abolition societies. Should either of these
States pass such laws, it would be well to wait till their
efficacy should be tested. The adjournment of the legislatures
of the Northern States without adopting any measures effectually
to put down Garrison, Tappan and their associates, will present
an issue which must be met by the South, or it will be vain for
us ever after to attempt any thing further than for the State
to provide for her own safety by defensive measures of her own.
If the issue presented is to be met, it can only be done by a
convention of the aggrieved States; the proceedings of which,
to be of any value, must embody and make known the sentiments
of the whole South, and contain the distinct annunciation of
our fixed and unaltered determination to obtain the redress of
our grievances, be the consequences what they may. We must have
it clearly understood that, in framing a constitutional union
with our Northern brethren, the slaveholding States consider
themselves as no more liable to any more interference with their
domestic concerns than if they had remained entirely independent
of the other States, and that, as such interference would, among
independent nations, be a just cause of war, so among members of
such a confederacy as ours, it must place the several States in
the relation towards each other of open enemies. To sum up in a
few words the whole argument on this subject, we would say that
the abolitionists can only be put down by legislation in the
States in which they exist, and this can only be brought about
by the embodied opinion of the whole South, acting upon public
opinion at the North, which can only be effected through the
instrumentality of a condition of the slaveholding States."
It is impossible to read this paragraph from the "Crisis," without
seeing that it is identical with Mr. Calhoun's report and speech
upon incendiary publications transmitted through the mail. The same
complaint against the North; the same exaction of the suppression
of abolition societies; the same penalty for omitting to suppress
them; that penalty always the same--a Southern convention, and
secession--and the same idea of the contingent foreign relation
to each other of the respective States, always treated as a
confederacy, under a compact. Upon his arrival at Washington at
the commencement of the session 1835-'36, all his conduct was
conformable to the programme laid down in the "Crisis," and the
whole of it calculated to produce the event therein hypothetically
announced; and, unfortunately, a double set of movements was then
in the process of being carried on by the abolitionists, which
favored his purposes. One of these was the mail transmission into
the slave States of incendiary publications; and it has been seen in
what manner he availed himself of that wickedness to predicate upon
it a right of Southern secession; the other was the annoyance of
Congress with a profusion of petitions for the abolition of slavery
in the District of Columbia; and his conduct with respect to these
petitions, remains to be shown. Mr. Morris, of Ohio, presented two
from that State, himself opposed to touching the subject of slavery
in the States, but deeming it his duty to present those which
applied to the District of Columbia. Mr. Calhoun demanded that they
be read; which being done,--
"He demanded the question on receiving them, which, he said, was
a preliminary question, which any member had a right to make.
He demanded it on behalf of the State which he represented;
he demanded it, because the petitions were in themselves a
foul slander on nearly one half of the States of the Union; he
demanded it, because the question involved was one over which
neither this nor the House had any power whatever; and a stop
might be put to that agitation which prevailed in so large
a section of the country, and which, unless checked, would
endanger the existence of the Union. That the petitions just
read contained a gross, false, and malicious slander, on eleven
States represented on this floor, there was no man who in his
heart could deny. This was, in itself, not only good, but the
highest cause why these petitions should not be received. Had
it not been the practice of the Senate to reject petitions
which reflected on any individual member of their body; and
should they who were the representatives of sovereign States
permit petitions to be brought there, wilfully, maliciously,
almost wickedly, slandering so many sovereign States of this
Union? Were the States to be less protected than individual
members on that floor? He demanded the question on receiving
the petitions, because they asked for what was a violation of
the constitution. The question of emancipation exclusively
belonged to the several States. Congress had no jurisdiction
on the subject, no more in this District than the State of
South Carolina: it was a question for the individual State to
determine, and not to be touched by Congress. He himself well
understood, and the people of his State should understand, that
this was an emancipation movement. Those who have moved in it
regard this District as the weak point through which the first
movement should be made upon the States. We (said Mr. C.), of
the South, are bound to resist it. We will meet this question
as firmly as if it were the direct question of emancipation in
the States. It is a movement which ought to, which must be,
arrested, _in limine_, or the guards of the constitution will
give way and be destroyed. He demanded the question on receiving
the petitions, because of the agitation which would result from
discussing the subject. The danger to be apprehended was from
the agitation of the question on that floor. He did not fear
those incendiary publications which were circulated abroad,
and which could easily be counteracted. But he dreaded the
agitation which would rise out of the discussion in Congress on
the subject. Every man knew that there existed a body of men in
the Northern States who were ready to second any insurrectionary
movement of the blacks; and that these men would be on the alert
to turn these discussions to their advantage. He dreaded the
discussion in another sense. It would have a tendency to break
asunder this Union. What effect could be brought about by the
interference of these petitioners? Could they expect to produce
a change of mind in the Southern people? No; the effect would
be directly the opposite. The more they were assailed on this
point, the more closely would they cling to their institutions.
And what would be the effect on the rising generation, but to
inspire it with odium against those whose mistaken views and
misdirected zeal menaced the peace and security of the Southern
States. The effect must be to bring our institutions into odium.
As a lover of the Union, he dreaded this discussion; and asked
for some decided measure to arrest the course of the evil. There
must, there shall be some decided step, or the Southern people
never will submit. And how are we to treat the subject? By
receiving these petitions one after another, and thus tampering,
trifling, sporting with the feelings of the South? No, no, no!
The abolitionists well understand the effect of such a course
of proceeding. It will give importance to their movements, and
accelerate the ends they propose. Nothing can, nothing will stop
these petitions but a prompt and stern rejection of them. We
must turn them away from our doors, regardless of what may be
done or said. If the issue must be, let it come, and let us meet
it, as, I hope, we shall be prepared to do."
This was new and extreme ground taken by Mr. Calhoun. To put the
District of Columbia and the States on the same footing with
respect to slavery legislation, was entirely contrary to the
constitution itself, and to the whole doctrine of Congress upon
it. The constitution gave to Congress exclusive jurisdiction over
the District of Columbia, without limitation of subjects; but it
had always refused, though often petitioned, to interfere with
the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia so long as it
existed in the two States (Maryland and Virginia) which ceded that
District to the federal government. The doctrine of Mr. Calhoun
was, therefore, new; his inference that slavery was to be attacked
in the States through the opening in the District, was gratuitous;
his "demand" (for that was the word he constantly used), that these
petitions should be refused a reception, was a harsh motion, made
in a harsh manner; his assumption that the existence of the Union
was at stake, was without evidence and contrary to evidence; his
remedy, in State resistance, was disunion; his eagerness to catch at
an "issue," showed that he was on the watch for "issues," and ready
to seize any one that would get up a contest; his language was all
inflammatory, and calculated to rouse an alarm in the slaveholding
States:--for the whole of which he constantly assumed to speak. Mr.
Morris thus replied to him:
"In presenting these petitions he would say, on the part of
the State of Ohio, that she went to the entire extent of the
opinions of the senator from South Carolina on one point. We
deny, said he, the power of Congress to legislate concerning
local institutions, or to meddle in any way with slavery in
any of the States; but we have always entertained the opinion
that Congress has primary and exclusive legislation over this
District; under this impression, these petitioners have come
to the Senate to present their petitions. The doctrine that
Congress have no power over the subject of slavery in this
District is to me a new one; and it is one that will not meet
with credence in the State in which I reside. I believe these
petitioners have the right to present themselves here, placing
their feet on the constitution of their country, when they come
to ask of Congress to exercise those powers which they can
legitimately exercise. I believe they have a right to be heard
in their petitions, and that Congress may afterwards dispose
of these petitions as in their wisdom they may think proper.
Under these impressions, these petitioners come to be heard,
and they have a right to be heard. Is not the right of petition
a fundamental right? I believe it is a sacred and fundamental
right, belonging to the people, to petition Congress for the
redress of their grievances. While this right is secured by
the constitution, it is incompetent to any legislative body to
prescribe how the right is to be exercised, or when, or on what
subject; or else this right becomes a mere mockery. If you are
to tell the people that they are only to petition on this or
that subject, or in this or that manner, the right of petition
is but a mockery. It is true we have a right to say that no
petition which is couched in disrespectful language shall be
received; but I presume there is a sufficient check provided
against this in the responsibility under which every senator
presents a petition. Any petition conveyed in such language
would always meet with his decided disapprobation. But if we
deny the right of the people to petition in this instance, I
would ask how far they have the right. While they believe they
possess the right, no denial of it by Congress will prevent them
from exercising it."
Mr. Bedford Brown, of North Carolina, entirely dissented from
the views presented by Mr. Calhoun, and considered the course he
proposed, and the language which he used, exactly calculated to
produce the agitation which he professed to deprecate. He said:
"He felt himself constrained, by a sense of duty to the State
from which he came, deeply and vitally interested as she was
in every thing connected with the agitating question which had
unexpectedly been brought into discussion that morning, to
present, in a few words, his views as to the proper direction
which should be given to that and all other petitions relating
to slavery in the District of Columbia. He felt himself more
especially called on to do so from the aspect which the question
had assumed, in consequence of the motion of the gentleman
from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN], to refuse to receive the
petition. He had believed from the first time he had reflected
on this subject, and subsequent events had but strengthened
that conviction, that the most proper disposition of all such
petitions was to lay them on the table, without printing. This
course, while it indicated to the fanatics that Congress will
yield no countenance to their designs, at the same time marks
them with decided reprobation by a refusal to print. But, in
his estimation, another reason gave to the motion to lay them
on the table a decided preference over any other proceedings by
which they should be met. The peculiar merit of this motion,
as applicable to this question, is, that it precludes all
debate, and would thus prevent the agitation of a subject in
Congress which all should deprecate as fraught with mischief
to every portion of this happy and flourishing confederacy.
Mr. B. said that honorable gentlemen who advocated this motion
had disclaimed all intention to produce agitation on this
question. He did not pretend to question the sincerity of their
declarations, and, while willing to do every justice to their
motives, he must be allowed to say that no method could be
devised better calculated, in his judgment, to produce such
a result. He (Mr. B.) most sincerely believed that the best
interests of the Southern States would be most consulted by
pursuing such a course here as would harmonize the feelings of
every section, and avoid opening for discussion so dangerous
and delicate a question. He believed all the senators who were
present a few days since, when a petition of similar character
had been presented by an honorable senator, had, by their
votes to lay it on the table, sanctioned the course which he
now suggested. [Mr. CALHOUN, in explanation, said that himself
and his colleague were absent from the Senate on the occasion
alluded to.] Mr. B. resumed his remarks, and said that he had
made no reference to the votes of any particular members of
that body, but what he had said was, that a similar petition
had been laid on the table without objection from any one,
and consequently by a unanimous vote of the senators present.
Here, then, was a most emphatic declaration, by gentlemen
representing the Northern States as well as those from other
parts of the Union, by this vote, that they will entertain
no attempt at legislation on the question of slavery in the
District of Columbia. Why, then, asked Mr. B., should we now
adopt a mode of proceeding calculated to disturb the harmonious
action of the Senate, which had been produced by the former
vote? Why (he would respectfully ask of honorable gentlemen
who press the motion to refuse to receive the petition) and
for what beneficial purpose do they press it? By persisting in
such a course it would, beyond all doubt, open a wide range of
discussion, it would not fail to call forth a great diversity of
opinion in relation to the extent of the right to petition under
the constitution. Nor would it be confined to that question
alone, judging from an expression which had fallen from an
honorable gentleman from Virginia [Mr. TYLER], in the course
of this debate. That gentleman had declared his preference for
a direct negative vote by the Senate, as to the constitutional
power of Congress to emancipate slaves in the District of
Columbia. He, for one, protested, politically speaking, against
opening this Pandora's box in the halls of Congress. For all
beneficial and practical purposes, an overwhelming majority
of the members representing the Northern States were, with
the South, in opposition to any interference with slavery in
the District of Columbia. If there was half a dozen in both
branches of Congress who did not stand in entire opposition to
any interference with slavery, in this District or elsewhere,
he had yet to learn it. Was it wise, was it prudent, was it
magnanimous, in gentlemen representing the Southern States, to
urge this matter still further, and say to our Northern friends
in Congress, 'Gentlemen, we all agree in the general conclusion,
that Congress should not interfere in this question, but we wish
to know your reasons for arriving at this conclusion; we wish
you to declare, by your votes, whether you arrive at this result
because you think it unconstitutional or not?' Mr. B. said that
he would yield to none in zeal in sustaining and supporting,
to the extent of his ability, what he believed to be the true
interest of the South; but he should take leave to say that,
when the almost united will of both branches of Congress, for
all practical purposes, was with us, against all interference on
this subject, he should not hazard the peace and quiet of the
country by going on a Quixotic expedition in pursuit of abstract
constitutional questions."
Mr. King, of Georgia, was still more pointed than Mr. Brown in
deprecating the course Mr. Calhoun pursued, and charging upon it
the effect of increasing the slavery agitation, and giving the
abolitionists ground to stand upon in giving them the right of
petition to defend. He said:
"This being among the Southern members a mere difference of form
in the manner of disposing of the subject, I regret exceedingly
that the senator from Carolina has thought it his duty (as he
doubtless has) to press the subject upon the consideration of
the Senate in such form as not only to permit, but in some
measure to create, a necessity for the continued agitation of
the subject. For he believed, with others, that nothing was
better calculated to increase agitation and excitement than
such motions as that of the senator from South Carolina. What
was the object of the motion? Senators said, and no doubt
sincerely, that their object was to quiet the agitation of the
subject. Well, (said Mr. K.,) my object is precisely the same.
We differ, then, only in the means of securing a common end;
and he could tell the Senators that the value of the motion as
a means would likely be estimated by its tendency to secure
the end desired. Would even an affirmative vote on the motion
quiet the agitation of the subject? He thought, on the contrary,
it would much increase it. How would it stop the agitation?
What would be decided? Nothing, except it be that the Senate
would not receive the particular memorial before it. Would that
prevent the presentation of others? Not at all; it would only
increase the number, by making a new issue for debate, which
was all the abolitionists wanted; or, at any rate, the most
they now expected. These petitions had been coming here without
intermission ever since the foundation of the government, and
he could tell the senator that if they were each to be honored
by a lengthy discussion on presentment, an honor not heretofore
granted to them, they would not only continue to come here, but
they would thicken upon us so long as the government remained
in existence. We may seek occasions (said Mr. K.) to rave about
our rights; we may appeal to the guaranties of the constitution,
which are denied; we may speak of the strength of the South,
and pour out unmeasured denunciations against the North; we
may threaten vengeance against the abolitionists, and menace
a dissolution of the Union, and all that; and thus exhausting
ourselves mentally and physically, and setting down to applaud
the spirit of our own efforts, Arthur Tappan and his pious
fraternity would very coolly remark: 'Well, that is precisely
what I wanted; I wanted agitation in the South; I wished to
provoke the "aristocratic slaveholder" to make extravagant
demands on the North, which the North could not consistently
surrender them. I wished them, under the pretext of securing
their own rights, to encroach upon the rights of all the
American people. In short, I wish to change the issue; upon the
present issue we are dead. Every movement, every demonstration
of feeling among our own people, shows that upon the present
issue the great body of the people is against us. The issue
must be changed, or the prospects of abolition are at an end.'
This language (Mr. K. said) was not conjectured, but there was
much evidence of its truth. Sir (said Mr. K.), if Southern
senators were actually in the pay of the abolition directory on
Nassau-street they could not more effectually co-operate in the
views and administer to the wishes of these enemies to the peace
and quiet of our country."
Mr. Calhoun was dissatisfied at the speeches of Mr. Brown and Mr.
King, and considered them as dividing and distracting the South in
their opposition to his motion, while his own course was to keep
them united in a case where union was so important, and in which
they stood but a handful in the midst of an overwhelming majority.
He said:
"I have heard with deep mortification and regret the speech of
the senator from Georgia; not that I suppose that his arguments
can have much impression in the South, but because of their
tendency to divide and distract the Southern delegation on this,
to us, all-momentous question. We are here but a handful in
the midst of an overwhelming majority. It is the duty of every
member from the South, on this great and vital question, where
union is so important to those whom we represent, to avoid every
thing calculated to divide or distract our ranks. I (said Mr.
C.), the Senate will bear witness, have, in all that I have
said on this subject, been careful to respect the feelings of
Southern members who have differed from me in the policy to
be pursued. Having thus acted, on my part, I must express my
surprise at the harsh expressions, to say the least, in which
the senator from Georgia has indulged."
The declaration of this overwhelming majority against the South
brought a great number of the non-slaveholding senators to their
feet, to declare the concurrence of their _States_ with the South
upon the subject of slavery, and to depreciate the abolitionists as
few in number in any of the Northern States; and discountenanced,
reprobated and repulsed wherever they were found. Among these, Mr.
Isaac Hill of New Hampshire, thus spoke:
"I do not (said he) object to many of the positions taken by
senators on the abstract question of Northern interference with
slavery in the South. But I do protest against the excitement
that is attempted on the floor of Congress, to be kept up
against the North. I do protest against the array that is made
here of the acts of a few misguided fanatics as the acts of the
whole or of a large portion of the people of the North. I do
protest against the countenance that is here given to the idea
that the people of the North generally are interfering with the
rights and property of the people of the South.
"There is no course that will better suit the few Northern
fanatics than the agitation of the question of slavery in the
halls of Congress--nothing will please them better than the
discussions which are taking place, and a solemn vote of either
branch denying them the right to prefer petitions here, praying
that slavery may be abolished in the District of Columbia. A
denial of that right at once enables them, and not without color
of truth, to cry out that the contest going on is 'a struggle
between power and liberty.'
"Believing the intentions of those who have moved simultaneously
to get up these petitions at this time, to be mischief, I
was glad to see the first petition that came in here laid on
the table without discussion, and without reference to any
committee. The motion to lay on the table precludes all debate;
and, if decided affirmatively, prevents agitation. It was with
the view of preventing agitation of this subject that I moved
to lay the second set of petitions on the table. A senator from
the South (Mr. Calhoun) has chosen a different course; he has
interposed a motion which opens a debate that may be continued
for months. He has chosen to agitate this question; and he has
presented that question, the decision of which, let senators
vote as they may, will best please the agitators who are urging
the fanatics forward.
"I have said the people of the North were more united in their
opposition to the plans of the advocates of antislavery, than on
any other subject. This opposition is confined to no political
party; it pervades every class of the community. They deprecate
all interference with the subject of slavery, because they
believe such interference may involve the existence and welfare
of the Union itself, and because they understand the obligations
which the non-slaveholding States owe to the slaveholding
States by the compact of confederation. It is the strong desire
to perpetuate the Union; it is the determination which every
patriotic and virtuous citizen has made, in no event to abandon
the 'ark of our safety,' that now impels the united North to
take its stand against the agitators of the antislavery project.
So effectually has the strong public sentiment put down that
agitation in New England, that it is now kept alive only by the
power of money, which the agitators have collected, and apply in
the hiring of agents, and in issues from presses that are kept
in their employ.
"The antislavery movement, which brings in petitions from
various parts of the country asking Congress to abolish slavery
in the District of Columbia, originates with a few persons,
who have been in the habit of making charitable religious
institutions subservient to political purposes, and who have
even controlled some of those charitable associations. The
petitions are set on foot by men who have had, and who continue
to have, influence with ministers and religious teachers of
different denominations. They have issued and sent out their
circulars calling for a united effort to press on Congress the
abolition of slavery in this District. Many of the clergymen
who have been instruments of the agitators, have done so from
no bad motive. Some of them, discovering the purpose of the
agitators--discovering that their labors were calculated to
make the condition of the slave worse, and to create animosity
between the people of the North and the South, have paused in
their course, and desisted from the further application of a
mistaken philanthropy. Others, having enlisted deeply their
feelings, still pursue the unprofitable labor. They present here
the names of inconsiderate men and women, many of whom do not
know, when they subscribe their papers, what they are asking;
and others of whom, placing implicit faith in their religious
teacher, are taught to believe they are thereby doing a work of
disinterested benevolence, which will be requited by rewards in
a future life.
"Now, sir, as much as I abhor the doings of weak or wicked men
who are moving this abolition question at the North, I yet have
not as bad an opinion of them as I have of some others who are
attempting to make of these puerile proceedings an object of
alarm to the whole South.
"Of all the vehicles, tracts, pamphlets, and newspapers, printed
and circulated by the abolitionists, there is no ten or twenty
of them that have contributed so much to the excitement as a
single newspaper printed in this city. I need not name this
paper when I inform you that, for the last five years, it has
been laboring to produce a Northern and Southern party--to fan
the flame of sectional prejudice--to open wider the breach,
to drive harder the wedge, which shall divide the North from
the South. It is the newspaper which, in 1831-'2, strove to
create that state of things, in relation to the tariff, which
would produce inevitable collision between the two sections of
the country, and which urged to that crisis in South Carolina,
terminating in her deep disgrace----
"[Mr. Calhoun here interrupted Mr. Hill, and called him to
order. Mr. H. took his seat, and Mr. Hubbard (being in the
chair) decided that the remarks of Mr. H. did not impugn the
motives of any man--they were only descriptive of the effects of
certain proceedings upon the State of South Carolina, and that
he was not out of order.]
"Mr. H. resumed: It is the newspaper which condemns or ridicules
the well-meant efforts of an officer of the government to stop
the circulation of incendiary publications in the slaveholding
States, and which designedly magnifies the number and the
efforts of the Northern abolitionists. It is the newspaper
which libels the whole North by representing the almost united
people of that region to be insincere in their efforts to
prevent the mischief of a few fanatical and misguided persons
who are engaged in the abolition cause.
"I have before me a copy of this newspaper (the _United States
Telegraph_), filled to the brim with the exciting subject. It
contains, among other things, a speech of an honorable senator
(Mr. Leigh of Virginia), which I shall not be surprised soon
to learn has been issued by thousands and tens of thousands
from the abolition mint at New-York, for circulation in the
South. Surely the honorable senator's speech, containing that
part of the Channing pamphlet, is most likely to move the
Southern slaves to a servile war, at the same time the Channing
extracts and the speech itself are most admirably calculated to
awaken the fears or arouse the indignation of their masters.
The circulation of such a speech will effect the object of
the abolitionists without trenching upon their funds. Let the
agitation be kept up in Congress, and let this newspaper be
extensively circulated in the South, filled with such speeches
and such extracts as this exhibits, and little will be left for
the Northern abolitionists to do. They need do no more than
send in their petitions: the late printer of the Senate and
his friends in Congress, will create enough of excitement to
effect every object of those who direct the movements of the
abolitionists."
At the same moment that these petitions were presented in the
Senate, their counterparts were presented in the House, with
the same declarations from Northern representatives in favor of
the rights of the South, and in depreciation of the number and
importance of the abolitionists in the North. Among these, Mr.
Franklin Pierce, of New Hampshire, was one of the most emphatic on
both points. He said:
"This was not the last memorial of the same character which
would be sent here. It was perfectly apparent that the question
must be met now, or at some future time, fully and explicitly,
and such an expression of this House given as could leave
no possible room to doubt as to the opinions and sentiments
entertained by its members. He (Mr. P.), indeed, considered the
overwhelming vote of the House, the other day, laying a memorial
of similar tenor, and, he believed, the same in terms, upon the
table, as fixing upon it the stamp of reprobation. He supposed
that all sections of the country would be satisfied with that
expression; but gentlemen seemed now to consider the vote as
equivocal and evasive. He was unwilling that any imputation
should rest upon the North, in consequence of the misguided and
fanatical zeal of a few--comparatively very few--who, however
honest might have been their purposes, he believed had done
incalculable mischief, and whose movements, he knew, received no
more sanction among the great mass of the people of the North,
than they did at the South. For one, he (Mr. P.), while he
would be the last to infringe upon any of the sacred reserved
rights of the people, was prepared to stamp with disapprobation,
in the most express and unequivocal terms, the whole movement
upon this subject. Mr. P. said he would not resume his seat
without tendering to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Mason),
just and generous as he always was, his acknowledgments for
the admission frankly made in the opening of his remarks. He
had said that, during the period that he had occupied a seat
in this House (as Mr. P. understood him), he had never known
six men seriously disposed to interfere with the rights of the
slaveholders at the South. Sir, said Mr. P., gentlemen may be
assured there was no such disposition as a general sentiment
prevailing among the people; at least he felt confidence in
asserting that, among the people of the State which he had the
honor in part to represent, there was not one in a hundred who
did not entertain the most sacred regard for the rights of
their Southern brethren--nay, not one in five hundred who would
not have those rights protected at any and every hazard. There
was not the slightest disposition to interfere with any rights
secured by the constitution, which binds together, and which he
humbly hoped ever would bind together, this great and glorious
confederacy as one family. Mr. P. had only to say that, to some
sweeping charges of improper interference, the action of the
people of the North at home, during the last year, and the vote
of their representatives here the other day, was a sufficient
and conclusive answer."
The newspaper named by Mr. Hill was entirely in the interest of Mr.
Calhoun, and the course which it followed, and upon system, and
incessantly to get up a slavery quarrel between the North and the
South, was undeniable--every daily number of the paper containing
the proof of its incendiary work. Mr. Calhoun would not reply to Mr.
Hill, but would send a paper to the Secretary's table to be read
in contradiction of his statements. Mr. Calhoun then handed to the
Secretary a newspaper containing an article impugning the statement
made by Mr. Pierce, in the House of Representatives, as to the
small number of the abolitionists in the State of New Hampshire;
which was read, and which contained scurrilous reflections on Mr.
Pierce, and severe strictures on the state of slavery in the South.
Mr. Hill asked for the title of the newspaper; and it was given,
"_The Herald of Freedom_." Mr. Hill said it was an abolition
paper, printed, but not circulated, at Concord, New Hampshire. He
said the same paper had been sent to him, and he saw in it one of
Mr. Calhoun's speeches; which was republished as good food for the
abolitionists; and said he thought the Senate was well employed in
listening to the reading of disgusting extracts from an hireling
abolition paper, for the purpose of impugning the statements of a
member of the House of Representatives, defending the South there,
and who could not be here to defend himself. It was also a breach
of parliamentary law for a member in one House to attack what was
said by a member in another. Mr. Pierce's statement had been heard
with great satisfaction by all except Mr. Calhoun; but to him it was
so repugnant, as invalidating his assertion of a great abolition
party in the North, that he could not refrain from this mode of
contradicting it. It was felt by all as disorderly and improper,
and the presiding officer then in the chair (Mr. Hubbard, from New
Hampshire) felt himself called upon to excuse his own conduct in not
having checked the reading of the article. He said:
"He felt as if an apology was due from him to the Senate, for
not having checked the reading of the paragraphs from the
newspaper which had just been read by the Secretary. He was
wholly ignorant of the contents of the paper, and could not
have anticipated the purport of the article which the senator
from South Carolina had requested the Secretary to read. He
understood the senator to say that he wished the paper to be
read, to show that the statement made by the senator from New
Hampshire, as to the feelings and sentiments of the people of
that State upon the subject of the abolition of slavery, was
not correct. It certainly would have been out of order, for any
senator to have alluded to the remarks made by a member of the
House of Representatives, in debate; and, in his judgment, it
was equally out of order to permit paragraphs from a newspaper
to be read in the Senate, which went to impugn the course of any
member of the other House; and he should not have permitted the
paper to have been read, without the direction of the Senate, if
he had been aware of the character of the article."
Mr. Calhoun said he was entitled to the floor and did not like
to be interrupted by the chair: he meant no disrespect to Mr.
Pierce, "but wished the real state of things to be known"--as if
an abolition newspaper was better authority than a statement from
a member in his place in the House. It happened that Mr. Pierce
was coming into the Senate Chamber as this reading scene was going
on; and, being greatly surprised, and feeling much aggrieved, and
having no right to speak for himself, he spoke to the author of this
View to maintain the truth of his statement against the scurrilous
contradiction of it which had been read. Mr. Benton, therefore,
stood up--
"To say a word on the subject of Mr. Pierce, the member of the
House of Representatives, from New Hampshire, whose statements
in the House of Representatives had been contradicted in the
newspaper article read at the Secretary's table. He had the
pleasure of an intimate acquaintance with that gentleman, and
the highest respect for him, both on his own account and that
of his venerable and patriotic father, who was lately Governor
of New Hampshire. It had so happened (said Mr. B.) that, in the
very moment of the reading of this article, the member of the
House of Representatives, whose statement it contradicted, was
coming into the Senate Chamber, and his whitening countenance
showed the deep emotion excited in his bosom. The statement
which that gentleman had made in the House was in the highest
degree consolatory and agreeable to the people of the
slaveholding States. He had said that not one in five hundred
in his State was in favor of the abolitionists: an expression
understood by every body, not as an arithmetical proposition
worked out by figures, but as a strong mode of declaring that
these abolitionists were few in number. In that sense it was
understood, and was a most welcome and agreeable piece of
information to the people of the slaveholding States. The
newspaper article contradicts him, and vaunts the number of the
abolitionists, and the numerous signers to their petition. Now
(said Mr. B.), the member of the House of Representatives (Mr.
Pierce) has this moment informed me that he knows nothing of
these petitions, and knows nothing to change his opinion as to
the small number of abolitionists in his State. Mr. B. thought,
therefore, that his statement ought not to be considered as
discredited by the newspaper publication; and he, for one,
should still give faith to his opinion."
In his eagerness to invalidate the statement of Mr. Pierce, Mr.
Calhoun had overlooked a solecism of action in which it involved
him. His bill to suppress the mail transmission of incendiary
publications was still before the Senate, not yet decided; and
here was matter read in the Senate, and to go forth as part of its
proceedings, the most incendiary and diabolical that had yet been
seen. This oversight was perceived by the author of this View, who,
after vindicating the statement of Mr. Pierce, went on to expose
this solecism, and--
"Took up the bill reported by the select committee on incendiary
publications, and read the section which forbade their
transmission by mail, and subjected the postmasters to fine
and loss of office, who would put them up for transmission;
and wished to know whether this incendiary publication, which
had been read at the Secretary's table, would be included in
the prohibition, after being so read, and thus becoming a part
of our debates? As a publication in New Hampshire, it was
clearly forbid; as part of our congressional proceedings would
it still be forbid? There was a difficulty in this, he said,
take it either away. If it could still be inculcated from this
floor, then the prohibition in the bill was mere child's play;
if it could not, and all the city papers which contained it
were to be stopped, then the other congressional proceedings
in the same paper would be stopped also; and thus the people
would be prevented from knowing what their representatives were
doing. It seemed to him to be but lame work to stop incendiary
publications in the villages where they were printed, and then
to circulate them from this chamber among the proceedings of
Congress; and that, issuing from this centre, and spreading to
all the points of the circumference of this extended Union, one
reading here would give it ten thousand times more notoriety
and diffusion than the printing of it in the village could do.
He concluded with expressing his wish that the reporters would
not copy into their account of debate the paper that was read.
It was too offensive to the member of the House [Mr. Pierce],
and would be too disagreeable to the people of the slaveholding
States, to be entitled to a place in our debates, and to become
a part of our congressional history, to be diffused over the
country in gazettes, and transmitted to posterity in the volumes
of debates. He hoped they would all omit it."
The reporters complied with this request, and the Congress debates
were spared the pollution of this infusion of scurrility, and the
permanent record of this abusive assault upon a member of the House
because he was a friend to the South. But it made a deep impression
upon senators; and Mr. King, of Georgia, adverted to it a few days
afterwards to show the strangeness of the scene--Southern senators
attacking their Northern friends because they defended the South. He
said:
"It was known that there was a talented, patriotic, and highly
influential member of the other House, from New Hampshire
[Mr. Pierce], to whose diligence and determined efforts he
had heard attributed, in a great degree, the present prostrate
condition of the abolitionists in that State. He had been the
open and active friend of the South from the beginning, and
had encountered the hostility of the abolitionists in every
form. He had made a statement of the strength and prospects of
the abolitionists in his State, near the commencement of the
session, that was very gratifying to the people of the South.
This statement was corroborated by one of the senators from that
State a few days after, and the senator from Carolina rose, and,
without due reflection, he was very sure, drew from his pocket
a dirty sheet, an abolition paper, containing a scurrilous
article against the member from New Hampshire, which pronounced
him an impostor and a liar. The same thing in effect had just
been repeated by the senator from Mississippi against one of the
best friends of the South, Governor Marcy, of New-York. [Here
Mr. Calhoun rose to explain, and said he had intended, by the
introduction of the paper, no disrespect to the member from
New Hampshire; and Mr. Black also rose to say he only wished
to show the course the abolitionists were pursuing, and their
future views.] Mr. King said he had been interrupted by the
senators, but corrected by neither of them. He was not attacking
their motives, but only exposing their mistakes. The article
read by his friend from Carolina was abusive of the member from
New Hampshire, and contradicted his statements. The article
read by his friend from Mississippi against Governor Marcy was
of a similar character. It abused, menaced, and contradicted
him. These abusive productions would seem to be credited and
adopted by those who used them as evidence, and incorporated
them in their speeches. Here, then, was a contest in the North
between the most open and avowed friends of the South and the
abolitionists; and we had the strange exhibition of Southern
gentlemen apparently espousing the cause of the latter, who were
continually furnishing them evidence with which to aid them in
the contest. Did gentlemen call this backing their friends? What
encouragement did such treatment afford to our friends at the
North to step forth in our behalf?"
Mr. King did not limit himself to the defence of Mr. Pierce, but
went on to deny the increase of abolitionism at the North, and to
show that it was dying out there until revived by agitation here. He
said:
"A great deal had been stated in one form or other, and in
one quarter or other, as to the numbers and increase of these
disturbers of the peace; and he did not undertake to say what
was the fact. He learned, and thought it probable, that they
had increased since the commencement of the session, and had
heard also the increase attributed to the manner in which the
subject had been treated here. However this might be, what he
insisted on was, that those base productions were no evidence of
the fact, or of any fact; and especially should not be used by
Southern men, in opposition to the statements of high-minded,
honorable men at the North, who were the active and efficient
friends of the South."
As an evidence of the manner in which the English emissary, George
Thompson, had been treated in the North, upon whose labors so much
stress had been laid in the South, Mr. King read from an English
newspaper (the Leeds Mercury), Thompson's own account of his mission
as written to his English employers; thus:
"Letters of a most distressing nature have been received from
Mr. George Thompson, the zealous and devoted missionary of
slave emancipation, who has gone from this country to the
United States, and who writes from Boston. He says that 'the
North (that is, New England, where slavery does not exist),
has universally sympathized with the South,' in opposition to
the abolitionists; that 'the North has let fall the mask;'
that 'merchants and mechanics, priests and politicians, have
alike stood forth the defenders of Southern despots, and the
furious denouncers of Northern philanthropy;' that all parties
of politics, especially the supporters of the two rivals for
the presidential office (Van Buren and Webster), vie with each
other in denouncing the abolitionists; and that even religious
men shun them, except when the abolitionists can fairly gain a
hearing from them. With regard to himself, he speaks as follows:
'Rewards are offered for my abduction and assassination; and
in every direction I meet with those who believe they would be
doing God and their country service by depriving me of life.
I have appeared in public, and some of my escapes from the
hands of my foes have been truly providential. On Friday last,
I narrowly escaped losing my life in Concord, New Hampshire.'
'Boston, September 11.--This morning a short gallows was found
standing opposite the door of my house, 23 Bay-street, in this
city, now occupied by Garrison. Two halters hung from the beam,
with the words above them, By order of Judge Lynch!'"
Mr. Hill corroborated the account which this emissary gave of his
disastrous mission, and added that he had escaped from Concord in
the night, and in woman's clothes: and then said:
"The present agitation in the North is kept up by the
application of money; it is a state of things altogether forced.
Agents are hired, disguised in the character of ministers
of the Gospel, to preach abolition of slavery where slavery
does not exist; and presses are kept in constant employment to
scatter abolition publications through the country. Deny the
right of petition to the misguided men and women who are induced
from no bad motive to petition for the abolition of slavery in
the District of Columbia, and you do more to increase their
numbers than will thousands of dollars paid to the emissaries
who traverse the country to distribute abolition tracts and to
spread abolition doctrines. Continue to debate abolition in
either branch of Congress, and you more effectually subserve
the incendiary views of the movers of abolition than any thing
they can do for themselves. It may suit those who have been
disappointed in all their political projects, to try what this
subject of abolition will now avail them. Such men will be
likely to find, in the end, that the people have too strong
attachment for that happy Union, to which we owe all our
prosperity and happiness, to be thrown from their propriety at
every agitating blast which may be blown across the land."
Mr. Webster gave his opinion in favor of receiving the petitions,
not to grant their prayer, but to yield to a constitutional right on
the part of the petitioners; and said:
"He thought they ought to be received, referred, and considered.
That was what was usually done with petitions on other
subjects, and what had been uniformly done, heretofore, with
petitions on this subject also. Those who believed they had an
undoubted right to petition, and that Congress had undoubted
constitutional authority over the subjects to which their
petitions related, would not be satisfied with a refusal to
receive the petitions, nor with a formal reception of them,
followed by an immediate vote rejecting their prayer. In
parliamentary terms there was some difference between these two
modes of proceeding, but it would be considered as little else
than a difference in mere form. He thought the question must at
some time be met, considered, and discussed. In this matter, as
in others, Congress must stand on its reasons. It was in vain
to attempt to shut the door against petitions, and expect in
that way to avoid discussion. On the presentment of the first
of these petitions, he had been of opinion that it ought to
be referred to the proper committee. He was of that opinion
still. The subject could not be stifled. It must be discussed,
and he wished it should be discussed calmly, dispassionately,
and fully, in all its branches, and all its bearings. To
reject the prayer of a petition at once, without reference or
consideration, was not respectful; and in this case nothing
could be possibly gained by going out of the usual course of
respectful consideration."
The trial votes were had upon the petition of the Society of
Friends, the Caln petition; and on Mr. Calhoun's motion to refuse
to receive it. His motion was largely rejected--35 to 10. The vote
to receive was: Messrs. Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Clay, Clayton,
Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough,
Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of
Georgia, Knight, Linn, McKean, Morris, Naudain, Niles, Prentiss,
Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge,
Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, Wright. The nays were: Messrs.
Black, Calhoun, Cuthbert, Leigh, Moore, Nicholas, Porter, Preston,
Walker, White.
The motion to reject the petition being thus lost (only a meagre
minority of the Southern members voting for it), the motion to
reject its prayer next came on; and on that motion Mr. Calhoun
refused to vote, saying:
"The Senate has by voting to receive this petition, on the
ground on which the reception was placed, assumed the principle
that we are bound to receive petitions to abolish slavery,
whether in this District or the States; that is, to take
jurisdiction of the question of abolishing slavery whenever
and in whatever manner the abolitionists may think proper to
present the question. He considered this decision pregnant with
consequences of the most disastrous character. When and how
they were to occur it was not for him to predict; but he could
not be mistaken in the fact that there must follow a long train
of evils. What, he would ask, must hereafter be the condition
on this floor of the senators from the slaveholding States? No
one can expect that what has been done will arrest the progress
of the abolitionists. Its effects must be the opposite, and
instead of diminishing must greatly increase the number of the
petitions. Under the decision of the Senate, we of the South are
doomed to sit here and receive in silence, however outrageous
or abusive in their language towards us and those whom we
represent, the petitions of the incendiaries who are making
war on our institutions. Nay, more, we are bound, without the
power of resistance to see the Senate, at the request of these
incendiaries, whenever they think proper to petition, extend
its jurisdiction on the subject of slavery over the States as
well as this District. Thus deprived of all power of effectual
resistance, can any thing be considered more hopeless and
degrading than our situation; to sit here, year after year,
session after session, hearing ourselves and our constituents
vilified by thousands of incendiary publications in the form of
petitions, of which the Senate, by its decision, is bound to
take jurisdiction, and against which we must rise like culprits
to defend ourselves, or permit them to go uncontradicted and
unresisted? We must ultimately be not only degraded in our own
estimation and that of the world, but be exhausted and worn out
in such a contest."
This was a most unjustifiable assumption on the part of Mr. Calhoun,
to say that in voting to receive this petition, confined to slavery
in the District of Columbia, the Senate took jurisdiction of the
question in the States--jurisdiction of the question of abolishing
slavery whenever, and in whatever manner, the abolitionists might
ask. It was unjustifiable towards the Senate, and giving a false
alarm to the South. The thirty-five senators voting to receive the
petition wholly repudiated the idea of interfering with slavery in
the States. Twelve of them were from the slaveholding States, so
that Mr. Calhoun was outvoted in his own half of the Union. The
petition itself was confined to the object of emancipation and the
suppression of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, where it
alleged, and truly that Congress possessed jurisdiction; and there
was nothing either in the prayer, or in the language of the petition
to justify the inferences drawn from its reception, or to justify
the assumption that it was an insult and outrage to the senators
from the slaveholding States. It was a brief and temperate memorial
in these words:
"The memorial of Caln Quarterly Meeting of the Religious Society
of Friends, commonly called Quakers, respectfully represents:
That, having long felt deep sympathy with that portion of the
inhabitants of these United States which is held in bondage,
and having no doubt that the happiness and interests, moral and
pecuniary, of both master and slave, and our whole community,
would be greatly promoted if the inestimable right to liberty
was extended equally to all, we contemplate with extreme regret
that the District of Columbia, over which you possess entire
control, is acknowledged to be one of the greatest marts for
the traffic in the persons of human beings in the known world,
notwithstanding the principles of the constitution declare that
all men have an unalienable right to the blessing of liberty.
We therefore earnestly desire that you will enact such laws as
will secure the right of freedom to every human being residing
within the constitutional jurisdiction of Congress, and prohibit
every species of traffic in the persons of men, which in as
inconsistent in principle and inhuman in practice as the foreign
slave trade."
This was the petition. It was in favor of emancipation in the
District, and prayed the suppression of the slave trade in the
District; and neither of these objects had any relation to
emancipation or the slave trade, in the States. Mr. Preston, the
colleague of Mr. Calhoun, gave his reasons for voting to reject the
prayer of the petition, having failed in his first object to reject
the petition itself: and Mr. Davis, of Massachusetts, repulsed the
inferences and assumptions of Mr. Calhoun in consequence of the vote
to receive the petition. He denied the justice of any suggestion
that it portended mischief to the South, to the constitution, or
to the Union; or that it was to make the District the headquarters
of abolitionists, and the stepping-stone and entering wedge to the
attack of slavery in the States: and said:
"Neither the petition on which the debate had arisen, nor
any other that he had seen, proposed directly or indirectly
to disturb the Union, unless the abolition of slavery in
this District, or the suppression or regulation of the slave
trade within it, would have that effect. For himself, Mr. D.
believed no purpose could be further than this from the minds
of the petitioners. He could not determine what thoughts or
motives might be in the minds of men, but he judged by what
was revealed; and he could not persuade himself that these
petitioners were not attached to the Union and that they had
(as had been suggested) any ulterior purpose of making this
District the headquarters of future operation--the stronghold
of anti-slavery--the stepping-stone to an attack upon the
constitutional rights of the South. He was obliged to repudiate
these inferences as unjust, for he had seen no proof to sustain
them in any of the petitions that had come here. The petitioners
entertained opinions coincident with their fellow-citizens as
to the power of Congress to legislate in regard to slavery in
this District; and being desirous that slavery should cease
here, if it could be abolished upon just principles; and, if
not, that the traffic carried on here from other quarters should
be suppressed or regulated, they came here to ask Congress
to investigate the matter. This was all; and he could see
no evidence in it of a clandestine purpose to disregard the
constitution or to disturb the Union."
The vote was almost unanimous on Mr. Buchanan's motion--34 to 6; and
those six against it, not because they were in favor of granting
the prayer of the memorialists, but because they believed that
the petition ought to be referred to a committee, reported upon,
and then rejected--which was the ancient mode of treating such
petitions; and also the mode in which they were now treated in the
House of Representatives. The vote was:
"Yeas--Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Clay, Crittenden,
Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough,
Grundy, Hill, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Leigh,
Linn, McKean, Moore, Nicholas, Niles, Porter, Preston, Robbins,
Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson,
Walker, Wall, White, Wright--34.
"Nays--Messrs. Davis, Hendricks, Knight, Prentiss, Swift,
Webster--6."
After this decision, Mr. Webster gave notice that he had in hand
several similar petitions, which he had forborne to present till
this one from Pennsylvania should be disposed of; and that now he
should, on an early occasion, present them, and move to dispose of
them in the way in which it had been his opinion from the first that
all such petitions should have been treated; that is, referred to a
committee for consideration and inquiry.
The action of the House of Representatives will now be seen on the
subject of these petitions; for duplicates of the same generally
went to that body; and there, under the lead of a South Carolina
member, and with large majorities of the House, they were disposed
of very differently from the way that Mr. Calhoun demanded in the
Senate, and in the way that he deemed so fatal to the slaveholding
States. Mr. Henry L. Pinckney, of the Charleston district, moved
that it be--
"_Resolved_, That all the memorials which have been offered,
or may hereafter be presented to this House, praying for the
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia; and also the
resolutions offered by an honorable member from Maine (Mr.
Jarvis), with the amendment thereto proposed by an honorable
member from Virginia (Mr. Wise), together with every other
paper or proposition that may be submitted in relation to the
subject, be referred to a select committee, with instructions to
report: that Congress possesses no constitutional authority to
interfere in any way with the institution of slavery in any of
the States of this confederacy: and that in the opinion of this
House, Congress ought not to interfere, in any way, with slavery
in the District of Columbia, because it would be a violation
of the public faith, unwise, impolitic, and dangerous to the
Union. Assigning such reasons for these conclusions, as, in the
judgment of the committee, may be best calculated to enlighten
the public mind, to allay excitement, to repress agitation, to
secure and maintain the just rights of the slave-holding States,
and of the people of this District, and to restore harmony and
tranquillity amongst the various sections of this Union."
On putting the question the motion was divided, so as to have a
separate vote on the different propositions of the resolve; and
each was carried by large, and some by nearly unanimous majorities.
On the first division, To refer all the memorials to a select
committee, the vote was 174 to 48. On the second division, That
Congress possesses no constitutional authority to interfere, in
any way, with the institution of slavery in any of the States,
the vote was 201 to 7--the seven negatives being Mr. John Quincy
Adams, Mr. Harmer Denny of Pennsylvania, Mr. William Jackson,
Mr. Horace Everett of Vermont, Mr. Rice Garland of Louisiana,
Mr. Thomas Glascock of Georgia, Mr. William Jackson, Mr. John
Robertson of Virginia; and they, because opposed to voting on such
a proposition, deemed gratuitous and intermeddling. On the third
division, of the resolve, That Congress ought not to interfere in
any way with slavery in the District of Columbia, the vote stood
163 to 47. And on the fourth division, giving as reasons for such
non-interference, Because it would be a violation of the public
faith, unwise, impolitic, and dangerous to the Union, the vote
was, 127 to 75. On the last division, To assign reasons for this
report, the vote stood 167 to 6. So the committee was ordered, and
consisted of Mr. Pinckney, Mr. Hamer of Ohio, Mr. Pierce of New
Hampshire, Mr. Hardin of Kentucky, Mr. Jarvis of Maine, Mr. Owens of
Georgia, Mr. Muhlenberg of Pennsylvania, Mr. Dromgoole of Virginia,
and Mr. Turrill of New-York. The committee reported, and digested
their report into two resolutions, _first_, That Congress possesses
no constitutional authority to interfere, in any way, with the
institution of slavery in any State of this confederacy. _Secondly_,
That Congress ought not to interfere in any way with slavery in the
District of Columbia. And, "for the purpose of arresting agitation,
and restoring tranquillity to the public mind," they recommended
the adoption of this resolve: "That all petitions, memorials,
resolutions, propositions, or papers relating in any way to the
subject of slavery, or the abolition of slavery, shall, without
either being printed or referred, be laid upon the table; and that
no further action whatever be had upon them." All these resolutions
were adopted; and the latter one by a vote of 117 to 68; so that
the House came to the same course which the Senate had taken in
relation to these memorials. Mr. Adams, whose votes, taken by
themselves, might present him as acting with the abolitionists, was
entirely opposed to their objects, and was governed by a sense of
what appeared to him to be the right of petition, and also the most
effectual way of putting an end to an agitation which he sincerely
deprecated. And on this point it is right that he should be heard
for himself, as speaking for himself when Mr. Pinckney's motion was
before the House. He then said:
"But, sir, not being in favor of the object of the petitions,
I then gave notice to the House and to the country, that upon
the supposition that these petitions had been transmitted to me
under the expectation that I should present them, I felt it my
duty to say, I should not support them. And, sir, the reason
which I gave at that time for declining to support them was
precisely the same reason which the gentleman from Virginia
now gives for reconsidering this motion--namely, to keep the
discussion of the subject out of the House. I said, sir, that
I believed this discussion would be altogether unprofitable to
the House and to the country; but, in deference to the sacred
right of petition, I moved that these fifteen petitions, all
of which were numerously signed, should be referred to the
Committee on the District of Colombia, at the head of which
was, at that time, a distinguished citizen of Virginia now, I
regret to say--and the whole country has occasion to regret--no
more. These petitions were thus referred, and, after a short
period of time, the chairman of the Committee on the District
of Columbia made a report to this House, which report was read,
and unanimously accepted; and nothing more has been heard of
these petitions from that day to this. In taking the course I
then took, I was not sustained by the unanimous voice of my own
constituents; there were many among them, persons as respectable
and as entitled to consideration as any others, who disapproved
of the course I pursued on that occasion.
"Attempts were made within the district I then represented
to get up meetings of the people to instruct me to pursue
a different course, or to multiply petitions of the same
character. These efforts were continued during the whole of that
long session of Congress; but I am gratified to add, without any
other result than that, from one single town of the district
which I had the honor to represent, a solitary petition was
forwarded before the close of the session, with a request that
I would present it to the House. Sir, I did present it, and it
was referred to the same Committee on the District of Columbia,
and I believe nothing more has been heard of it since. From
the experience of this session, I was perfectly satisfied
that the true and only method of keeping this subject out of
discussion was, to take that course; to refer all petitions of
this kind to the Committee on the District of Columbia, or some
other committee of the House, to receive their report, and to
accept it unanimously. This does equal justice to all parties
in the country; it avoids the discussion of this agitating
question on the one hand, and, on the other, it pays a due
respect to the right of the constituent to petition. Two years
afterwards, similar petitions were presented, and at that time
an effort made, without success, to do that which has now been
done successfully in one instance. An effort was made to lay
these petitions on the table; the House did not accede to the
proposition: they referred the petitions as they had been before
referred, and with the same result. For, from the moment that
these petitions are referred to the Committee on the District of
Columbia, they go to the family vault 'of all the Capulets,' and
you will never hear of them afterwards.
"At the first session of the last Congress, a gentleman from
the State of New-York, a distinguished member of this House,
now no longer here, which I regret to say, although I do not
doubt that his place is well supplied, presented one or more
petitions to this effect, and delivered a long and eloquent
speech of two hours in support of them. And what was the
result? He was not answered: not a word was said, but the vote
of the House was taken; the petitions were referred to the
Committees on the District, and we have heard nothing more of
them since. At the same session, or probably at the very last
session, a distinguished member of this House, from the State
of Connecticut, presented one or more petitions to the same
effect, and declared in his place that he himself concurred in
all the opinions expressed. Did this declaration light up the
flame of discord in this House? Sir, he was heard with patience
and complacency. He moved the reference of the petitions to the
Committee on the District of Columbia, and there they went to
sleep the sleep of death. Mr. Adams, speaking from recollection,
was [the reporter is requested by him to state] mistaken with
respect to the reference of the petitions presented at the last
session of Congress to the committee. They were then for the
first time laid on the table, as was the motion to print one of
them. At the preceding session of the last Congress, as at all
former times, all such petitions had been referred to committees
and printed when so desired. Why not adopt the same course
now? Here is a petition which has been already referred to the
Committee on the District of Columbia. Leave it there, and, my
word for it, sir, you will have just such a result as has taken
place time after time before. Your Committee on the District
certainly is not an abolition committee. You will have a fit,
proper, and able report from them; the House, _sub silentio_,
will adopt it, and you will hear no more about it. But if you
are to reconsider the vote, and to lay these petitions on the
table; if you come to the resolution that this House will not
receive any more petitions, what will be the consequence? In a
large portion of this country every individual member who votes
with you will be left at home at the next election, and some one
will be sent who is not prepared to lay these petitions on the
table."
There was certainly reason in what Mr. Adams proposed, and
encouragement to adopt his course, from the good effect which had
already attended it in other cases; and from the further good effect
which he affirmed, that, in taking that course, the committee and
the House would have come to the same conclusion by a unanimous,
instead of a divided vote, as at present. His course was also
conformable to that of the earliest action of Congress upon the
subject. It was in the session of Congress of 1789-'90--being the
first under the constitution--that the two questions of abolishing
the foreign slave trade, and of providing for domestic emancipation,
came before it; and then, as in the case of the Caln Memorial, from
the Religious Society of Friends, there was discussion as to the
mode of acting upon it--which ended in referring the memorial to a
special committee, without instructions. That committee, a majority
being from the non-slaveholding States, reported against the
memorial on both points; and on the question of emancipation in the
States, the resolve which the committee recommended (after having
been slightly altered in phraseology), read thus: "_That Congress
have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in
the treatment of them within any of the States; it remaining with
the several States to provide any regulations therein which humanity
and true policy may require._" And under this resolve, and this
treatment of the subject, the slavery question was then quieted;
and remained so until revived in our own time. In the discussion
which then took place Mr. Madison was entirely in favor of sending
the petition to a committee; and thought the only way to get up an
agitation in the country, would be by opposing that course. He said:
"The question of sending the petition to a committee was no
otherwise important than as gentlemen made it so by their
serious opposition. Had they permitted the commitment of the
memorial, as a matter of course, no notice would have been taken
of it out of doors: it could never have been blown up into a
decision of the question respecting the discouragement of the
African slave trade, nor alarm the owners with an apprehension
that the general government were about to abolish slavery
in all the States. Such things are not contemplated by any
gentleman, but they excite alarm by their extended objections
to committing the memorials. The debate has taken a serious
turn; and it will be owing to this alone if an alarm is created:
for, had the memorial been treated in the usual way, it would
have been considered, as a matter of course; and a report might
have been made so as to give general satisfaction. If there was
the slightest tendency by the commitment to break in upon the
constitution, he would object to it: but he did not see upon
what ground such an event could be apprehended. The petition did
not contemplate even a breach of the constitution: it prayed, in
general terms, for the interference of Congress so far as they
were constitutionally authorized."
This chapter opens and concludes with the words of Mr. Madison. It
is beautiful to behold the wise, just, and consistent course of
that virtuous and patriotic man--the same from the beginning to
the ending of his life; and always in harmony with the sanctity of
the laws, the honor and interests of his country, and the peace
of his fellow-citizens. May his example not be lost upon us. This
chapter has been copious on the subject of slavery. It relates
to a period when a new point of departure was taken on the slave
question; when the question was carried into Congress with avowed
alternatives of dissolving the Union; and conducted in a way to show
that dissolution was an object to be attained, not prevented; and
this being the starting point of the slavery agitation which has
since menaced the Union, it is right that every citizen should have
a clear view of its origin, progress, and design. From the beginning
of the Missouri controversy up to the year 1835, the author of this
View looked to the North as the point of danger from the slavery
agitation: since that time he has looked to the South for that
danger, as Mr. Madison did two years earlier. Equally opposed to it
in either quarter, he has opposed it in both.
CHAPTER CXXXVI.
REMOVAL OF THE CHEROKEES FROM GEORGIA.
The removal of the Creek Indians from this State was accomplished
by the treaty of 1826, and that satisfied the obligations of the
United States to Georgia, under the compact of 1802, so far as the
Creek tribe was concerned. But the same obligation remained with
respect to the Cherokees, contracted at the same time, and founded
on the same valuable consideration, namely: the cession by Georgia
to the United States of her western territory, now constituting the
two States of Alabama and Mississippi. And twenty-five years' delay,
and under incessant application, the compact had been carried into
effect with respect to the Creeks; it was now thirty-five years
since it was formed, and it still remained unexecuted with respect
to the Cherokees. Georgia was impatient and importunate, and justly
so, for the removal of this tribe, the last remaining obstacle
to the full enjoyment of all her territory. General Jackson was
equally anxious to effect the removal, both as an act of justice to
Georgia, and also to Alabama (part of whose territory was likewise
covered by the Cherokees), and also to complete the business of
the total removal of all the Indians from the east to the west
side of the Mississippi. It was the only tribe remaining in any
of the States, and he was in the last year of his presidency, and
the time becoming short, as well as the occasion urgent, and the
question becoming more complex and difficult. Part of the tribe had
removed long before. Faction split the remainder that staid behind.
Intrusive counsellors, chiefly from the Northern States, came in
to inflame dissension, aggravate difficulties, and impede removal.
For climax to this state of things, party spirit laid hold of it,
and the politicians in opposition to General Jackson endeavored to
turn it to the prejudice of his administration. Nothing daunted by
this combination of obstacles, General Jackson pursued his plan
with firmness and vigor, well seconded by his Secretary at War, Mr.
Cass--the War Department being then charged with the administration
of the Indian affairs. In the autumn of 1835, a commission had been
appointed to treat with the half tribe in Georgia and Alabama.
It was very judiciously composed to accomplish its purpose, being
partly military and partly ecclesiastic. General William Carroll,
of Tennessee, well known to all the Southern Indians as a brave and
humane warrior, and the Reverend John F. Schermerhorn, of New-York,
well known as a missionary laborer, composed the commission; and it
had all the success which the President expected.
In the winter of 1835-'36, a treaty was negotiated, by which the
Cherokees, making clean disposal of all their possessions east of
the Mississippi, ceded the whole, and agreed to go West, to join the
half tribe beyond that river. The consideration paid them was ample,
and besides the moneyed consideration, they had large inducements,
founded in views of their own welfare, to make the removal. These
inducements were set out by themselves in the preamble to the
treaty, and were declared to be: "A desire to get rid of the
difficulties experienced by a residence within the settled parts of
the United States; and to reunite their people, by joining those
who had crossed the Mississippi; and to live in a country beyond
the limits of State sovereignties, and where they could establish
and enjoy a government of their choice, and perpetuate a state of
society, which might be most consonant with their views, habits,
and condition, and which might tend to their individual comfort,
and their advancement in civilization." These were sensible reasons
for desiring a removal, and, added to the moneyed consideration,
made it immensely desirable to the Indians. The direct consideration
was five millions of dollars, which, added to stipulations to pay
for the improvements on the ceded lands--to defray the expenses
of removal to their new homes beyond the Mississippi--to subsist
them for one year after their arrival--to commute school funds and
annuities--to allow pre-emptions and pay for reserves--with some
liberal grants of money from Congress, for the sake of quieting
complaints--and some large departmental allowances, amounted, in
the whole, to more than twelve millions of dollars! Being almost
as much for their single extinction of Indian title in the corner
of two States, as the whole province of Louisiana cost! And this
in addition to seven millions of acres granted for their new home,
and making a larger and a better home than the one they had left.
Considered as a moneyed transaction, the advantage was altogether,
and out of all proportion, on the side of the Indians; but relief to
the States, and quiet to the Indians, and the completion of a wise
and humane policy, were overruling considerations, which sanctioned
the enormity of the amount paid.
Advantageous as this treaty was to the Indians, and desirable as it
was to both parties, it was earnestly opposed in the Senate; and
only saved by one vote. The discontented party of the Cherokees,
and the intrusive counsellors, and party spirit, pursued it to
Washington city, and organized an opposition to it, headed by
the great chiefs then opposed to the administration of General
Jackson--Mr. Clay, Mr. Webster, and Mr. Calhoun. Immediately after
the treaty was communicated to the Senate, Mr. Clay presented a
memorial and protest against it from the "Cherokee nation," as they
were entitled by the faction that protested; and also memorials from
several individual Cherokees; all which were printed and referred to
the Senate's Committee on Indian Affairs, and duly considered when
the merits of the treaty came to be examined. The examination was
long and close, extending at intervals for nearly three months--from
March 7th to the end of May--and assuming very nearly a complete
party aspect. On the 18th of May Mr. Clay made a motion which, as
disclosing the grounds of the opposition to the treaty, deserves
to be set out in its own words. It was a motion to reject the
resolution of ratification, and to adopt this resolve in its place:
"That the instrument of writing, purporting to be a treaty concluded
at New Echota on the 29th of December, 1835, between the United
States and the chiefs, head men and people of the Cherokee tribe of
Indians, and the supplementary articles thereto annexed, were not
made and concluded by authority, on the part of the Cherokee tribe,
competent to bind it; and, therefore, without reference to the terms
and conditions of the said agreement and supplementary articles,
the Senate cannot consent to and advise the ratification thereof,
as a valid treaty, binding upon the Cherokee tribe or nation;"
concluding with a recommendation to the President to treat again
with the Cherokees east of the Mississippi for the whole, or any
of their possessions on this side of that river. The vote on this
resolve and recommendation was, 29 yeas to 15 nays; and it requiring
two-thirds to adopt it, it was, of course, lost. But it showed that
the treaty itself was in imminent danger of being lost, and would
actually be lost, in a vote, as the Senate then stood. The whole
number of the Senate was forty-eight; only forty-four had voted.
There were four members absent, and unless two of these could be got
in, and vote with the friends of the treaty, and no one got in on
the other side, the treaty was rejected. It was a close pinch, and
made me recollect what I have often heard Mr. Randolph say, that
there were always members to get out of the way at a pinching vote,
or to lend a hand at a pinching vote. Fortunately the four absent
senators were classified as friends of the administration, and two
of them came in to our side, the other two refusing to go to the
other side: thus saving the treaty by one vote. The vote stood,
thirty-one for the treaty, fifteen against it; and it was only
saved by a strong Northern vote. The yeas were: Messrs. Benton of
Missouri; Black of Mississippi; Brown of North Carolina; Buchanan of
Pennsylvania; Cuthbert of Georgia; Ewing of Illinois; Goldsborough
of Maryland; Grundy of Tennessee; Hendricks of Indiana; Hubbard of
New Hampshire; Kent of Maryland; King of Alabama; King of Georgia;
Linn of Missouri; McKean of Pennsylvania; Mangum of North Carolina;
Moore of Alabama; Morris of Ohio; Niles of Connecticut; Preston of
South Carolina; Rives of Virginia; Robinson of Illinois; Ruggles and
Shepley of Maine; N. P. Tallmadge of New-York; Tipton of Illinois;
Walker of Mississippi; Wall of New Jersey; White of Tennessee; and
Wright of New-York--31. The nays were: Messrs. Calhoun of South
Carolina; Clay of Kentucky; Clayton of Delaware; Crittenden of
Kentucky; Davis of Massachusetts; Ewing of Ohio; Leigh of Virginia;
Naudain of Delaware; Porter of Louisiana; Prentiss of Vermont;
Robbins of Rhode Island; Southard of New Jersey; Swift of Vermont;
Tomlinson of Connecticut; and Webster of Massachusetts--15. Thus the
treaty was barely saved. One vote less in its favor, or one more
against it, and it would have been lost. Two members were absent. If
either had come in and voted with the opposition, it would have been
lost. It was saved by the free State vote--by the fourteen free
State affirmative votes, which precisely balanced and neutralized
the seven slave State negatives. If any one of these fourteen had
voted with the negatives, or even been absent at the vote, the
treaty would have been lost; and thus the South is indebted to the
North for this most important treaty, which completed the relief
of the Southern States--the Chickasaws, Creeks and Choctaws having
previously agreed to remove, and the treaties with them (except with
the Creeks) having been ratified without serious opposition.
The ratification of this treaty for the removal of the Cherokees
was one of the most difficult and delicate questions which we ever
had to manage, and in which success seemed to be impossible up to
the last moment. It was a Southern question, involving an extension
of slavery, and was opposed by all three of the great opposition
leaders; who only required a minority of one third to make good
their point. At best, it required a good Northern vote, in addition
to the undivided South, to carry the treaty; but, with the South
divided, it seemed hardly possible to obtain the requisite number
to make up for that defection; yet it was done, and done at the
very time that the systematic plan had commenced, to charge the
Northern States with a design to abolish slavery in the South. And
I, who write history, not for applause, but for the sake of the
instruction which it affords, gather up these dry details from the
neglected documents in which they lie hidden, and bring them forth
to the knowledge and consideration of all candid and impartial men,
that they may see the just and fraternal spirit in which the free
States then acted towards their brethren of the South. Nor can
it fail to be observed, as a curious contrast, that, in the very
moment that Mr. Calhoun was seeing cause for Southern alarm lest the
North should abolish slavery in the South, the Northern senators
were extending the area of slavery in Georgia by converting Indian
soil into slave soil: and that against strenuous exertions made by
himself.
CHAPTER CXXXVII.
EXTENSION OF THE MISSOURI BOUNDARY.
This was a measure of great moment to Missouri and full of
difficulties in itself, and requiring a double process to accomplish
it--an act of Congress to extend the boundary, and an Indian treaty
to remove the Indians to a new home. It was to extend the existing
boundary of the State so as to include a triangle between the
existing line and the Missouri River, large enough to form seven
counties of the first class, and fertile enough to sustain the
densest population. The difficulties were threefold: 1. To make
still larger a State which was already one of the largest in the
Union. 2. To remove Indians from a possession which had just been
assigned them in perpetuity. 3. To alter the Missouri compromise
line in relation to slave territory, and thereby convert free soil
into slave soil. The two first difficulties were serious--the third
formidable: and in the then state of the public mind in relation
to slave territory, this enlargement of a great slave State, and
by converting free soil into slave, and impairing the compromise
line, was an almost impossible undertaking, and in no way to be
accomplished without a generous co-operation from the members of the
free States. They were a majority in the House of Representatives,
and no act of Congress could pass for altering the compromise line
without their aid: they were equal in the Senate, where treaty for
the removal of the Indians could be ratified except by a concurrence
of two thirds. And all these difficulties to be overcome at a
time when Congress was inflamed with angry debates upon abolition
petitions, transmission of incendiary publications, imputed designs
to abolish slavery; and the appearance of the criminating article
in South Carolina entitled the "Crises," announcing a Southern
convention and a secession if certain Northern States did not
suppress the abolition societies within their limits within a
limited time.
In the face of all these discouraging obstacles the two Missouri
senators, Messrs. Benton and Linn, commenced their operations. The
first was to procure a bill for the alteration of the compromise
line and the extension of the boundary: it was obtained from the
Judiciary Committee, reported by Mr. John M. Clayton of Delaware:
and passed the Senate without material opposition. It went to the
House of Representatives; and found there no serious opposition
to its passage. A treaty was negotiated with the Sac and Fox
Indians to whom the country had been assigned, and was ratified
by the requisite two thirds. And this, besides doing an act of
generous justice to the State of Missouri, was the noble answer
which Northern members gave to the imputed design of abolishing
slavery in the States! actually extending it! and by an addition
equal in extent to such States as Delaware and Rhode Island; and
by its fertility equal to one of the third class of States. And
this accomplished by the extraordinary process of altering a
compromise line intended to be perpetual, and the reconversion of
soil which had been slave, and made free, back again from free to
slave. And all this when, had there been the least disposition to
impede the proper extension of a slave State, there were plausible
reasons enough to cover an opposition, in the serious objections
to enlarging a State already the largest in the Union--to removing
Indians again from a home to which they had just been removed
under a national pledge of no more removals--and to disturbing the
compromise line of 1820 on which the Missouri question had been
settled; and the line between free and slave territory fixed for
national reasons, to remain for ever. The author of this View was
part and parcel of all that transaction--remembers well the anxiety
of the State to obtain the extension--her joy at obtaining it--the
gratitude which all felt to the Northern members without whose
aid it could not have been done; and whose magnanimous assistance
under such trying circumstances he now records as one of the
proofs--(this work contains many others)--of the willingness of the
non-slaveholding part of the Union to be just and generous to their
slaveholding brethren, even in disregard of cherished prejudices and
offensive criminations. It was the second great proof to this effect
at this identical session, the ratification of the Georgia Cherokee
treaty being the other.
CHAPTER CXXXVIII.
ADMISSION OF THE STATES OF ARKANSAS AND MICHIGAN INTO THE UNION.
These two young States had applied to Congress for an act to enable
them to hold a convention, and form State constitutions, preparatory
to admission into the Union. Congress refused to pass the acts, and
the people of the two territories held the convention by their own
authority, formed their constitutions--sent copies to Congress,
praying admission as States. They both applied at this session, and
the proceedings on their respective applications were simultaneous
in Congress, though in separate bills. That of Michigan was taken up
first, and had been brought before each House in a message from the
President in these words:
"By the act of the 11th of January, 1805, all that part of the
Indian Territory lying north of a line drawn due 'east from
the southerly bend or extreme of Lake Michigan until it shall
intersect Lake Erie, and east of a line drawn from the said
southerly bend, through the middle of said lake, to its northern
extremity, and thence, due north, to the northern boundary of
the United States,' was erected into a separate Territory, by
the name of Michigan. The Territory comprised within these
limits being part of the district of country described in the
ordinance of the 13th of July, 1787, which provides that,
whenever any of the States into which the same should be divided
should have sixty thousand free inhabitants, such State should
be admitted by its delegates 'into the Congress of the United
States, on an equal footing with the original States in all
respects whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent
constitution and State government, provided the constitution
and government so to be formed shall be republican, and in
conformity to the principles contained in these articles,' the
inhabitants thereof have, during the present year, in pursuance
of the right secured by the ordinance, formed a constitution and
State government. That instrument, together with various other
documents connected therewith, has been transmitted to me for
the purpose of being laid before Congress, to whom the power
and duty of admitting new States into the Union exclusively
appertains; and the whole are herewith communicated for your
early decision."
The application was referred to a select committee, Mr. Benton
the chairman; and a memorial, entitled from the "Legislature of
Michigan," was also referred to the same committee, though objected
to by some senators as purporting to come from a State which, as
yet, had no existence. But the objection was considered by others as
being one of form--that it might be considered as coming from the
people of Michigan--and was not even material in that point of view,
as the question was already before the Senate on the President's
Message. Some objection was also made to the boundaries, as being
too large, and as trenching upon those of Indiana and Ohio. A
bill was reported for the admission of the State, in support of
which Mr. Benton said, the committee had included in the proposed
limits a considerable portion of territory on the northwest, and
had estimated the superficial contents of the State at 60,000
square miles. The territory attached contained but a very small
portion of Indian population. It was necessary to make her large
and strong, being a frontier State both to the Indians and to the
British possessions. It should have a large front on Lake Superior.
The principal points of objection, of a permanent character,
were, that the proceedings of the people were revolutionary, in
forming a constitution without a previous act of Congress; and
her constitution inconsistent with that of the United States in
admitting aliens to vote before naturalization. To the first it
was answered that she had applied for an act of Congress two years
ago, and was denied by the then dominant party, and that it was
contradictory to object to her, for not having that which had been
refused to be given; and on the second, that the same thing had been
done for a quarter of a century. On the latter point Mr. Buchanan
said:
"Michigan confined herself to such residents and inhabitants of
her territory as were there at the signing of her constitution;
and to those alone she extended the right of suffrage. Now,
we had admitted Ohio and Illinois into this Union; two sister
States, of whom we ought certainly to be very proud. He would
refer senators to the provision in the constitution of Ohio on
that subject. By it, all white male inhabitants, twenty-one
years of age, or upwards, having resided one year in the State,
are entitled to vote. Michigan had made the proper distinction;
she had very properly confined the elective franchise to
inhabitants within the State at the time of the adoption of her
constitution; but Ohio had given the right of suffrage as to
all future time to all her white inhabitants over the age of
twenty-one years; a case embracing all time to come, and not
limited as in the constitution of Michigan. He had understood
that, since the adoption of her constitution, Ohio had repealed
this provision by law. He did not know whether this was so or
not; but here it was, as plain as the English language could
make it, that all the white male inhabitants of Ohio, above
the age of twenty-one years, were entitled to vote at her
elections. Well, what had Illinois done in this matter? He
would read an extract from her constitution, by which it would
appear that only six months' previous residence was required
to acquire the right of suffrage. The constitution of Illinois
was therefore still broader and more liberal than that of Ohio.
There, in all elections, all white male inhabitants above the
age of twenty-one years, having resided in the State six months
previous to the election, shall enjoy the rights of an elector.
Now, sir, it had been made a matter of preference by settlers
to go to Illinois, instead of the other new States, where they
must become citizens before they could vote; and he appealed to
the senators from Illinois whether this was not now the case,
and whether any man could not now vote in that State after a six
months' residence.
"[Mr. Robinson said that such was the fact.]
"Now, here were two constitutions of States, the senator from
one of which was most strenuously opposed to the admission of
Michigan, who had not extended the right of suffrage as far as
was done by either of them. Did Michigan do right in thus fixing
the elective franchise? He contended that she did act right; and
if she had not acted so, she would not have acted in obedience
to the spirit, if not the very letter, of the ordinance of 1787.
Michigan took the right ground, while the States of Ohio and
Illinois went back in making perpetual in their constitution
what was contained in the ordinance. When Congress admitted them
and Indiana on this principle, he thought it very ungracious
in any of their senators or representatives to declare that
Michigan should not be admitted, because she has extended the
right of suffrage to the few persons within her limits at the
adoption of her constitution. He felt inclined to go a good deal
further into this subject; but as he was exceedingly anxious
that the decision should be made soon, he would not extend his
remarks any further. It appeared to him that an amendment might
very well be made to this bill, requiring that the assent of the
people of Michigan shall be given to the change of boundary.
He did hope that by this bill all objections would be removed;
and that this State, so ready to rush into our arms, would not
be repulsed, because of the absence of some formalities, which,
perhaps, were very proper, but certainly not indispensable."
On the other point, that of a revolutionary movement, Mr. Buchanan
answered:
"I think their course is clearly justifiable; but if there to
any thing wrong or unusual in it, it is to be attributed to the
neglect of Congress. For three years, they have been rapping
at your door, and asking for the consent of Congress to form
a constitution, and for admission into the Union; but their
petitions have not been heeded, and have been treated with
neglect. Not being able to be admitted in the way they sought,
they have been forced to take their own course, and stand upon
their rights--rights secured to them by the constitution and a
solemn irrepealable ordinance. They have taken the census of
the territory; they have formed a constitution, elected their
officers, and the whole machinery of a State government is ready
to be put in operation: they are only awaiting your action.
Having assumed this attitude, they now demand admission as a
matter of right: they demand it as an act of justice at your
hands. Are they now to be repelled, or to be told that they
must retrace their steps, and come into the Union in the way
they at first sought to do, but could not obtain the sanction
of Congress? Sir, I fear the consequences of such a decision; I
tremble at an act of such injustice."
The bill passed the Senate by rather a close vote--twenty-four to
eighteen; the latter being all senators in the opposition. It then
went to the House of Representatives for concurrence. From the time
of the admission of new States, it had been the practice to admit
a free and slave State together, or alternately, so as to keep up
a numerical equilibrium between them--a practice resulting from
some slight jealousy existing, from the beginning, between the two
classes of States. In 1820, when the Missouri controversy inflamed
that jealousy, the State of Massachusetts divided herself to furnish
territory for the formation of a new free State (Maine) to balance
Missouri; and the acts of Congress _for_ the admission of both,
were passed contemporaneously, March, 1820. Now, in 1836, when the
slave question again was much inflamed, and a State of each kind to
be admitted, the proceedings for that purpose were kept as nearly
together as possible, not to include them in the same bill. The
moment, then, that the Michigan bill had passed the Senate, that of
Arkansas was taken up, under the lead of Mr. Buchanan, to whom the
Arkansas application had been confided, as that of Michigan had been
to Mr. Benton. This latter senator alluded to this circumstance to
show that the people of these young States had no fear of trusting
their rights and interests to the care of senators differing from
themselves on the slavery question. He said:
"It was worthy of notice, that, on the presentation of these two
great questions for the admission of two States, the people of
those States were so slightly affected by the exertions that had
been made to disturb and ulcerate the public mind on the subject
of slavery, as to put them in the hands of senators who might
be supposed to entertain opinions on that subject different
from those held by the States whose interests they were charged
with. Thus, the people of Arkansas had put their application
into the hands of a gentleman representing a non-slaveholding
State; and the people of Michigan had put their application
into the hands of a senator (himself) coming from a State where
the institutions of slavery existed; affording a most beautiful
illustration of the total impotence of all attempts to agitate
and ulcerate the public mind on the worn-out subject of slavery.
He would further take occasion to say, that the abolition
question seemed to have died out; there not having been a single
presentation of a petition on that subject, since the general
jail delivery ordered by the Senate."
Mr. Swift, of Vermont, could not vote for the admission of Arkansas,
because the constitution of the State sanctioned perpetual slavery;
and said:
"That, although he felt every disposition to vote for the
admission of the new State into the Union, yet there were
operative reasons under which he must vote against it. On
looking at the constitution submitted by Arkansas, he found that
they had made the institution of slavery perpetual; and to this
he could never give his assent. He did not mean to oppose the
passage of the bill, but had merely risen to explain the reasons
why he could not vote for it."
Mr. Buchanan felt himself bound by the Missouri compromise to vote
for the admission, and pointed out the ameliorating feature in the
constitution which guaranteed the right of jury trials to slaves;
and said:
"That, on the subject of slavery, this constitution was more
liberal than the constitution of any of the slaveholding States
that had been admitted into the Union. It preserved the very
words of the other constitutions, in regard to slavery; but
there were other provisions in it in favor of the slaves, and
among them a provision which secured to them the right of trial
by jury; thus putting them, in that particular, on an equal
footing with the whites. He considered the compromise which had
been made, when Missouri was admitted into the Union, as having
settled the question as to slavery in the new South Western
States; and the committee, therefore, did not deem it right to
interfere with the question of slavery in Arkansas."
Mr. Prentiss, of Vermont, opposed the admission, on account of the
"revolutionary" manner in which the State had held her convention,
without the authorization of a previous act of Congress, and because
her constitution had given perpetual sanction to slavery; and,
referring to the reasons which induced him to vote against the
admission of Michigan, said:
"That he must also vote against the admission of Arkansas. He
viewed the movements of these two territories, with regard to
their admission into the Union, as decidedly revolutionary,
forming their constitution without the previous consent
of Congress, and importunately knocking at its doors for
admission. The objections he had to the admission of Arkansas,
particularly, were, that she had formed her constitution without
the previous assent of Congress, and in that constitution
had made slavery perpetual, as noticed by his colleague. He
regretted that he was compelled to vote against this bill; but
he could not, in the discharge of his duty, do otherwise."
Mr. Morris, of Ohio, spoke more fully on the objectionable point
than other senators, justifying the right of the people of a
territory, when amounting to 60,000 to meet and form their own
constitution--regretting the slavery clause in the constitution of
Arkansas, but refusing to vote against her on that account, as she
was not restrained by the ordinance of 1787, nor had entered into
agreement against slavery. He said:
"Before I record my vote in favor of the passage of the bill
under consideration, I must ask the indulgence of the Senate for
a moment, while I offer a few of the reasons which govern me in
the vote I shall give. Being one of the representatives of a
free State, and believing slavery to be wrong in principle, and
mischievous in practice, I wish to be clearly understood on the
subject, both here and by those I have the honor to represent. I
have objections to the constitution of Arkansas, on the ground
that slavery is recognized in that constitution, and settled
and established as a fundamental principle in her government. I
object to the existence of this principle forming a part of the
organic law in any State; and I would vote against the admission
of Arkansas, as a member of this Union, if I believed I had
the power to do so. The wrong, in a moral sense, with which I
view slavery, would be sufficient for me to do this, did I not
consider my political obligations, and the duty, as a member
of this body, I owe to the constitution under which I now act,
clearly require of me the vote I shall give. I hold that any
portion of American citizens, who may reside on a portion of the
territory of the United States, whenever their numbers shall
amount to that which would entitle them to a representation in
the House of Representatives in Congress, have the right to
provide for themselves a constitution and State government, and
to be admitted into the Union whenever they shall so apply; and
they are not bound to wait the action of Congress in the first
instance, except there is some compact or agreement requiring
them to do so. I place this right upon the broad, and, I
consider, indisputable ground, that all persons, living within
the jurisdiction of the United States, are entitled to equal
privileges; and it ought to be matter of high gratification to
us here, that, in every portion, even the most remote, of our
country, our people are anxious to obtain this high privilege at
as early a day as possible. It furnishes clear proof that the
Union is highly esteemed, and has its foundation deep in the
hearts of our fellow-citizens.
"By the constitution of the United States, power is given
to Congress to admit new States into the Union. It is in
the character of a State that any portion of our citizens,
inhabiting any part of the territory of the United States,
must apply to be admitted into the Union; a State government
and constitution must first be formed. It is not necessary for
the power of Congress, and I doubt whether Congress has such
power, to prescribe the mode by which the people shall form a
State constitution; and, for this plain reason, that Congress
would be entirely incompetent to the exercise of any coercive
power to carry into effect the mode they might prescribe. I
cannot, therefore, vote against the admission of Arkansas
into the Union, on the ground that there was no previous act
of Congress to authorize the holding of her convention. As a
member of Congress, I will not look beyond the constitution that
has been presented. I have no right to presume it was formed
by incompetent persons, or that it does not fully express the
opinions and wishes of the people of that country. It is true
that the United States shall guarantee to every State in the
Union a republican form of government: meaning, in my judgment,
that Congress shall not permit any power to establish, in any
State, a government without the assent of the people of such
State; and it will not be amiss that we remember here, also,
that that guaranty is to the State, and not as to the formation
of the government by the people of the State; but should it
be admitted that Congress can look into the constitution of a
State, in order to ascertain its character, before such State
is admitted into the Union, yet I contend that Congress cannot
object to it for the want of a republican form, if it contains
the great principle that all power is inherent in the people,
and that the government drew all its just powers from the
governed.
"The people of the territory of Arkansas, having formed
for themselves a State government, having presented their
constitution for admission into the Union, and that
constitution being republican in its form, and believing
that the people who prepared and sent this constitution here
are sufficiently numerous to entitle them to a representative
in Congress, and believing, also, that Congress has no right
or power to regulate the system of police these people have
established for themselves, and the ordinance of 1787 not
operating on them, nor have they entered into any agreement
with the United States that slavery should not be admitted in
their State, have the right to choose this lot for themselves,
though I regret that they made this choice. Yet believing that
this government has no right to interfere with the question of
slavery in any of the States, or prescribe what shall or shall
not be considered property in the different States, or by what
tenure property of any kind shall be holden, but that all these
are exclusively questions of State policy, I cannot, as a member
of this body, refuse my vote to admit this State into the Union,
because her constitution recognizes the right and existence of
slavery."
Mr. Alexander Porter, of Louisiana, would vote against the
admission, on account of the "revolutionary" proceedings of the
people in the formation of their constitution, without a previous
act of Congress. It is believed that Mr. Clay voted upon the same
ground. There were but six votes against the admission; namely: Mr.
Clay, Mr. Knight of Rhode Island, Mr. Porter, Mr. Prentiss, Mr.
Robbins of Rhode Island, and Mr. Swift. It is believed that Mr.
Robbins and Mr. Knight voted on the same ground with Mr. Clay and
Mr. Porter. So, the bill was easily passed, and the two bills went
together to the House of Representatives, where they gave rise to
proceedings, the interest of which still survives, and a knowledge
of which, therefore, becomes necessary. The two bills were made the
special order for the same day, Wednesday, the 8th of June, Congress
being to adjourn on the 4th of July; and the Michigan bill having
priority on the calendar, as it had first passed the Senate. Mr.
Wise, of Virginia, on the announcement of the Michigan bill, from
the chair, as the business before the House, moved to postpone its
consideration until the ensuing Monday, in order to proceed with the
Arkansas bill. Mr. Thomas, of Maryland, objected to the motion, and
said:
"He would call the attention of the House to the position of
the two bills on the Speaker's table, and endeavor to show
that this postponement is entirely unnecessary. These bills
are from the Senate. By the rules of this House, two, I may
say three, questions will arise, to be decided before they can
become a law, so far as this House is concerned. We must first
order each of these bills to be read a third time; the next
question then will be, when shall the bill be read a third
time? And the last question to be decided will be, shall the
bill pass? Why, then, should Southern men now make an effort to
give precedence to the bill for the admission of Arkansas into
the Union? If they manifest distrust, must we not expect that
fears will be entertained by Northern members, that unreasonable
opposition will be made to the admission of Michigan? Let us
proceed harmoniously, until we find that our harmony must be
interrupted. We shall lose nothing by so doing. If a majority
of the House be in favor of reading a third time the Michigan
bill, they will order it to be done. After that vote has been
taken, we can refuse to read the bill a third time, go into
Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, then consider
the Arkansas bill, report it to the House, order it to be read a
third time, and in this order proceed to read them each a third
time, if a majority of the House be in favor of that proceeding.
Let it not be said that Southern men may be taken by surprise,
if the proceeding here respectfully recommended be adopted. If
the friends of Arkansas are sufficiently numerous to carry now
the motion to postpone, they can arrest at any time the action
of the House on the Michigan bill, until clear undubitable
indications have been given that the Missouri compromise is not
to be disregarded."
These latter words of Mr. Thomas revealed the point of jealousy
between some Southern and Northern members, and brought the
observance of the Missouri compromise fully into view, as a question
to be tried. Mr. Wise, after some remarks, modified his motion by
moving to refer both bills to the Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, with instructions to incorporate the two bills
into one bill. Mr. Patton, of Virginia, opposed the latter motion,
and gave his reasons at length against it. If his colleague would so
modify his motion as to move to refer both bills to the Committee of
the Whole House, without the instructions, he would vote for it. Mr.
Bouldin, of Virginia, successor to Mr. Randolph, said:
"He agreed with his colleague [Mr. Patton] in a fact too
plain for any to overlook, that both bills must be acted on
separately, and that one must have the preference in point of
time. Michigan had it at that time--he was willing it should
hold it. His colleague [Mr. Patton] seemed to think that in
the incipient steps in relation to this bill, it would be well
enough to suffer Michigan to hold her present position; but
that, before the final passage of the bill, it would be well
to require of the House (or rather of the non-slaveholding
portion of the Union) to give some unequivocal guaranty to the
South that no difficulty would be raised as to the reception of
Arkansas in regard to negro slavery. Mr. B. was willing to go
on with the bill for the admission of Michigan. He had the most
implicit confidence in the House, particularly alluding to the
non-slaveholding part of the Union, that no serious difficulty
would be made as to the admission of Arkansas in regard to negro
slavery. If there were any serious difficulties to be raised
in the House to the admission of Arkansas, upon the ground
of negro slavery, he wished immediate notice of it. If his
confidence was misplaced, he wished to be corrected as soon and
as certainly as possible. If there really was any intention in
the House of putting the South under any difficulty, restraint,
limit, any shackle or embarrassment on the South on account of
negro slavery (some gentlemen said slavery, but he said _negro_
slavery), he wished to know it. If there were any individuals
having such feeling, he wished to know them; he wished to hear
their names upon yeas and nays. If there were a majority, he
should act promptly, decisively, immediately upon it, and had
no doubt all the South would do the same. There might be some
question as to the claim of non-slaveholding States to stop the
progress of Southern habits and Southern influence Northward.
As to Arkansas, there could be no question; and if seriously
pressed, such claims could leave no doubt on the minds of
the South as to the object of those who pressed them, or the
course to be pursued by them. Such a stand being taken by the
non-slaveholding States, it would make little difference whether
Michigan was in or out of this Union. He said he would sit down,
again assuring the House, and the gentlemen particularly from
the non-slaveholding States, of his entire confidence that no
such thing would be seriously attempted by any considerable
numbers of this House."
Mr. Lewis, of Worth Carolina, took decided ground in favor of giving
the Arkansas bill the priority of decision; and expressed himself
thus:
"He should vote for the proposition of the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Wise] to lay the bill for the admission of
Michigan into the Union on the table, until the bill for the
admission of Arkansas should be first passed. He should do this,
for the obvious reason that there were dangers, he would not
say how great, which beset Arkansas, and which did not beset
Michigan. The question of slavery could be moved as a condition
for the admission of Arkansas, and it could not as a condition
to the admission of Michigan. I look upon the Arkansas question
as therefore the weaker of the two, and for that reason I would
give it precedence. Besides, upon the delicate question which
may be involved in the admission of Arkansas, we may be the
weaker party in this House. For that reason, if gentlemen mean
to offer no obstructions to the admission of Arkansas, let them
give the assurance by helping the weaker party through with the
weaker question. We of the South cannot, and will not, as I
pledge myself, offer any objections to the domestic institutions
of Michigan with regard to slavery. Can any gentleman make the
same pledge that no such proposition shall come from the North?
Besides, the two bills are not now on an equal footing. The bill
for the admission of Arkansas must be sent to a Committee of
the Whole on the state of the Union. The bill for the admission
of Michigan need not necessarily go to that committee. It will
therefore pass in perfect safety, while we shall be left to get
Arkansas along, through the tedious stages of commitment, as
well as we can. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Sutherland]
says that these two bills will be hostages for the safety of
each other. Not, sir, if you pass the stronger bill in advance
of the weaker. Besides, the North want no hostages on this
subject. Their institutions cannot be attacked. We of the South
want a hostage, to protect us on a delicate question; and the
effect of giving precedence to the Michigan bill is to deprive
us of that hostage."
Mr. Cushing, of Massachusetts, addressed the committee at length on
the subject, of which only the leading passages can be given. He
said:
"The House has now continued in session for the space of
eighteen or nineteen hours, without any interval of refreshment
or rest. It is impossible to mistake the intentions of the
ruling majority. I see clearly that the committee is resolved to
sit out the debate on these important bills for the admission
of Michigan and Arkansas into the Union. This, it is apparent,
the majority have the power as well as the right to do. Whether
it be just and reasonable, is another question. I shall not
quarrel, however, with the avowed will of the House. It has
done me the favor to hear me with patience on other occasions;
and I cannot render it the unfit return of trespassing on its
indulgence at this unseasonable hour, nor seek to defeat its
purposes by speaking against time. But having been charged
with sundry memorials from citizens of Massachusetts and New
Hampshire, remonstrating against that clause in the constitution
of Arkansas which relates to the subject of slavery, I should
be recreant to the trust they have reposed in me, if I suffered
the bill for the admission of Arkansas to pass without a word of
protestation. The extraordinary circumstances under which I rise
to address the committee impel me to brevity and succinctness;
but they would afford me no justification for a passive
acquiescence in the admission of Arkansas into the Union, with
all the sins of its constitution upon its head.
"The constitution of Arkansas, as communicated to Congress in
the memorial of the people of that Territory, praying to be
admitted into the Union, contains the following clause: 'The
General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws for the
emancipation of slaves without the consent of the owners. They
shall have no power to prevent emigrants to this State from
bringing with them such persons as are deemed slaves by the
laws of any one of the United States.' This provision of the
constitution of Arkansas is condemned by those whom I represent
on this occasion as anti-republican, as wrong on general
principles of civil polity, and as unjust to the inhabitants
of the non-slaveholding States. They object to it as being,
in effect, a provision to render slavery perpetual in the new
State of Arkansas. I concur in reprobating such a clause. The
legislature of Arkansas is forbidden to emancipate the slaves
within its jurisdiction, even though it should be ready to
indemnify fully their owners. It is forbidden to exclude slaves
from being imported into the State. I cannot, by any vote of
mine, ratify or sanction a constitution of government which
undertakes in this way to foreclose in advance the progress of
civilization and of liberty for ever. In order to do justice
to the unchangeable opinions of the North, without, in any
respect, invading the rights, real or supposed, of the South,
my colleague [Mr. Adams], the vigilant eye of whose unsleeping
mind there is nothing which escapes, has moved an amendment of
the bill for the admission of Arkansas into the Union, so that,
if the amendment be adopted, the bill would read as follows:
'The State of Arkansas is admitted into the Union upon the
express condition that the people of the said State shall never
interfere with the primary disposal of the public lands within
the said State, nor shall they levy a tax on any of the lands
of the United States within the said State; and nothing in this
act shall be construed as an assent by Congress [to the article
in the constitution of the said State relating to slavery and
to the emancipation of the slaves, or] to all or to any of the
propositions contained in the ordinance of the said convention
of the people of Arkansas, nor to deprive the said State of
Arkansas of the same grants, subject to the same restrictions,
which were made to the State of Missouri.' This amendment is,
according to my judgment, reasonable and proper in itself, and
the very least that any member from the North can propose in
vindication of the opinions and principles of himself and his
constituents.
"It is opposed, however, by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Wise], with his accustomed vigor and ability. He alleges
considerations adverse to the motion. He interrogates the
friends of the proposed amendment in regard to its force,
effect, and purposes, in terms which seem to challenge
response; or which, at any rate, if not distinctly and promptly
met, would leave the objections which those interrogatories
impliedly convey, to be taken as confessed and admitted by our
significant silence. What may be the opinions of Martin Van
Buren as to this particular bill, what his conduct formerly in
reference to a similar case, is a point concerning which I can
have no controversy with the gentleman from Virginia. I look
only to the merits of the question before the committee. There
is involved in it a principle which I regard as immeasurably
more important than the opinion of any individual in this
nation, however high his present situation or his possible
destiny--the great principle of constitutional freedom. The
gentleman from Virginia, who, I cheerfully admit, is always
frank and honorable in his course upon this floor, has just
declared that, as a Southern man, he had felt it to be his duty
to come forward and take a stand in behalf of an institution of
the South. That institution is slavery. In like manner, I feel
it to be my duty, as a Northern man, to take a counter stand in
conservation of one among the dearest of the institutions of the
North. This institution is liberty. It is not to assail slavery,
but to defend liberty, that I speak. It is demanded of us, Do
you seek to impose restrictions on Arkansas, in violation of
the compromise under which Missouri entered the Union? I might
content myself with replying that the State of Massachusetts was
not a party to that compromise. She never directly or indirectly
assented to it. Most of her Representatives in Congress voted
against it. Those of her Representatives who, regarding that
compromise in the light of an act of conciliation important to
the general interests of the Union, voted for it, were disavowed
and denounced at home, and were stigmatized even here, by a
Southern member, as over-compliant towards the exactingness
of the South. On the first introduction of this subject to
the notice of the House, the gentleman from Virginia made a
declaration, which I particularly noticed at the time, for
the purpose of having the tenor of the declaration distinctly
understood by the House and by the country. The gentleman gave
it to be known that, if members from the North held themselves
not engaged by the terms of the compromise under which Missouri
entered into the Union, neither would members from the South
hold themselves engaged thereby; and that, if we sought to
impose restrictions affecting slave property on the one hand,
they might be impelled, on the other hand, to introduce slavery
into the heart of the North. I heard the suggestion with the
feelings natural to one born and bred in a land of equality and
freedom. I took occasion to protest, in the surprised impulse
of the moment, against the idea of putting restrictions on
liberty in one quarter of the Union, in retaliation of the
attempt to limit the spread of slavery in another quarter.
I held up to view the inconsistency and inconsequence of
uttering the warmest eulogiums on freedom one day, of pouring
out aspirations that the spirit of liberty might pervade the
universe, and at another time threatening the North with the
establishment of Slavery within its borders, if a Northern
member should deprecate the legal perpetuation of slavery
in a proposed new State of the West. It did not fall within
the rules of pertinent debate to pursue the subject at that
time; and I have but a single idea to present now, in addition
to what I then observed. It is not possible for me to judge
whether the gentleman from Virginia, and any of his friends or
fellow-citizens at the South, deliberately and soberly cherish
the extraordinary purpose which his language implied. I trust
it was but a hasty thought, struck out in the ardor of debate.
To introduce slavery into the heart of the North? Vain idea!
Invasion, pestilence, civil war, may conspire to exterminate
the eight millions of free spirits who now dwell there. This,
in the long lapse of ages incalculable, is possible to happen.
You may raze to the earth the thronged cities, the industrious
villages, the peaceful hamlets of the North. You may lay waste
its fertile valleys and verdant hill-sides. You may plant its
very soil with salt, and consign it to everlasting desolation.
You may transform its beautiful fields into a desert as bare
as the blank face of the sands of Sahara. You may reach the
realization of the infernal boast with which Attila the Hun
marched his barbaric hosts into Italy, demolishing whatever
there is of civilization or prosperity in the happy dwellings of
the North, and reducing their very substance to powder, so that
a squadron of cavalry shall gallop over the site of populous
cities, unimpeded as this wild steeds on the savannas of the
West. All this you may do: it is within the bounds of physical
possibility. But I solemnly assure every gentleman within the
sound of my voice, I proclaim to the country and to the world,
that, until all this be fully accomplished to the uttermost
extremity of the letter, you cannot, you shall not, introduce
slavery into the heart of the North."
A point of order being raised whether the two bills were not
required by a rule of the House to go before the Committee of the
Whole, the Speaker, Mr. Polk, decided in the affirmative--the
Arkansas bill, upon the ground of containing an appropriation for
the salary of judges; and that of Michigan because it provided
for judges, which involved a necessity for an appropriation. The
two bills then went into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speight, of
North Carolina, in the chair. Many members spoke, and much of the
speaking related to the boundaries of Michigan, and especially the
line between herself and the State of Ohio--to which no surviving
interest attaches. The debate, therefore, will only be pursued as
it presents points of present and future interest. These may be
assumed under three heads: 1. The formation of constitutions without
the previous assent of Congress: and this was applicable to both
States. 2. The right of aliens to vote before naturalization. 3.
The right of Arkansas to be admitted with slavery by virtue of the
rights of a State,--by virtue of the third article of the treaty
which ceded Louisiana to the United States--and by virtue of the
Missouri compromise. On these points, Mr. Hamer, of Ohio, spoke thus:
"One of the principal objections urged against their admission
at this time is, that their proceedings have been lawless and
revolutionary; and that, for the example's sake, if for no other
reason, we should reject their application, and force them to
go back and do all their work over again. I cannot assent to
this proposition. Two ways are open to every territory that
desires to emerge from its dependent condition and become a
State. It may either petition Congress for leave to form a
State constitution, and, when that permission is given, proceed
to form it, and present the new State constitution for our
approbation; or they may meet, in the first instance, form
the constitution, and offer it for our approval. There is no
impropriety in either mode. It is optional with Congress, at
last, to admit the State or not, as may be thought expedient. If
they wish to admit her, they can do it by two acts of Congress;
one to authorize the formation of a constitution, and the other
to approve of it when made; or by one act allowing the prayer
of the petitioners to become a State, and approving of their
constitution at the same time. This latter course is the one
adopted in the present case. There is nothing disrespectful
in it. Indeed, there is much to justify the Territory in its
proceeding. Year after year they petitioned for leave to form
a constitution, and it was refused, or their application was
treated with neglect. Wearied with repeated instances of this
treatment, they have formed a constitution, brought it to us,
and asked us to sanction it, and admit them into the Union.
We have the authority to do this; and if their constitution
is republican, we ought to do it. There is no weight in this
objection, and I will dismiss it without further remark.
Another objection is, that aliens have aided in making this
constitution, and are allowed the right of suffrage in all
elections by the provisions it contains. As to the first point,
it is sufficient to say that all the new States northwest of
the Ohio formed their constitutions precisely in the same way.
The ordinance of 1787 does not require sixty thousand citizens
of the United States to be resident within the limits of a new
State, in order to authorize a constitution and admission into
the Union. It requires that number of 'free inhabitants;' and
the alien who resides there, if he be a 'free inhabitant,' is
entitled to vote in the election of delegates to the convention;
and afterwards in deciding whether the people will accept the
constitution formed by their convention. Such has been the
construction and practice in all the country north of the Ohio;
and as the last census shows that there are but a few hundreds
of aliens in Michigan, it would be hard to set aside their
constitution, because some of these may have participated in its
formation. It would be unjust to do so, if we had the power; but
we have no authority to do it; for if we regard the ordinance
as of any validity, it allows all 'free inhabitants' to vote in
framing the State governments which are to be created within the
sphere of its influence. We will now turn to the remaining point
in this objection, and we shall see that it has no more force in
it than the other.
"The constitution allows all white male citizens over twenty-one
years of age, having resided six months in Michigan, to vote
at all elections; and every white male inhabitant residing in
the State at the time of signing the constitution is allowed
the same privilege. These provisions undoubtedly confer on
aliens the right of suffrage; and it is contended that they
are in violation of the constitution of the United States.
That instrument declares that 'new States may be admitted by
the Congress into this Union;' that 'the United States shall
guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of
government;' and that 'the citizens of each State shall be
entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the
several States.' The ordinance of 1787 provides that the
constitution to be formed northwest of the Ohio 'shall be
republican.'
"It is an error not very uncommon to suppose that the right
of suffrage is inseparably connected with the privilege of
citizenship. A slight investigation of the subject will prove
that this is not so. The privileges are totally distinct.
A State cannot make an American citizen who, under the
constitution of the United States shall be entitled to the
rights of citizenship throughout the Union. The power belongs
to the federal government. We pass all the naturalization laws,
by which aliens are transformed into citizens. We do so under
the constitution of the United States, conceding to us this
authority. But, on the other hand, we have no control over
the right of suffrage in the different States. That belongs
exclusively to State legislation and State authority. It varies
in almost all the States; and yet who ever supposed that
Congress could interfere to change the rules adopted by the
people in regard to it? No one, I presume. Why then attempt to
control it here? Other States have adopted the same provisions.
Look at the constitutions of Ohio and other new States, and you
will find that they require residence only, and not citizenship,
to enable a man to vote. Each State can confer this right upon
all persons within her limits. It gives them no rights beyond
the limits of the State. It cannot make them citizens, for that
would violate the naturalization laws; or, rather, it would
render them nugatory. It cannot give them a right to vote in any
other State, for that would infringe upon the authority of such
State to regulate its own affairs. It simply confers the right
of aiding in the choice of public officers whilst the alien
remains in the State; it does not make him a citizen; nor is
it of the slightest advantage to him beyond the boundaries of
Michigan."
Mr. Hamer concluded his remarks with a feeling allusion to the
distractions which had prevailed during the Missouri controversy,
a congratulation upon their disappearance under the Missouri
compromise and an earnest exhortation to harmony and the
preservation of good feeling in the speedy admission of the two
States; and said:
"We can put an end to a most distracting contest, that has
agitated our country from Maine to Georgia, and from the
Atlantic to the most remote settlement upon the frontier. There
was a time when the most painful anxiety pervaded the whole
nation; and whilst each one waited with feverish impatience for
further intelligence from the disputed territory, he trembled
lest the ensuing mail should bear the disastrous tidings of a
civil strife in which brother had fallen by the hand of brother,
and the soil of freedom had been stained by the blood of her own
sons. But the storm has passed. The usual good fortune of the
American people has prevailed. The land heaves in view, and a
haven, with its wide-spread arms, invites us to enter. After so
long an exposure to the fury of a tempest that was apparently
gathering in our political horizon, let us seize the first
opportunity to steer the ship into a safe harbor, far beyond
the reach of that elemental war that threatened her security in
the open sea. Let us pass this bill. It does justice to all. It
conciliates all. Its provisions will carry peace and harmony to
those who are now agitated by strife, and disquieted by tumults
and disorders. By this just, humane, and beneficent policy, we
shall consolidate our liberties, and make this government what
Mr. Jefferson, more than thirty years ago, declared it to be,
'the strongest government on earth; the only one where every
man, at the call of the law, will fly to the standard of the
law, and meet invasions of the public order as his own personal
concern.' With this policy on the part of the government, and
the spirit of patriotism that now animates our citizens in full
vigor, united America may bid defiance to a world in arms; and
should Providence continue to smile upon our country, we may
confidently anticipate that the freedom, the happiness, and the
prosperity, which we now enjoy, will be as perpetual as the
lofty mountains that crown our continent, or the noble rivers
that fertilize our plains."
Mr. Adams commenced a speech in Committee of the Whole, which
was finished in the House, and being prepared for publication by
himself, and therefore free from error, is here given--all the main
parts of it--to show his real position on the slavery question, so
much misunderstood at the time on account of his tenacious adherence
to the right of petition. He said:
"I cannot, consistently with my sense of my obligations as a
citizen of the United States, and bound by oath to support their
constitution, I cannot object to the admission of Arkansas
into the Union as a slave State; I cannot propose or agree to
make it a condition of her admission, that a convention of her
people shall expunge this article from her constitution. She
is entitled to admission as a slave State, as Louisiana and
Mississippi, and Alabama, and Missouri, have been admitted,
by virtue of that article in the treaty for the acquisition
of Louisiana, which secures to the inhabitants of the ceded
territories all the rights, privileges, and immunities, of the
original citizens of the United States; and stipulates for
their admission, conformably to that principle, into the Union.
Louisiana was purchased as a country wherein slavery was the
established law of the land. As Congress have not power in time
of peace to abolish slavery in the original States of the Union,
they are equally destitute of the power in those parts of the
territory ceded by France to the United States by the name of
Louisiana, where slavery existed at the time of the acquisition.
Slavery is in this Union the subject of internal legislation
in the States, and in peace is cognizable by Congress only, as
it is tacitly tolerated and protected where it exists by the
constitution of the United States, and as it mingles in their
intercourse with other nations. Arkansas, therefore, comes,
and has the right to come into the Union with her slaves and
her slave laws. It is written in the bond, and, however I may
lament that it ever was so written, I must faithfully perform
its obligations. I am content to receive her as one of the
slave-holding States of this Union; but I am unwilling that
Congress, in accepting her constitution, should even lie under
the imputation of assenting to an article in the constitution of
a State which withholds from its legislature the power of giving
freedom to the slave. Upon this topic I will not enlarge. Were I
disposed so to do, twenty hours of continuous session have too
much exhausted my own physical strength, and the faculties as
well as the indulgence of those who might incline to hear me,
for me to trespass longer upon their patience. When the bill
shall be reported to the House, I may, perhaps, again ask to be
heard, upon renewing there, as I intend, the motion for this
amendment."
After a session of twenty-five hours, including the whole night,
the committee rose and reported the two bills to the House. Of the
arduousness of this session, which began at ten in the morning of
Thursday, and was continued until eleven o'clock the next morning,
Mr. Adams, who remained at his post the whole time, gave this
account in a subsequent notice of the sitting:
"On Thursday, the 9th of June, the House went into Committee
of the Whole on the state of the Union upon two bills; one to
fix the Northern boundary of the State of Ohio, and for the
conditional admission of the State of Michigan into the Union;
and the other for the admission of the State of Arkansas into
the Union. The bill for fixing the Northern boundary of the
State of Ohio, and the conditional admission of Michigan into
the Union, was first taken up for consideration, and gave rise
to debates which continued till near one o'clock of the morning
of Friday, the 10th of June: repeated motions to adjourn had
been made and rejected. The committee had twice found itself
without a quorum, and had been thereby compelled to rise, and
report the fact to the House. In the first instance there had
been found within private calling distance a sufficient number
of members, who, though absent from their duty of attendance
upon the House, were upon the alert to appear and answer to
their names to make a quorum to vote against adjourning, and
then to retire again to their amusement or repose. Upon the
first restoration of the quorum by this operation, the delegate
from Arkansas said that if the committee would only take up
and read the bill, he would not urge any discussion upon it
then, and would consent to the committee's rising, and resuming
the subject at the next sitting of the House. The bill was
accordingly read; a motion was then made for the committee to
rise, and rejected; an amendment to the bill was moved, on
taking the question upon which there was no quorum. The usual
expedient of private call to straggling members was found
ineffectual. A call of the House was ordered, at one o'clock
in the morning. This operation to be carried through all its
stages, must necessarily consume about three hours of time,
during which the House can do no other business. Upon this call,
after the names of all the members had been twice called over,
and all the absentees for whom any valid or plausible excuse was
offered had been excused, there remained eighty-one names of
members, who, by the rules of the House, were to be taken into
custody as they should appear, or were to be sent for, and taken
into custody wherever they might be found, by special messengers
appointed for that purpose. At this hour of the night the city
of Washington was ransacked by these special messengers, and the
members of the House were summoned from their beds to be brought
in custody of these special messengers, before the House, to
answer for their absence. After hearing the excuses of two of
these members, and the acknowledged no good reason of a third,
they were all excused in a mass, without payment of fees; which
fees, to the amount of two or three hundred dollars, have of
course become a charge upon the people, and to be paid with
their money. By this operation, between four and five o'clock
of the morning, a small quorum of the House was obtained, and,
without any vote of the House, the speaker left the chair, which
was resumed by the chairman of the Committee of the Whole."
Mr. Adams resumed his seat, and Mr. Wise addressed the committee,
particularly in reply to Mr. Cushing. Confusion, noise and disorder
became great in the Hall. Several members spoke; and cries of
"order," and "question" were frequent. Personal reflections
passed, and an affair of honor followed between two Southern
members, happily adjusted without bloodshed. The chairman, Mr.
Speight, by great exertions, had procured attention to Mr. Hoar, of
Massachusetts. Afterwards Mr. Adams again addressed the committee.
Mr. Wise inquired of him whether in his own opinion, if his
amendment should be adopted, the State of Arkansas would, by this
bill, be admitted? Mr. Adams answered--"Certainly, sir. There is not
in my amendment the shadow of a restriction proposed upon the State.
It leaves the State, like all the rest, to regulate the subject of
slavery within herself by her own laws." The motion of Mr. Adams was
rejected, only thirty-two members voting for it; being not one third
of the members from the non-slaveholding States.
The vote was taken on the Michigan bill first, and was ordered to a
third reading by a vote of 153 to 45. The nays were:
"Messrs. John Quincy Adams, Heman Allen, Jeremiah Bailey, John
Bell, George N. Briggs, William B. Calhoun, George Chambers,
John Chambers, Timothy Childs, William Clark, Horace Everett,
William J. Graves, George Grennell, jr., John K. Griffin,
Hiland Hall, Gideon Hard, Benjamin Hardin, James Harper, Abner
Hazeltine, Samuel Hoar, Joseph R. Ingersoll, Daniel Jenifer,
Abbott Lawrence, Levi Lincoln, Thomas C. Love, Samson Mason,
Jonathan McCarty, Thomas M. T. McKennan, Charles F. Mercer,
John J. Milligan, Mathias Morris, James Parker, James A.
Pearce, Stephen C. Phillips, David Potts, jr., John Reed,
John Robertson, David Russell, William Slade, John N. Steele,
John Taliaferro, Joseph R. Underwood, Lewis Williams, Sherrod
Williams, Henry A. Wise."
It is remarkable that this list of nays begins with Mr. Adams, and
ends with Mr. Wise--a proof that all the negative votes, were not
given upon the same reasons.
The vote was immediately after taken on ordering to a third reading
the bill for the admission of the State of Arkansas; which was so
ordered by a vote of 143 to 50. The nays were:
"Messrs. John Quincy Adams, Heman Allen, Joseph B. Anthony,
Jeremiah Bailey, William K. Bond, Nathaniel E. Borden, George
N. Briggs, William B. Calhoun, Timothy Childs, William Clark,
Joseph H. Crane, Caleb Cushing, Edward Darlington, Harmer Denny,
George Evans, Horace Everett, Philo C. Fuller, George Grennell,
jr., Hiland Hall, Gideon Hard, James Harper, Abner Hazeltine,
Joseph Henderson, William Hiester, Samuel Hoar, William Jackson,
Henry F. Janes, Benjamin Jones, John Laporte, Abbott Lawrence,
George W. Lay, Levi Lincoln, Thomas C. Love, Samson Mason,
Jonathan McCarthy, Thomas M. T. McKennan, Mathias Morris, James
Parker, Dutee J. Pearce, Stephen C. Phillips, David Potts, jr.,
John Reed, David Russell, William N. Shinn, William Slade,
John Thomson, Joseph R. Underwood, Samuel F. Vinton, Elisha
Whittlesey, Lewis Williams."
Here again the beginning and the ending of the list of voters is
remarkable, beginning again with Mr. Adams, and terminating with
Mr. Lewis Williams, of North Carolina--two gentlemen wide apart in
their political courses, and certainly voting on this occasion on
different principles.
From the meagreness of these negative votes, it is evident that
the struggle was, not to pass the two bills, but to bring them to
a vote. This was the secret of the arduous session of twenty-five
hours in the House. Besides the public objections which clogged
their admission--boundaries in one, slavery in the other, alien
voting, and (what was deemed by some), revolutionary conduct in
both in holding conventions without authority of Congress; besides
these public reasons, there was another cause operating silently,
and which went more to the postponement than to the rejection of the
States. This cause was political and partisan, and grew out of the
impending presidential election, to be held before Congress should
meet again. Mr. Van Buren was the democratic candidate; General
William Henry Harrison was the candidate of the opposition; and
Mr. Hugh L. White, of Tennessee, was brought forward by a fraction
which divided from the democratic party. The new States, it was
known, would vote, if now admitted, for Mr. Van Buren; and this
furnished a reason to the friends of the other candidates (even
those friendly to eventual admission, and on which some of them were
believed to act), to wish to stave off the admission to the ensuing
session.--The actual negative vote to the admission of each State,
was not only small, but nearly the same in number, and mixed both
as to political parties and sectional localities; so as to exclude
the idea of any regular or considerable opposition to Arkansas as a
slave State. The vote which would come nearest to referring itself
to that cause was the one on Mr. Adams' proposed amendment to the
State constitution; and there the whole vote amounted only to 32;
and of the sentiments of the greater part of these, including Mr.
Adams himself, the speech of that gentleman must be considered
the authentic exponent; and will refer their opposition, not to
any objection to the admission of the State as slave-holding, but
to an unwillingness to appear upon the record as assenting to a
constitution which forbid emancipation, and made slavery perpetual.
The number actually voting to reject the State, and keep her out
of the Union, because she admitted slavery, must have been quite
small--not more in proportion, probably, than what it was in the
Senate.
CHAPTER CXXXIX.
ATTEMPTED INQUIRY INTO THE MILITARY ACADEMY.
This institution, soon after its organization under the act of 1812,
began to attract public attention, as an establishment unfriendly
to the rights of the people, of questionable constitutionality, as
being for the benefit of the rich and influential; and as costing
an enormous sum for each officer obtained from it for actual
service. Movements against it were soon commenced in Congress,
and for some years perseveringly continued, principally under the
lead of Mr. Newton Cannon, and Mr. John Cooke, representatives
from the State of Tennessee. Their speeches and statements made
considerable impression upon the public mind, but very little upon
Congress, where no amelioration of any kind could be obtained,
either in the organization of the institution, or in the practical
administration which had grown up under it. In the session of
1834-'35 these efforts were renewed, chiefly induced by Mr. Albert
Gallatin Hawes, representative from Kentucky, who moved for, and
attained the appointment of a committee of twenty-four, one from
each State; which made a report, for which no consideration could
be procured--not even the printing of the report. Baffled in their
attempts to get at their object in the usual forms of legislation,
the members opposed to the institution resorted to the extraordinary
mode of attacking its existence in an appropriation bill: that is to
say, resisting appropriations for its support--a mode of proceeding
entirely hopeless of success, but justifiable, as they believed,
under the circumstances; and at all events as giving them an
opportunity to get their objections before the public.
It was at the session of 1835-'36, that this form of opposition took
its most determined course; and some brief notices of what was said
then may still be of service in awakening a spirit of inquiry in
the country, and promoting investigations which have so long been
requested and denied. But it was not until after another attempt had
failed to do any thing through a committee at this session also,
that the ultimate resource of an attack upon the appropriation for
the support of the institution was resorted to. Early in the session
Mr. Hawes offered this resolution: "That a select committee of nine
be appointed to inquire into what amendments, if any, are expedient
to be made to the laws relating to the military Academy at West
Point, in the State of New-York; and also into the expediency of
modifying the organization of said institution; and also whether it
would not comport with the public interest to abolish the same: with
power in the committee to report by bill or otherwise." Mr. Hawes,
in support of his motion reminded the House of the appointment of
the committee of the last session, of its report, and his inability
to obtain action upon it, or to procure an order for its printing.
The resolution which he now submitted varied but in one particular
from that which he had offered the year before, and that was in
the reduced number of the committee asked for. Twenty-four was a
larger number than could be induced to enter into any extended or
patient investigation; and he now proposed a committee of nine
only. His resolution was only one of inquiry, to obtain a report
for the information of the people, and the action of the House--a
species of resolution usually granted as a matter of course; and
he hoped there would be no objection to his motion. Mr. Wardwell,
of New-York, objected to the appointment of a select committee,
and thought the inquiry ought to go to the standing committee on
military affairs. Mr. F. O. J. Smith, of Maine, wished to hear some
reason assigned for this motion. It seemed to him that a special
committee ought to be raised; but if the friends of the institution
were fearful of a select committee, and would assign that fear as a
motive for preferring the standing committee, he would withdraw his
objection. Mr. Briggs, of Massachusetts, believed the subject was
already referred to the military committee in the general reference
to that committee of all that related in the President's message
to this Academy; and so believing, he made it a point of order for
the Speaker to decide, whether the motion of Mr. Hawes could be
entertained. The Speaker, Mr. Polk, said that the motion was one of
inquiry; and he considered the reference of the President's message
as not applying to the case. Mr. Briggs adhered to his belief that
the subject ought to go to a standing committee. The committee had
made an elaborate report at the last session, which was now on the
files of the House; and if gentlemen wished information from it,
they could order it to be printed. Mr. John Reynolds, of Illinois,
said it was astonishing that members of this House, friends of this
institution, were so strenuous in their opposition to investigation.
If it was an institution founded on a proper basis, and conducted
on proper and republican principles, they had nothing to fear from
investigation; if otherwise the people had; and the great dread
of investigation portended something wrong. His constituents were
dissatisfied with this Academy, and expected him to represent them
fairly in doing his part to reform, or to abolish it; and he should
not disappoint them. The member from Massachusetts, Mr. Briggs, he
said, had endeavored to stifle this inquiry, by making it a point
of order to be decided by the Speaker; which augured badly for the
integrity of the institution. Failing in that attempt to stifle
inquiry, he had joined the member from New-York, Mr. Wardwell, in
the attempt to send it to a committee where no inquiry would be
made, and in violation of parliamentary practice. He, Mr. Reynolds,
had great respect for the members of the military committee; but
some of them, and perhaps all, had expressed an opinion in favor
of the institution. Neither the chairman, nor any member of the
committee had asked for this inquiry; it was the law of parliament,
and also of reason and common sense, that all inquiries should go
to committees disposed to make them; and it was without precedent
or justification, and injurious to the fair conducting of business,
to take an inquiry out of the hands of a member that moves it,
and is responsible for its adequate prosecution, and refer it
to a committee that is against it, or indifferent to it. When a
member gets up, and moves an inquiry touching any branch of the
public service, or the official conduct of any officer, he incurs a
responsibility to the moral sense of the House and of the country.
He assumes that there is something wrong--that he can find it out
if he has a chance; and he is entitled to a chance, both for his
own sake and the country; and not only to have his committee,
but to be its chairman, and to have a majority of the members
favorable to its object. If it were otherwise members would have
but poor encouragement to move inquiries for the public service.
Cut off himself from the performance of his work, an indifferent
or prejudiced committee may neglect inquiry, or pervert it into
defence; and subject the mover to the imputation of preferring
false and frivolous motions; and so discredit him, while injuring
the public, and sheltering abuse. Under a just report he believed
the Academy would wither and die. Under its present organization
it is a monopoly for the gratuitous education of the sons and
connections of the rich and influential--to be afterwards preferred
for army appointments, or even for civil appointments; and to be
always provided for as the children of the government, getting not
only gratuitous education, but a preference in appointments. A
private soldier, though a young David, slaying Goliath, could get
no appointment in our army. He must stand back for a West-Pointer,
even the most inefficient, who through favor, or driving, had gone
through his course and got his diploma. Promotion was the stimulus
and the reward to merit. We, members of Congress, rise from the
ranks of the people when we come here, and have to depend upon
merit to get here. Why not let the same rule apply in the army, and
give a chance to merit there, instead of giving all the offices
to those who may have no turn for war, who only want support, and
get it by public patronage, and favor, because they have official
friends or parents? The report made at the last session looks
bad for the Academy. Let any one read it, and he will feel that
there is something wrong. If the friends of the institution would
suffer that report to be printed, and let it go to the people, it
would be a great satisfaction. Mr. Wardwell said the last Congress
had refused to print the report; and asked why it was that these
complaints against the Academy came from the West? Was it because
the Western engineers wanted the employment on the roads and bridges
in place of the regular officers. Mr. Hannegan, of Indiana, said he
was a member of the military committee which made the report at the
last session, and which Mr. Wardwell had reminded them the House
refused to order to be printed. And why that refusal? Because the
friends of the Academy took post behind the two-thirds rule; and
the order for printing could not be obtained because two-thirds of
the House could not be got to suspend the rule, even for one hour,
and that the morning hour. The friends of the Academy rallied,
he said, to prevent the suspension of the rule, and to prevent
publicity to the report. Mr. Hamer, of Ohio, said, why oppose this
inquiry? The people desire it. A large portion of them believed
the Academy to be an aristocratical institution, which ought to be
abolished; others believe it to be republican, and that it ought to
be cherished. Then why not inquire, and find out which is right,
and legislate accordingly? Mr. Abijah Mann, of New-York, said
there was a considerable interest in the States surrounding this
institution, and he had seen a strong disposition in the members
coming from those States to defend it against all charges. He was
a member of the committee of twenty-four at the last session, and
concurred partially in the report which was made, which was, to
say the least of it, an elaborate examination of the institution
from its foundation. He knew that in doing so he had incurred some
censure from a part of his own State; but he never had flinched,
and never would flinch, from the performance of any duty here
which he felt it incumbent upon him to discharge. He had found much
to censure, and believed if the friends of the institution would
take the trouble to investigate it as the committee of twenty-four
had done, they would find more to censure in the principle of the
establishment than they were aware of. There were abuses in this
institution, developed in that report, of a character that would not
find, he presumed, a single advocate upon that floor when they came
to be published. He believed the principle of the institution was
utterly inconsistent with the principle of all other institutions;
but he was not for exterminating it. Reformation was his object.
It was the only avenue by which the people of the country could
approach the offices of the army--the only gateway by which they
could be reached. The principle was wrong, and the practice bad. We
saw individuals continually pressing the government for admission
into this institution, to be educated professedly for the military
service, but very frequently, and too generally with the secret
design in their hearts to devote themselves to the civil pursuits
of society; and this was a fraud upon the government, and a poor
way for the future officer to begin his educational life. When
the report of the twenty-four came to be printed, as he hoped it
would, it would be seen that this institution cost the government
by far too much for the education of these young men. Whether it
sprung from abuse or not, such was the fact when they looked at
utility connected with the expenditure. If he recollected the report
aright it proved that not more than two out of five who entered
the institution remained there long enough to graduate; and not
two more out of five graduates who entered the army. If his memory
served him right the report would show that every graduate coming
from that institution in the last ten years, had cost the United
States more than five thousand dollars; and previously a much
larger sum; and he believed within one year the graduates had cost
upwards of thirty thousand dollars. If there be any truth in these
statements the institution must be mismanaged, or misconducted, and
ought to be thoroughly investigated and reformed. And he appealed
to the friends of the Academy to withdraw their opposition, and
suffer the report to be printed, and the select committee to be
raised; but he appealed in vain. The opposition was kept up, and
the two-thirds rule again resorted to, and effectually used to balk
the friends of inquiry. It was after this second failure to get at
the subject regularly through a committee, and a published report,
that the friends of inquiry resorted to the last alternative--that
of an attack upon the appropriation. The opportunity for this
was not presented until near the end of the session, when Mr.
Franklin Pierce, of New Hampshire, delivered a well-considered and
well-reasoned speech against the institution, bottomed on facts, and
sustained by conclusions, in the highest degree condemnatory of the
Academy; and which will be given in the next chapter.
CHAPTER CXL.
MILITARY ACADEMY--SPEECH OF MR. PIERCE.
"MR. CHAIRMAN:--An attempt was made during the last Congress
to bring the subject of the reorganization of the Military
Academy before the country, through a report of a committee.
The same thing has been done during the present session, again
and again, but all efforts have proved alike unsuccessful!
Still, you do not cease to call for appropriations; you require
the people's money for the support of the institution, while
you refuse them the light necessary to enable them to judge of
the propriety of your annual requisitions. Whether the amount
proposed to be appropriated, by the bill upon your table, is
too great or too small, or precisely sufficient to cover the
current expenses of the institution, is a matter into which I
will not at present inquire; but I shall feel bound to oppose
the bill in every stage of its progress. I cannot vote a single
dollar until the resolution of inquiry, presented by my friend
from Kentucky (Mr. Hawes), at an early day in the session, shall
be first taken up and disposed of. I am aware, sir, that it
will be said, because I have heard the same declaration on a
former occasion, that this is not the proper time to discuss the
merits of the institution; that the bill is to make provision
for expenses already incurred in part; and whatever opinions
may be entertained upon the necessity of a reorganization, the
appropriation must be made. I say to gentlemen who are opposed
to the principles of the institution, and to those who believe
that abuses exist, which ought to be exposed and corrected, that
now is their only time, and this the only opportunity, during
the present session, to attain their object, and I trust they
will steadily resist the bill until its friends shall find it
necessary to take up the resolution of inquiry, and give it its
proper reference.
"Sir, why has this investigation been resisted? Is it not an
institution which has already cost this country more than three
millions of dollars, for which you propose, in this very bill,
an appropriation of more than one hundred and thirty thousand
dollars, and which, at the same time, in the estimation of
a large portion of the citizens of this Union, has failed,
eminently failed, to fulfil the objects for which it was
established, of sufficient interest and importance to claim the
consideration of a committee of this House, and of the House
itself? I should have expected the resolution of the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Hawes), merely proposing an inquiry, to pass
without opposition, had I not witnessed the strong sensation,
nay, excitement, that was produced here, at the last session,
by the presentation of his yet unpublished report. Sir, if you
would have an exhibition of highly excited feeling, it requires
little observation to learn that you may produce it at any
moment by attacking such laws as confer exclusive and gratuitous
privileges. The adoption of the resolution of inquiry, at the
last session of Congress, and the appointment of a select
committee under it, were made occasion of newspaper paragraphs,
which, in tone of lamentation and direful prediction, rivalled
the most highly wrought specimens of the panic era. One of
those articles I have preserved, and have before me. It
commences thus: '_The architects of ruin._--This name has been
appropriately given to those who are leading on the base, the
ignorant, and the unprincipled, in a remorseless war upon all
the guards and defences of society.'
"I introduce it here merely to show what are, in certain
quarters, considered the guards and defences of society. After
various compliments, similar to that just cited, the article
proceeds: 'All this is dangerous as novel, and the ultimate
results cannot be contemplated without anxiety. If this spirit
extends, who can check it? "Down with the Bank;" "down with the
Military Academy;" "down with the Judiciary;" "down with the
Senate;" will be followed by watchwords of a worse character.'
Here, Mr. Chairman, you have the United States Bank first, and
then the Military Academy, as the guards and defences of your
country. If it be so, you are, indeed, feebly protected. One
of these guards and defences is already tottering. And who are
the 'architects of ruin' that have resolved its downfall? Are
they the base, the ignorant, and the unprincipled? No, sir. The
most pure and patriotic portion of your community: the staid,
industrious, intelligent farmers and mechanics, through a
public servant, who has met responsibilities and seconded their
wishes, with equal intrepidity and success, in the camp and in
the cabinet, have accomplished this great work. Mr. Chairman,
there is no real danger to be apprehended from this much-dreaded
levelling principle.
"From the middling interest you have derived your most able
and efficient support in the most gloomy and trying periods
of your history. And what have they asked in return? Nothing
but the common advantages and blessings of a free government,
administered under equal and impartial laws. They are
responsible for no portion of your legislation, which, through
its partial and unjust operation, has shaken this Union to
its centre. That has had its origin in a different quarter,
sustained by wealth, the wealth of monopolies, and the power
and influence which wealth, thus accumulated and disposed,
never fails to control. Indeed, sir, while far from demanding
at your hands special favors for themselves, they have not,
in my judgment, been sufficiently jealous of all legislation
conferring exclusive and gratuitous privileges.
"That the law creating the institution, of which I am now
speaking, and the practice under it, is strongly marked by both
these characteristics, is apparent at a single glance. It is
gratuitous, because those who are so fortunate as to obtain
admission there, receive their education without any obligation,
except such as a sense of honor may impose, to return, either by
service or otherwise, the slightest equivalent. It is exclusive,
inasmuch as only one youth, out of a population of more than
47,000, can participate in its advantages at the same time; and
those who are successful are admitted at an age, when their
characters cannot have become developed, and with very little
knowledge of their adaptation, mental or physical, for military
life. The system disregards one of those great principles which,
carried into practice, contributed, perhaps, more than any other
to render the arms of Napoleon invincible for so many years.
Who does not perceive that it destroys the very life and spring
of military ardor and enthusiasm, by utterly foreclosing all
hope of promotion to the soldier and non-commissioned officer?
However meritorious may be his services, however pre-eminent may
become his qualifications for command, all is unavailing. The
portcullis is dropped between him and preferment; the wisdom
of your laws having provided another criterion than that of
admitted courage and conduct, by which to determine who are
worthy of command. They have made an Academy, where a certain
number of young gentlemen are educated annually at the public
expense, and to which there is, of consequence, a general rush,
not so much from sentiments of patriotism and a taste for
military life, as from motives less worthy--the avenue, and
the only avenue, to rank in your army. These are truths. Mr.
Chairman, which no man will pretend to deny; and I leave it
for this House and the nation to determine whether they do not
exhibit a spirit of exclusiveness, alike at variance with the
genius of your government, and the efficiency and chivalrous
character of your military force.
"Sir, no man can feel more deeply interested in the army, or
entertain a higher regard for it, than myself. My earliest
recollections connect themselves fondly and gratefully with the
names of the brave men who, relinquishing the quiet and security
of civil life, were staking their all upon the defence of their
country's rights and honor. One of the most distinguished among
that noble band now occupies and honors a seat upon this floor.
It is not fit that I should indulge in expressions of personal
respect and admiration, which I am sure would find a hearty
response in the bosom of every member of this committee. I
allude to him merely to express the hope that, on some occasion,
we may have, upon this subject, the benefit of his experience
and observation. And if his opinions shall differ from my own, I
promise carefully to review every step by which I have been led
to my present conclusions. You cannot mistake me, sir; I refer
to the hero of Erie. I have declared myself the friend of the
army. Satisfy me, then, what measures are best calculated to
render it effective and what all desire it to be, and I go for
the proposition with my whole heart.
"But I cannot believe that the Military Academy, as at present
organized, is calculated to accomplish this desirable end. It
may, and undoubtedly does, send forth into the country much
military knowledge; but the advantage which your army, or that
which will constitute your army in time of need, derives from
it, is by no means commensurate with the expense you incur.
Here, Mr. Chairman, permit me to say that I deny, utterly, the
expediency, and the right to educate, at the public expense, any
number of young men who, on the completion of their education,
are not to form a portion of your military force, but to return
to the walks of private life. Such was never the operation of
the Military Academy, until after the law of 1812; and the
doctrine, so far as I have been able to ascertain, was first
formally announced by a distinguished individual, at this time
sufficiently jealous of the exercise of executive patronage, and
greatly alarmed by what he conceives to be the tendencies of
this government to centralism and consolidation. It may be found
in the report of the Secretary of War, communicated to Congress
in 1819.
"If it shall, upon due consideration, receive the sanction of
Congress and the country, I can see no limit to the exercise of
power and government patronage. Follow out the principle, and
where will it lead you? You confer upon the national government
the absolute guardianship of literature and science, military
and civil; you need not stop at military science; any one, in
the wide range of sciences, becomes at once a legitimate and
constitutional object of your patronage; you are confined by no
limit but your discretion; you have no check but your own good
pleasure. If you may afford instruction, at the public expense,
in the languages, in philosophy, in chemistry, and in the exact
sciences, to young gentlemen who are under no obligation to
enter the service of their country, but are, in fact, destined
for civil life, why may you not, by parity of reasoning, provide
the means of a legal, or theological, or medical education, on
the ground that the recipients of your bounty will carry forth
a fund of useful knowledge, that may, at some time, under some
circumstances, produce a beneficial influence, and promote 'the
general welfare?' Sir, I fear that even some of us may live to
see the day when this 'general welfare' of your constitution
will leave us little ground to boast of a government of limited
powers. But I did not propose at this time to discuss the
abstract question of constitutional right. I will regard the
expediency alone; and, whether the power exist or not, its
exercise, in an institution like this, is subversive of the
only principle upon which a school, conducted at the public
expense, can be made profitable to the public service--that of
making an admission into your school, and an education there,
secondary to an appointment in the army. Sir, this distinctive
feature characterized all your legislation, and all executive
recommendations, down to 1810.
"I may as well notice here, as at any time, an answer which
has always been ready when objections have been raised to
this institution--an answer which, if it has not proved quite
satisfactory to minds that yield their assent more readily
to strong reasons than to the authority of great names, has
yet, unquestionably, exercised a powerful influence upon the
public mind. It has not gone forth upon the authority of an
individual merely, but has been published to the world with the
approbation of a committee of a former Congress. It is this:
that the institution has received, at different times, the
sanction of such names as Washington, Adams, and Jefferson;
and this has been claimed with such boldness, and in a form so
imposing, as almost to forbid any question of its accuracy.
If this were correct, in point of fact, it would be entitled
to the most profound respect and consideration, and no change
should be urged against the weight of such authority, without
mature deliberation, and thorough conviction of, expediency.
Unfortunately for the advocates of the institution, and
fortunately for the interests of the country, this claim cannot
be sustained by reference to executive documents, from the first
report of General Knox, in 1790, to the close of Mr. Jefferson's
administration.
"The error has undoubtedly innocently occurred, by confounding
the Military Academy at West Point as it was, with the Military
Academy at West Point as it is. The report of Secretary
Knox, just referred to, is characterized by this distinctive
feature--that the corps proposed to be organized were 'to serve
as an actual defence to the community,' and to constitute a
part of the active military force of the country, 'to serve in
the field, or on the frontier, or in the fortifications of the
sea-coast, as the commander-in-chief may direct.' At a later
period, the report of the Secretary of War (Mr. McHenry),
communicated to Congress in 1800 although it proposed a plan
for military schools, differing in many essential particulars
from those which had preceded it, still retained the distinctive
feature just named as characterizing the report of General Knox.
"With regard to educating young men gratuitously, which,
whatever may have been the design, I am prepared to show is the
practical operation of the Academy, as at present organized,
I cannot, perhaps, exhibit more clearly the sentiments of the
Executive at that early day, urgent as was the occasion, and
strong as must have been the desire, to give strength and
efficiency to the military force, than by reading one or two
paragraphs from a supplementary report of Secretary McHenry,
addressed to the chairman of the Committee of Defence, on the
31st January, 1800.
"The Secretary says: 'Agreeably to the plan of the Military
Academy, the directors thereof are to be officers taken from
the army; consequently, no expense will be incurred by such
appointments. The plan also contemplates that officers of the
army, cadets, and non-commissioned officers, shall receive
instruction in the Academy. As the rations and fuel which
they are entitled to in the army will suffice for them in the
Academy, no additional expense will be required for objects of
maintenance while there. The expenses of servants and certain
incidental expenses relative to the police and administration,
may be defrayed by those who shall be admitted, out of their pay
and emoluments.'
"You will observe, Mr. Chairman, from the phraseology of the
report, that all were to constitute a part of your actual
military force; and that whatever additional charges should
be incurred, were to be defrayed by those who might receive
the advantages of instruction. These were provisions, just, as
they are important. Let me call your attention for a moment
to a report of Col. Williams, which was made the subject of a
special message, communicated to Congress by Mr. Jefferson,
on the 18th of March, 1808. The extract I propose to read, as
sustaining fully the views of Mr. McHenry upon this point, is
in the following words: 'It might be well to make the plan upon
such a scale as not only to take in the minor officers of the
navy, but also any youths from any of the States who might wish
for such an education, whether designed for the army or navy,
or neither, and let them be assessed to the value of their
education, which might form a fund for extra or contingent
expenses.' Sir, these are the true doctrines upon this subject;
doctrines worthy of the administration under which they were
promulgated, and in accordance with the views of statesmen in
the earlier and purer days of the Republic. Give to the officers
of your army the highest advantages for perfection in all the
branches of military science, and let those advantages be open
to all, in rotation, and under such terms and regulations as
shall be at once impartial toward the officers and advantageous
to the service; but let all young gentlemen who have a taste
for military life, and desire to adopt arms as a profession,
prepare themselves for subordinate situations at their own
expense, or at the expense of their parents or guardians, in
the same manner that the youth of the country are qualified for
the professions of civil life. Sir, while upon this subject
of gratuitous education, I will read an extract from 'Dupin's
Military Force of Great Britain,' to show what favor it finds in
another country, from the practice and experience of which we
may derive some advantages, however far from approving of its
institutions generally. The extract is from the 2d vol. 71st
page, and relates to the terms on which young gentlemen are
admitted to the junior departments of the Royal Military College
at Sandhurst.
"_First_: The sons of officers of all ranks, whether of the
land or sea forces, who have died in the service, leaving their
families in pecuniary distress; this class are instructed,
boarded, and habited gratuitously by the State; being required
only to provide their equipments on admission, and to maintain
themselves in linen. _Secondly_: The sons of all officers of
the army above the rank of subalterns actually in the service,
and who pay a sum proportioned to their ranks, according to a
scale per annum regulated by the supreme board. The sons of
living naval officers of rank not below that of master and
commander, are also admitted on payment of annual stipends,
similar to those of corresponding ranks in the army. The orphan
sons of officers, who have not left their families in pecuniary
difficulties, are admitted into this class on paying the
stipends required of officers of the rank held by their parents
at the time of their decease. _Thirdly_: The sons of noblemen
and private gentlemen who pay a yearly sum equivalent to the
expenses of their education, board, and clothing, according to a
rate regulated from time to time by the commissioners.' Sir, let
it be remembered that these are the regulations of a government
which, with all its wealth and power, is, from its structure and
practice, groaning under the accumulated weight of pensions,
sinecures, and gratuities, and yet you observe, that only one
class, 'the sons of officers of all ranks, whether of the land
or sea forces, who have died in the service, leaving their
families in pecuniary distress,' are educated gratuitously.
"I do not approve even of this, but I hold it up in contrast
with your own principles and practice. If the patience of
the committee would warrant me, Mr. Chairman, I could show,
by reference to Executive communications, and the concurrent
legislation of Congress in 1794, 1796, 1802, and 1808, that
prior to the last mentioned date, such an institution as we now
have was neither recommended nor contemplated. Upon this point
I will not detain you longer; but when hereafter confronted by
the authority of great names, I trust we shall be told where the
expressions of approbation are to be found. We may then judge
of their applicability to the Military Academy as at present
organized. I am far from desiring to see this country destitute
of a Military Academy; but I would have it a school of practice,
and instruction, for officers actually in the service of the
United States: not an institution for educating gratuitously,
young gentlemen, who, on the completion of their term, or after
a few months' leave of absence, resign their commissions and
return to the pursuits of civil life. If any one doubts that
this is the practical operation of your present system, I refer
him to the annual list of resignations, to be found in the
Adjutant General's office.
"Firmly as I am convinced of the necessity of a reorganization,
I would take no step to create an unjust prejudice against the
institution. All that I ask, and, so far as I know, all that
any of the opponents of the institution ask, is, that after a
full and impartial investigation, it shall stand or fall upon
its merits. I know there are graduates of the institution who
are ornaments to the army, and an honor to their country; but
they, and not the seminary, are entitled to the credit. Here
I would remark, once for all, that I do not reflect upon the
officers or pupils of the Academy; it is to the principles of
the institution itself, as at present organized, that I object.
It is often said that the graduates leave the institution with
sentiments that but ill accord with the feelings and opinions
of the great mass of the people of that government from which
they derive the means of education, and that many who take
commissions possess few qualifications for the command of men,
either in war or in peace. Most of the members of this House
have had more or less intercourse with these young gentlemen,
and I leave it for each individual to form his own opinion
of the correctness of the charges. Thus much I will say for
myself, that I believe that these, and greater evils, are the
natural, if not the inevitable, result of the principles in
which this institution is founded; and any system of education,
established upon similar principles, on government patronage
alone, will produce like results, now and for ever. Sir, what
are some of these results? By the report of the Secretary of
War, dated January, 1831, we are informed that, "by an estimate
of the last five years (preceding that date), it appears that
the supply of the army from the corps of graduated cadets, has
averaged about twenty-two annually, while those who graduated
are about forty, making in each year an excess of eighteen.
The number received annually into the Academy averages one
hundred, of which only the number stated, to wit, forty, pass
through the prescribed course of education at schools, and
become supernumerary lieutenants in the army." By the report
of the Secretary of War, December, 1830, we are informed, that
"the number of promotions to the army from this corps, for the
last five years, has averaged about twenty-two annually while
the number of graduates has been at an average of forty. This
excess, which is annually increasing, has placed eighty-seven
in waiting until vacancies shall take place, and show that in
the next year, probably, and in the succeeding one, certainly,
there will be an excess beyond what the existing law authorizes
to be commissioned. There will then be 106 supernumerary brevet
second lieutenants appurtenant to the army, at an average annual
expense of $80,000. Sir, that results here disclosed were not
anticipated by Mr. Madison, is apparent from a recurrence to his
messages of 1810 and 1811.
"In passing the law of 1812, both Congress and the President
acted for the occasion, and they expected those who should
succeed them to act in a similar manner. Their feelings of
patriotism and resentment were aroused, by beholding the
privileges of freemen wantonly invaded, our glorious stars
and stripes disregarded, and national and individual rights
trampled in the dust. The war was pending. The necessity for
increasing the military force of the country was obvious and
pressing, and the urgent occasion for increased facilities
for military instruction, equally apparent. Sir, it was under
circumstances like these, when we had not only enemies abroad,
but, I blush to say, enemies at home, that the institution,
as at present organized, had its origin. It will hardly be
pretended that it was the original design of the law to
augment the number of persons instructed, beyond the wants of
the public service. Well, the report of the Secretary shows,
that for five years prior to 1831, the Academy had furnished
eighteen supernumeraries annually. A practical operation of
this character has no sanction in the recommendation of Mr.
Madison. The report demonstrates, further, the _fruitfulness_
and _utility_ of this institution, by showing the fact, that but
two-fifths of those who enter the Academy graduate, and that but
a fraction more than one-fifth enter the public service. This is
not the fault of the administration of the Academy; it is not
the fault of the young gentlemen who are _sent_ there; on your
present peace establishment there can be but little to stimulate
them, particularly in the acquisition of military science. There
can hardly be but one object in the mind of the student, and
that would be to obtain an education for the purposes of civil
life. The difficulty is, that the institution has outlived both
the occasion that called it into existence, and its original
design. I have before remarked, that the Academy was manifestly
enlarged to correspond with the army and militia actually to
be called into service. Look then for a moment at facts, and
observe with how much wisdom, justice, and sound policy, you
retain the provisions of the law of 1812. The total authorized
force of 1813, after the declaration of war, was 58,254; and in
October, 1814, the military establishment amounted to 62,428.
By the act of March, 1815, the peace establishment was limited
to 10,000, and now hardly exceeds that number. Thus you make
a reduction of more than 50,000 in your actual military force,
to accommodate the expenses of the government to its wants.
And why do you refuse to do the same with your grand system
of public education? Why does that remain unchanged? Why not
reduce it at once, at least to the actual wants of the service,
and dispense with your corps of supernumerary lieutenants? Sir,
there is, there can be but one answer to the question, and that
may be found in the war report of 1819, to which I have before
had occasion to allude. The Secretary says, 'the cadets who
cannot be provided for in the army will return to private life,
but in the event of a war their knowledge will not be lost to
the country.' Indeed, sir, these young gentlemen, if they could
be _induced_ to take the field, would, after a lapse of ten or
fifteen years, come up from the bar, or it may be the pulpit,
fresh in military science, and admirably qualified for command
in the face of an enemy. The magazine of facts, to prove at
the same glance the extravagance and unfruitfulness of this
institution, is not easily exhausted: but I am admonished by
the lateness of the hour to omit many considerations which I
regard as both interesting and important. I will only detain
the committee to make a single statement, placing side by side
some aggregate results. There has already been expended upon
the institution more than three millions three hundred thousand
dollars. Between 1815, and 1821, thirteen hundred and eighteen
students were admitted into the Academy; and of all the cadets
who were ever there, only two hundred and sixty-five remained in
the service at the end of 1830. Here are the expenses you have
incurred, and the products you have realized.
"I leave them to be balanced by the people. But for myself,
believing as I do, that the Academy stands forth as an anomaly
among the institutions of this country; that it is at variance
with the spirit, if not the letter of the constitution under
which we live; so long as this House shall deny investigation
into its principles and practical operation, I, as an individual
member, will refuse to appropriate the first dollar for its
support."
CHAPTER CXLI.
EXPUNGING RESOLUTION--PERORATION OF SENATOR BENTON'S SECOND SPEECH.
"The condemnation of the President, combining as it did all that
illegality and injustice could inflict, had the further misfortune
to be co-operative in its effect with the conspiracy of the Bank of
the United States to effect the most wicked and universal scheme
of mischief which the annals of modern times exhibit. It was a plot
against the government, and against the property of the country. The
government was to be upset, and property revolutionized. Six hundred
banks were to be broken--the general currency ruined--myriads
bankrupted--all business stopped--all property sunk in value--all
confidence destroyed! that out of this wide spread ruin and
pervading distress, the vengeful institution might glut its avarice
and ambition, trample upon the President, take possession of the
government, reclaim its lost deposits, and perpetuate its charter.
These crimes, revolting and frightful in themselves, were to be
accomplished by the perpetration of a whole system of subordinate
and subsidiary crime! the people to be deceived and excited; the
President to be calumniated; the effects of the bank's own conduct
to be charged upon him; meetings got up; business suspended;
distress deputations organized; and the Senate chamber converted
into a theatre for the dramatic exhibition of all this fictitious
woe. That it was the deep and sad misfortune of the Senate so to
act, as to be co-operative in all this scene of mischief, is too
fully proved by the facts known, to admit of denial. I speak of
acts, not of motives. The effect of the Senate's conduct in trying
the President and uttering alarm speeches; was to co-operate with
the bank, and that secondarily, and as a subordinate performer;
for it is incontestable that the bank began the whole affair; the
little book of fifty pages proves that. The bank began it; the
bank followed it up; the bank attends to it now. It is a case
which might well be entered on our journal as a State is entered
against a criminal in the docket of a court: the Bank of the United
States _versus_ President Jackson: on impeachment for removing the
deposits. The entry would be justified by the facts, for these are
the indubitable facts. The bank started the accusation; the Senate
took it up. The bank furnished arguments; the Senate used them.
The bank excited meetings; the Senate extolled them. The bank sent
deputations; the senators received them with honor. The deputations
reported answers for the President which he never gave; the Senate
repeated and enforced these answers. Hand in hand throughout the
whole process, the bank and the Senate acted together, and succeeded
in getting up the most serious and afflicting panic ever known
in this country. The whole country was agitated. Cities, towns,
and villages, the entire country and the whole earth seemed to be
in commotion against one man. A revolution was proclaimed! the
overthrow of all law was announced! the substitution of one man's
will for the voice of the whole government, was daily asserted! the
public sense was astounded and bewildered with dire and portentous
annunciations! In the midst of all this machinery of alarm and
distress, many good citizens lost their reckoning; sensible heads
went wrong; stout hearts quailed; old friends gave way; temporizing
counsels came in; and the solitary defender of his country was urged
to yield! Oh, how much depended upon that one man at that dread
and awful point of time! If he had given way, then all was gone!
An insolent, rapacious, and revengeful institution would have been
installed in sovereign power. The federal and State governments,
the Congress, the Presidency, the State legislatures, all would
have fallen under the dominion of the bank; and all departments
of the government would have been filled and administered by the
debtors, pensioners, and attorneys of that institution. He did not
yield, and the country was saved. The heroic patriotism of one man
prevented all this calamity, and saved the Republic from becoming
the appendage and fief of a moneyed corporation. And what has been
his reward? So far as the people are concerned, honor, gratitude,
blessings, everlasting benedictions; so far as the Senate is
concerned, dishonor, denunciation, stigma, infamy. And shall these
two verdicts stand? Shall our journal bear the verdict of infamy,
while the hearts of the people glow and palpitate with the verdict
of honor?
"President Jackson has done more for the human race than the whole
tribe of politicians put together; and shall he remain stigmatized
and condemned for the most glorious action of his life? The bare
attempt to stigmatize Mr. Jefferson was not merely expunged, but
cut out from the journal; so that no trace of it remains upon the
Senate records. The designs are the same in both cases; but the
aggravations are inexpressibly greater in the case of President
Jackson. Referring to the journals of the House of Representatives
for the character of the attempt against President Jefferson, and
the reasons for repulsing it, and it is seen that the attempt
was made to criminate Mr. Jefferson, and to charge him upon the
journals with a violation of the laws; and that this attempt was
made at a time, and under circumstances insidiously calculated to
excite unjust suspicion in the minds of the people against the Chief
Magistrate. Such was precisely the character of the charge; and the
effect of the charge against President Jackson, with the difference
only that the proceeding against President Jackson, was many ten
thousand times more revolting and aggravated; commencing as it did
in the Bank, carried on by a violent political party, prosecuted
to sentence and condemnation; and calculated, if believed, to
destroy the President, to change the administration, and to put an
end to popular representative government. Yes, sir, to put an end
to elective and representative government! For what are all the
attacks upon President Jackson's administration but attacks upon the
people who elect and re-elect him, who approve his administration,
and by approving, make it their own? To condemn such a President,
thus supported, is to condemn the people, to condemn the elective
principle, to condemn the fundamental principle of our government;
and to establish the favorite dogma of the monarchists, that
the people are incapable of self-government, and will surrender
themselves as collared slaves into the hands of military chieftains.
"Great are the services which President Jackson has rendered his
country. As a General he has extended her frontiers, saved a city,
and carried her renown to the highest pitch of glory. His civil
administration has rivalled and transcended his warlike exploits.
Indemnities procured from the great powers of Europe for spoliations
committed on our citizens under former administrations, and which,
by former administrations were reclaimed in vain; peace and
friendship with the whole world, and, what is more, the respect of
the whole world; the character of our America exalted in Europe;
so exalted that the American citizen, treading the continent of
Europe, and contemplating the sudden and great elevation of the
national character, might feel as if he himself was an hundred feet
high. Such is the picture abroad! At home we behold a brilliant and
grateful scene; the public debt paid,--taxes reduced,--the gold
currency restored,--the Southern States released from a useless
and dangerous population,--all disturbing questions settled,--a
gigantic moneyed institution repulsed in its march to the conquest
of the government,--the highest prosperity attained,--and the Hero
Patriot now crowning the list of his glorious services by covering
his country with the panoply of defence, and consummating his
measures for the restoration and preservation of the currency of the
constitution. We have had brilliant and prosperous administrations;
but that of President Jackson eclipses, surpasses, and casts into
the shade, all that have preceded it. And is he to be branded,
stigmatized, condemned, unjustly and untruly condemned; and the
records of the Senate to bear the evidence of this outrage to the
latest posterity? Shall this President, so glorious in peace and
in war, so successful at home and abroad, whose administration,
now, hailed with applause and gratitude by the people, and destined
to shine for unnumbered ages in the political firmament of our
history: shall this President, whose name is to live for ever,
whose retirement from life and services will be through the gate
that leads to the temple of everlasting fame; shall _he_ go down to
posterity with this condemnation upon him; and that for the most
glorious action of his life?
"Mr. President, I have some knowledge of history, and some
acquaintance with the dangers which nations have encountered, and
from which heroes and statesmen have saved them. I have read much
of ancient and modern history, and nowhere have I found a parallel
to the services rendered by President Jackson in crushing the
conspiracy of the Bank, but in the labors of the Roman Consul in
crushing the conspiracy of Catiline. The two conspiracies were
identical in their objects; both directed against the government,
and the property of the country. Cicero extinguished the
Catilinarean conspiracy, and saved Rome; President Jackson defeated
the conspiracy of the Bank, and saved our America. Their heroic
service was the same, and their fates have been strangely alike.
Cicero was condemned for violating the laws and the constitution; so
has been President Jackson. The consul was refused a hearing in his
own defence: so has been President Jackson. The life of Cicero was
attempted by two assassins; twice was the murderous pistol levelled
at our President. All Italy, the whole Roman world, bore Cicero
to the Capitol, and tore the sentence of the consul's condemnation
from the _fasti_ of the republic: a million of Americans, fathers
and heads of families, now demand the expurgation of the sentence
against the President. Cicero, followed by all that was virtuous in
Rome, repaired to the temple of the tutelary gods, and swore upon
the altar that he had saved his country: President Jackson, in the
temple of the living God, might take the same oath, and find its
response in the hearts of millions. Nor shall the parallel stop
here; but after times, and remote posterities shall render the
same honors to each. Two thousand years have passed, and the great
actions of the consul are fresh and green in history. The school-boy
learns them; the patriot studies them; the statesman applies them:
so shall it be with our patriot President. Two thousand years
hence,--ten thousand,--nay, while time itself shall last, for who
can contemplate the time when the memory of this republic shall be
lost? while time itself shall last, the name and fame of Jackson
shall remain and flourish; and this last great act by which he saved
the government from subversion, and property from revolution, shall
stand forth as the seal and crown of his heroic services. And if
any thing that I myself may do or say, shall survive the brief hour
in which I live, it will be the part which I have taken, and the
efforts which I have made, to sustain and defend the great defender
of his country.
"Mr. President, I have now finished the view which an imperious
sense of duty has required me to take of this subject. I trust
that I have proceeded upon proofs and facts, and have left nothing
unsustained which I feel it to be my duty to advance. It is not my
design to repeat, or to recapitulate; but there is one further and
vital consideration which demands the notice of a remark, and which
I should be faithless to the genius of our government, if I should
pretermit. It is known, sir, that ambition for office is the bane
of free States, and the contentions of rivals the destruction of
their country. These contentions lead to every species of injustice,
and to every variety of violence, and all cloaked with the pretext
of the public good. Civil wars and banishment at Rome; civil wars,
and the ostracism at Athens; bills of attainder, star-chamber
prosecutions, and impeachments In England; all to get rid of some
envied, or hated rival, and all pretexted with the public good:
such has been the history of free States for two thousand years.
The wise men who framed our constitution were well aware of all
this danger and all this mischief, and took effectual care, as
they thought, to guard against it. Banishment, the ostracism, the
star-chamber prosecutions, bills of attainder, all those summary
and violent modes of hunting down a rival, which deprive the victim
of defence by depriving him of the intervention of an accusing body
to stand between the accuser and the trying body; all these are
proscribed by the genius of our constitution. Impeachments alone
are permitted; and these would most usually occur for political
offences, and be of a character to enlist the passions of many,
and to agitate the country. An effectual guard, it was supposed,
was provided against the abuse of the impeachment power, first, by
requiring a charge to be preferred by the House of Representatives,
as the grand Inquest of the nation; and _next_, in confining the
trial to the Senate, and requiring a majority of two-thirds to
convict. The gravity, the dignity, the age of the senators, and the
great and various powers with which they were invested--greater and
more various than are united in the same persons under any other
constitutional government upon earth--these were supposed to make
the Senate a safe depository for the impeachment power; and if the
plan of the constitution is followed out it must be admitted to be
so. But if a public officer can be arraigned by his rivals before
the Senate for impeachable offences without the intervention of the
House of Representatives, and if he can be pronounced guilty by a
simple majority, instead of a majority of two-thirds, then has the
whole frame of our government miscarried, and the door left wide
open to the greatest mischief which has ever afflicted the people of
free States. Then can rivals and competitors go on to do what it was
intended they should never do; accuse, denounce, condemn, and hunt
down each other! Great has been the weight of the American Senate.
Time was when its rejections for office were fatal to character;
time is when its rejections are rather passports to public favor.
Why this sad and ominous decline? Let no one deceive himself.
Public opinion is the arbiter of character in our enlightened day;
it is the Areopagus from which there is no appeal! That arbiter
has pronounced against the Senate. It has sustained the President,
and condemned the Senate. If it had sustained the Senate, the
President must have been ruined! as it has not, the Senate must be
ruined, if it perseveres in its course, and goes on to brave public
opinion!--as an institution, it must be ruined!"
CHAPTER CXLII.
DISTRIBUTION OF THE LAND REVENUE.
"The great loss of the bank has been in the depreciation of the
securities; and the only way to regain a capital is to restore their
value. A large portion of them consists of State stocks, which are
so far below their intrinsic worth that the present prices could
not have been anticipated by any reasonable man. No doubt can be
entertained of their ultimate payment. The States themselves,
unaided, can satisfy every claim against them; they will do it
speedily, if Congress adopt the measures contemplated for their
relief. A division of the public lands among the States, which would
enable them all to pay their debts--or a pledge of the proceeds
of sales for that purpose--would be abundant security. Either of
these acts would inspire confidence, and enhance the value of all
kinds of property." This paragraph appeared in the Philadelphia
National Gazette, was attributed to Mr. Biddle, President of the
Bank of the United States; and connects that institution with all
the plans for distributing the public land money among the States,
either in the shape of a direct distribution, or in the disguise
of a deposit of the surplus revenue; and this for the purpose of
enhancing the value of the State stocks held by it. That institution
was known to have interfered in the federal legislation, to promote
or to baffle the passage of laws, as deemed to be favorable or
otherwise to her interests; and this resort to the land revenue
through an act of Congress was an eminent instance of the spirit of
interference. This distribution had become, very nearly, a party
measure; and of the party of which the bank was a member, and Mr.
Clay the chief. He was the author of the scheme--had introduced it
at several sessions--and now renewed it. Mr. Webster also made a
proposition to the same effect at this session. It was the summer
of the presidential election; and great calculations were made by
the party which favored the distribution upon its effect in adding
to their popularity. Mr. Clay limited his plan of distribution to
five years; but the limitation was justly considered as nothing--as
a mere means of beginning the system of these distributions--which
once began, would go on of themselves, while our presidential
elections continued, and any thing to divide could be found in the
treasury. Mr. Benton opposed the whole scheme, and confronted it
with a proposition to devote the surplus revenue to the purposes
of national defence; thereby making an issue, as he declared,
between the plunder of the country and the defence of the country.
He introduced an antagonistic bill, as he termed it, devoting the
surplus moneys to the public defences; and showing by reports from
the war and navy departments that seven millions a year for fifteen
years would be required for the completion of the naval defences,
and thirty millions to complete the military defences; of which nine
millions per annum could be beneficially expended; and then went on
to say:
"That the reports from which he had read, taken together,
presented a complete system of preparation for the national
defence; every arm and branch of defence was to be provided
for; an increase of the navy, including steamships; appropriate
fortifications, including steam batteries; armories, foundries,
arsenals, with ample supplies of arms and munitions of war; an
increase of troops for the West and Northwest; a line of posts
and a military road from the Red River to the Wisconsin, in
the rear of the settlements, and mounted dragoons to scour the
country; every thing was considered; all was reduced to system,
and a general, adequate, and appropriate plan of national
defence was presented, sufficient to absorb all the surplus
revenue, and wanting nothing but the vote of Congress to carry
it into effect. In this great system of national defence the
whole Union was equally interested; for the country, in all
that concerned its defences, was but a unit, and every section
was interested in the defence of every other section, and every
individual citizen was interested in the defence of the whole
population. It was in vain to say that the navy was on the sea,
and the fortifications on the seaboard, and that the citizens
in the interior States, or in the valley of the Mississippi,
had no interest in these remote defences. Such an idea was
mistaken and delusive. The inhabitant of Missouri and of Indiana
had a direct interest in keeping open the mouths of the rivers,
defending the seaport towns, and preserving a naval force that
would protect the produce of his labor in crossing the ocean,
and arriving safely in foreign markets. All the forts at the
mouth of the Mississippi were just as much for the benefit of
the western States, as if those States were down at the mouth
of that river. So of all the forts on the Gulf of Mexico. Five
forts are completed in the delta of the Mississippi; two are
completed on the Florida or Alabama coast; and seven or eight
more are projected; all calculated to give security to western
commerce in passing through the Gulf of Mexico. Much had been
done for that frontier, but more remained to be done; and
among the great works contemplated in that quarter were large
establishments at Pensacola, Key West, or the Dry Tortugas.
Large military and naval stations were contemplated at these
points, and no expenditure or preparations could exceed in
amount the magnitude of the interests to be protected. On the
Atlantic board the commerce of the States found its way to
the ocean through many outlets, from Maine to Florida; in the
West, on the contrary, the whole commerce of the valley of
the Mississippi, all that of the Alabama, of western Florida,
and some part of Georgia, passes through a single outlet,
and reaches the ocean by passing between Key West and Cuba.
Here, then, is an immense commerce collected into one channel,
compressed into one line, and passing, as it were, through one
gate. This gives to Key West and the Dry Tortugas an importance
hardly possessed by any point on the globe; for, besides
commanding the commerce of the entire West, it will also command
that of Mexico, of the West Indies, of the Caribbean sea, and
of South America down to the middle of that continent at its
most eastern projection, Cape Roque. To understand the cause of
all this (Mr. B. said), it was necessary to look to the trade
winds, which, blowing across the Atlantic between the tropics,
strike the South American continent at Cape Roque, follow the
retreating coast of that continent up to the Caribbean sea, and
to the Gulf of Mexico, creating the gulf stream as they go,
and by the combined effect of a current in the air and in the
water, sweeping all vessels from this side Cape Roque into its
stream, carrying them round west of Cuba and bringing them out
between Key West and the Havana. These two positions, then,
constitute the gate through which every thing must pass that
comes from the valley of the Mississippi, from Mexico, and from
South America as low down as Cape Roque. As the masters of the
Mississippi, we should be able to predominate in the Gulf of
Mexico; and, to do so, we must have great establishments at Key
West and Pensacola. Such establishments are now proposed; and
every citizen of the West should look upon them as the guardians
of his own immediate interests, the indispensable safeguard
to his own commerce; and to him the highest, most sacred,
and most beneficial object to which surplus revenue could be
applied. The Gulf of Mexico should be considered as the estuary
of the Mississippi. A naval and military supremacy should be
established in that gulf, cost what it might; for without that
supremacy the commerce of the entire West would lie at the mercy
of the fleets and privateers of inimical powers.
"Mr. B. returned to the immediate object of his remarks--to the
object of showing that the defences of the country would absorb
every surplus dollar that would ever be found in the treasury.
He recapitulated the aggregates of those heads of expenditure;
for the navy, about forty millions of dollars, embracing the
increase of the navy, navy yards, ordnance, and repairs of
vessels for a series of years; for fortifications, about thirty
millions, reported by the engineer department; and which sum,
after reducing the size of some of the largest class of forts,
not yet commenced, would still be large enough, with the sum
reported by the ordnance department, amounting to near thirty
millions, to make a totality not much less than one hundred
millions; and far more than sufficient to swallow up all the
surpluses which will ever be found to exist in the treasury.
Even after deducting much from these estimates, the remainder
will still go beyond any surplus that will actually be found.
Every person knows that the present year is no criterion for
estimating the revenue; excess of paper issues has inflated all
business, and led to excess in all branches of the revenue; next
year it will be down, and soon fall as much below the usual
level as it now is above it. More than that; what is now called
a surplus in the treasury is no surplus, but a mere accumulation
for want of passing the appropriation bills. The whole of it is
pledged to the bills which are piled upon our tables, and which
we cannot get passed; for the opposition is strong enough to
arrest the appropriations, to dam up the money in the treasury;
and then call that a surplus which would now be in a course
of expenditure, if the necessary appropriation bills could be
passed.
"The public defences will require near one hundred millions of
dollars; the annual amount required for these defences alone
amount to thirteen or fourteen millions. The engineer department
answers explicitly that it can beneficially expend six millions
of dollars annually; the ordnance that it can beneficially
expend three millions; the navy that it can beneficially expend
several millions; and all this for a series of years. This
distribution bill has five years to run, and in that time, if
the money is applied to defence instead of distribution, the
great work of national defence will be so far completed as to
place the United States in condition to cause her rights and her
interests, her flag and her soil, to be honored and respected by
the whole world."
The bill was passed in the Senate, though by a vote somewhat
close--25 to 20. The yeas were:
Messrs. Black, Buchanan, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing
of Ohio, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Kent, Knight, Leigh, McKean,
Mangum, Naudain, Nicholas, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins,
Southard, Swift, Tomlinson, Webster White.
NAYS.--Messrs. Benton, Calhoun, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois,
Grundy, Hill, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn,
Moore, Morris, Niles, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley,
Tallmadge, Walker, Wright.
Being sent to the House for concurrence it became evident that it
could not pass that body; and then the friends of distribution in
the Senate fell upon a new mode to effect their object, and in a
form to gain the votes of many members who held distribution to be
a violation of the constitution--among them Mr. Calhoun;--who took
the lead in the movement. There was a bill before the Senate to
regulate the keeping of the public moneys in the deposit banks; and
this was turned into distribution of the surplus public moneys with
the States, in proportion to their representation in Congress, to
be returned when Congress should call for it: and this was called
a deposit with the States; and the faith of the States pledged for
returning the money. The deposit was defended on the same argument
on which Mr. Calhoun had proposed to amend the constitution two
years before; namely that there was no other way to get rid of
the surplus. And to a suggestion from Mr. Wright that the moneys,
when once so deposited might never be got back again, Mr. Calhoun
answered:
"But the senator from New-York objects to the measure, that
it would, in effect, amount to a distribution, on the ground,
as he conceives, that the States would never refund. He does
not doubt but that they would, if called on to refund by the
government; but he says that Congress will in fact never make
the call. He rests this conclusion on the supposition that there
would be a majority of the States opposed to it. He admits, in
case the revenue should become deficient, that the southern or
staple States would prefer to refund their quota, rather than to
raise the imposts to meet the deficit; but he insists that the
contrary would be the case with the manufacturing States, which
would prefer to increase the imposts to refunding their quota,
on the ground that the increase of the duties would promote the
interests of manufactures. I cannot agree with the senator that
those States would assume a position so utterly untenable as to
refuse to refund a deposit which their faith would be plighted
to return, and rest the refusal on the ground of preferring
to lay a tax, because it would be a bounty to them, and would
consequently throw the whole burden of the tax on the other
States. But, be this as it may, I can tell the senator that, if
they should take a course so unjust and monstrous, he may be
assured that the other States would most unquestionably resist
the increase of the imposts; so that the government would have
to take its choice, either to go without the money, or call on
the States to refund the deposits."
Mr. Benton took an objection to this scheme of deposit, that it
was a distribution under a false name, making a double disposition
of the same money; that the land money was to be distributed under
the bill already passed by the Senate: and he moved an amendment
to except that money from the operation of the deposit to be made
with the States. He said it was hardly to be supposed that, in the
nineteenth century, a grave legislative body would pass two bills
for dividing the same money; and it was to save the Senate from the
ridicule of such a blunder that he called their attention to it,
and proposed the amendment. Mr. Calhoun said there was a remedy for
it in a few words, by adding a proviso of exception, if the land
distribution bill became a law. Mr. Benton was utterly opposed to
such a proviso--a proviso to take effect if the same thing did not
become law in another bill. Mr. Morris also wished to know if the
Senate was about to make a double distribution of the same money? As
far it respected the action of the Senate the land bill was, to all
intents and purposes, a law. It had passed the Senate, and they were
done with it. It had changed its title from "bill" to "act." It was
now the act of the Senate, and they could not know what disposition
the House would make of it. Mr. Webster believed the land bill could
not pass the House; that it was put to rest there; and therefore
he had no objection to voting for the second one: thus admitting
that, under the name of "distribution" the act could not pass the
House, and that a change of name was indispensable. Mr. Wright made
a speech of statements and facts to show that there would be no
surplus; and taking up that idea, Mr. Benton spoke thus:
"About this time two years ago, the Senate was engaged in
proclaiming the danger of a bankrupt Treasury, and in proving
to the people that utter ruin must ensue from the removal
of the deposits from the Bank of the United States. The same
Senate, nothing abated in confidence from the failure of former
predictions, is now engaged in celebrating the prosperity of
the country, and proclaiming a surplus of forty, and fifty,
and sixty millions of dollars in that same Treasury, which
so short a time since they thought was going to be bankrupt.
Both occupations are equally unfortunate. Our Treasury is in
no more danger of bursting from distension now, than it was
of collapsing from depletion then. The ghost of the panic was
driven from this chamber in May, 1834, by the report of Mr.
Taney, showing that all the sources of the national revenue were
in their usual rich and bountiful condition; and that there was
no danger of bankruptcy. The speech and statement, so brief and
perspicuous, just delivered by the senator from New York [Mr.
Wright], will perform the same office upon the distribution
spirit, by showing that the appropriations of the session will
require nearly as much money as the public Treasury will be
found to contain. The present exaggerations about the surplus
will have their day, as the panic about an empty Treasury had
its day; and time, which corrects all things, will show the
enormity of these errors which excite the public mind, and
stimulate the public appetite, for a division of forty, fifty,
and sixty millions of surplus treasure."
The bill being ordered to a third reading, with only six dissenting
votes, the author of this View could not consent to let it pass
without an attempt to stigmatize it, and render it odious to the
people, as a distribution in disguise--as a deposit never to be
reclaimed; as a miserable evasion of the constitution; as an
attempt to debauch the people with their own money; as plundering
instead of defending the country; as a cheat that would only last
till the presidential election was over; for there would be no
money to deposit after the first or second quarter;--and as having
the inevitable effect, if not the intention, to break the deposit
banks; and, finally, as disappointing its authors in their schemes
of popularity: in which he was prophetic; as, out of half a dozen
aspirants to the presidency, who voted for it, no one of them ever
attained that place. The following are parts of his speech:
"I now come, Mr. President (continued Mr. B.), to the second
subject in the bill--the distribution feature--and to which
the objections are, not of detail, but of principle; but which
objections are so strong, in the mind of myself and some
friends, that, far from shrinking from the contest, and sneaking
away in our little minority of six, where we were left last
evening, we come forward with unabated resolution to renew our
opposition, and to signalize our dissent; anxious to have it
known that we contended to the last against the seductions of a
measure, specious to the view, and tempting to the taste, but
fraught with mischief and fearful consequences to the character
of this government, and to the stability and harmony of this
confederacy.
"Stripping this enactment of statutory verbiage, and collecting
the provisions of the section into a single view, they seem
to be these: 1. The public moneys, above a specific sum, are
to be deposited with the States, in a specified ratio; 2. The
States are to give certificates of deposit, payable to the
United States; but no time, or contingency, is fixed for the
payment; 3. The Secretary of the Treasury is to sell and assign
the certificates, limited to a ratable proportion of each,
when necessary to meet appropriations made by Congress; 4.
The certificates so assigned are to bear an interest of five
per cent., payable half yearly; 5. To bear no interest before
assignment; 6. The principal to be payable at the pleasure of
the State.
"This, Mr. President, is the enactment; and what is such an
enactment? Sir, I will tell you what it is. It is, in name, a
deposit; in form, a loan; in essence and design, a distribution.
Names cannot alter things; and it is as idle to call a gift a
deposit, as it would be to call a stab of the dagger a kiss of
the lips. It is a distribution of the revenues, under the name
of a deposit, and under the form of a loan. It is known to be
so, and is intended to be so; and all this verbiage about a
deposit is nothing but the device and contrivance of those who
have been for years endeavoring to distribute the revenues,
sometimes by the land bill, sometimes by direct propositions,
and sometimes by proposed amendments to the constitution.
Finding all these modes of accomplishing the object met and
frustrated by the constitution, they fall upon this invention
of a deposit, and exult in the success of an old scheme under a
new name. That it is no deposit, but a free gift, and a regular
distribution, is clear and demonstrable, not only from the
avowed principles, declared intentions, and systematic purposes
of those who conduct the bill, but also from the means devised
to effect their object. Names are nothing. The thing done gives
character to the transaction; and the imposition of an erroneous
name cannot change that character. This is no deposit. It has
no feature, no attribute, no characteristic no quality of a
deposit. A deposit is a trust requiring the consent of two
parties, leaving to one the rights of ownership, and imposing
on the other the duties of trustee. The depositor retains the
right of property, and reserves the privilege of resumption; the
depositary is bound to restore. But here the right of property
is parted with; the privilege of resumption is surrendered; the
obligation to render back is not imposed. On the contrary, our
money is put where we cannot reach it. Our treasury warrant
cannot pursue it. The States are to keep the money, free of
interest, until it is needed to meet appropriations; and then
the Secretary of the Treasury is--to do what?--call upon the
State? No! but to sell and assign the certificate; and the
State is to pay the assignee an interest half yearly, and the
principal when it pleases. Now, these appropriations will never
be made. The members of Congress are not yet born--the race of
representatives is not yet known--who will vote appropriations
for national objects, to be paid out of their own State
treasuries. Sooner will the tariff be revived, or the price of
public land be raised. Sooner will the assignability of the
certificate be repealed by law. The contingency will never
arrive, on which the Secretary is to assign: so the deposit
will stand as a loan for ever, without interest. At the end
of some years, the nominal transaction will be rescinded; the
certificates will all be cancelled by one general, unanimous,
harmonious vote in Congress. The disguise of a deposit, like the
mask after a play, will be thrown aside; and the delivery of
the money will turn out to be, what it is now intended to be,
a gift from the beginning. This will be the end of the first
chapter. And now, how unbecoming in the Senate to practise this
indirection, and to do by a false name what cannot be done by
its true one. The constitution, by the acknowledgment of many
who conduct this bill, will not admit of a distribution of the
revenues. Not further back than the last session, and again at
the commencement of the present session, a proposition was made
to amend the constitution, to permit this identical distribution
to be made. That proposition is now upon our calendar, for the
action of Congress. All at once, it is discovered that a change
of names will do as well as a change of the constitution. Strike
out the word 'distribute,' and insert the word 'deposit;' and,
incontinently, the impediment is removed: the constitution
difficulty is surmounted; the division of the money can be
made. This, at least, is quick work. It looks magical, though
not the exploit of the magician. It commits nobody, though
not the invention of the non-committal school. After all, it
must be admitted to be a very compendious mode of amending the
constitution, and such a one as the framers of that instrument
never happened to think of. Is this fancy, or is it fact? Are we
legislating, or amusing ourselves with phantasmagoria? Can we
forget that we now have upon the calendar a proposition to amend
the constitution, to effect this very distribution, and that
the only difference between that resolution and this thirteenth
section, is in substituting the word 'deposit' for the word
'distribute?'
"Having shown this pretended deposit to be a distribution in
disguise, and to be a mere evasion of the constitution, Mr.
B. proceeded to examine its effects, and to trace its ruinous
consequences upon the federal government and the States. It is
brought forward as a temporary measure, as a single operation,
as a thing to be done but once; but what career, either for good
or for evil, ever stopped with the first step? It is the first
step which costs the difficulty; that taken, the second becomes
easy, and repetition habitual. Let this distribution, in this
disguise, take effect; and future distribution will be common
and regular. Every presidential election will bring them, and
larger each time; as the consular elections in Rome, commencing
with distributions of grain from the public granaries, went on
to the exhibitions of games and shows, the remission of debts,
largesses in money, lands, and provisions; until the rival
candidates openly bid against each other, and the diadem of
empire was put up at auction, and knocked down to the last and
highest bidder. The purity of elections may not yet be affected
in our young and vigorous country; but how long will it be
before voters will look to the candidates for the magnitude
of their distributions, instead of looking to them for the
qualifications which the presidential office requires?
"The bad consequences of this distribution of money to the
States are palpable and frightful. It is complicating the
federal and State systems, and multiplying their points of
contact and hazards of collision. Take it as ostensibly
presented; that of a deposit or loan, to be repaid at some
future time; then it is establishing the relation of debtor and
creditor between them: a relation critical between friends,
embarrassing between a State and its citizens; and eminently
dangerous between confederate States and their common head.
It is a relation always deprecated in our federal system. The
land credit system was abolished by Congress, fifteen years
ago, to get rid of the relation of debtor and creditor between
the federal government and the citizens of the States; and
seven or eight millions of debt, principal and interest, was
then surrendered. The collection of a large debt from numerous
individual debtors, was found to he almost impossible. How much
worse if the State itself becomes the debtor! and more, if all
the States become indebted together! Any attempt to collect
the debt would be attended, first with ill blood, then with
cancellation. It must be the representatives of the States who
are to enforce the collection of the debt. This they would not
do. They would stand together against the creditor. No member
of Congress could vote to tax his State to raise money for
the general purposes of the confederacy. No one could vote an
appropriation which was to become a charge on his own State
treasury. Taxation would first be resorted to, and the tariff
and the public lands would become the fountain of supply to the
federal government. Taken as a real transaction--as a deposit
with the States, or a loan to the States--as this measure
professes to be, and it is fraught with consequences adverse to
the harmony of the federal system, and fraught with new burdens
upon the customs, and upon the lands; taken as a fiction to
avoid the constitution, as a John Doe and Richard Roe invention
to convey a gift under the name of a deposit, and to effect a
distribution under the disguise of a loan, and it is an artifice
which makes derision of the constitution, lets down the Senate
from its lofty station; and provides a facile way for doing any
thing that any Congress may choose to do in all time to come. It
is only to depose one word and instal another--it is merely to
change a name--and the frowning constitution immediately smiles
on the late forbidden attempt.
"To the federal government the consequences of these
distributions must be deplorable and destructive. It must be
remitted to the helpless condition of the old confederacy,
depending for its supplies upon the voluntary contributions
of the States. Worse than depending upon the voluntary
contributions, it will be left to the gratuitous leavings, to
the eleemosynary crumbs, which remain upon the table after the
feast of the States is over. God grant they may not prove to be
the feasts of the Lapithæ and Centaurs! But the States will be
served first; and what remains may go to the objects of common
defence and national concern for which the confederacy was
framed, and for which the power of raising money was confided
to Congress. The distribution bills will be passed first, and
the appropriation bills afterwards; and every appropriation
will be cut down to the lowest point, and kept off to the last
moment. To stave off as long as possible, to reduce as low as
possible, to defeat whenever possible, will be the tactics of
federal legislation; and when at last some object of national
expenditure has miraculously run the gauntlet of all these
assaults, and escaped the perils of these multiplied dangers,
behold the enemy still ahead, and the recapture which awaits
the devoted appropriation, in the shape of an unexpended
balance, on the first day of January then next ensuing. Thus
it is already; distribution has occupied us all the session. A
proposition to amend the constitution, to enable us to make the
division, was brought in in the first month of the session. The
land bill followed, and engrossed months, to the exclusion of
national defence. Then came the deposit scheme, which absorbs
the remainder of the session. For nearly seven months we have
been occupied with distribution, and the Senate has actually
passed two bills to effect the same object, and to divide the
same identical money. Two bills to divide money, while one
bill cannot be got through for the great objects of national
defence named in the constitution. We are now near the end of
the seventh month of the session. The day named by the Senate
for the termination of the session is long passed by; the day
fixed by the two Houses is close at hand. The year is half gone,
and the season for labor largely lost; yet what is the state
of the general, national, and most essential appropriations?
Not a shilling is yet voted for fortifications; not a shilling
for the ordnance; nothing for filling the empty ranks of the
skeleton army; nothing for the new Indian treaties; nothing for
the continuation of the Cumberland road; nothing for rebuilding
the burnt-down Treasury; nothing for the custom-house in New
Orleans; nothing for extinguishing the rights of private
corporators in the Louisville canal, and making that great
thoroughfare free to the commerce of the West; nothing for the
western armory, and arsenals in the States which have none;
nothing for the extension of the circuit court system to the
new States of the West and Southwest; nothing for improving
the mint machinery; nothing for keeping the mints regularly
supplied with metals for coining; nothing for the new marine
hospitals; nothing for the expenses of the visitors now gone to
the Military Academy; nothing for the chain of posts and the
military road along the Western and Northwestern frontier. All
these, and a long list of other objects, remain without a cent
to this day; and those who have kept them off now coolly turn
upon us, and say the money cannot be expended if appropriated,
and that, on the first of January, it must fall into the
surplus fund to be divided. Of the bills passed, many of the
most essential character have been delayed for months, to the
great injury of individuals and of the public service. Clerks
and salaried officers have been borrowing money at usury to
support their families, while we, wholly absorbed with dividing
surpluses, were withholding from them their stipulated wages.
Laborers at Harper's Ferry Armory have been without money to go
to market for their families, and some have lived three weeks
without meat, because we must attend to the distribution bills
before we can attend to the pay bills. Disbursing officers
have raised money on their own account, to supply the want of
appropriations. Even the annual Indian Annuity Bill has but
just got through; the Indians even--the poor Indians, as they
were wont to be called--even they have had to wait, in want and
misery, for the annual stipends solemnly guarantied by treaties.
All this has already taken place under the deplorable influence
of the distribution spirit.
"The progress which the distribution spirit has made in
advancing beyond its own pretensions, is a striking feature in
the history of the case, and ominous of what may be expected
from its future exactions. Originally the proposition was to
divide the surplus. It was the surplus, and nothing but the
surplus, which was to be taken; that bona fide and inevitable
surplus which remained after all the defences were provided
for, and all needed appropriations fully made. Now the defences
are postponed and decried; the needful appropriations are
rejected, stinted, and deferred, till they cannot be used;
and, instead of the surplus, it is the integral revenue, it
is the money in the Treasury, it is the money appropriated by
law, which is to be seized upon and divided out. It is the
unexpended balances which are now the object of all desire and
the prize of meditated distribution. The word surplus is not
in the bill! that word, which has figured in so many speeches,
which has been the subject of so much speculation, which has
been the cause of so much delusion in the public mind, and
of so much excited hope; that word is not in the bill! It is
carefully, studiously, systematically excluded, and a form of
expression is adopted to cover all the money in the Treasury,
a small sum excepted, although appropriated by law to the most
sacred and necessary objects. A recapture of the appropriated
money is intended; and thus the very identical money which we
appropriate at this session is to be seized upon on the first
day of January, torn away from the objects to which it was
dedicated, and absorbed in the fund for general distribution.
And why? because the cormorant appetite of distribution grows
as it feeds, and becomes more ravenous as it gorges. It set out
for the surplus; now it takes the unexpended balances, save five
millions; next year it will take all. But it is sufficient to
contemplate the thing as it is; it is sufficient to contemplate
this bill as seizing upon the unexpended balances on the first
day of January, regardless of the objects to which they are
appropriated; and to witness its effect upon the laws, the
policy, and the existence of the federal government.
"Such, then, is the progress of the distribution spirit;
a cormorant appetite, growing as it feeds, ravening as it
gorges; seizing the appropriated moneys, and leaving the
federal government to starve upon crumbs, and to die of
inanition. But this appetite is not the sole cause for this
seizure. There is another reason for it, connected with the
movements in this chamber, and founded in the deep-seated law
of self-preservation. For six months the public mind has been
stimulated with the story of sixty millions of surplus money in
the Treasury; and two months ago, the grave Senate of the United
States carried the rash joke of that illusory asseveration so
far as to pass a bill to commence the distribution of that vast
sum. It was the land bill which was to do it, commencing its
swelling dividends on the 1st day of July, dealing them out
every ninety days, and completing the splendid distribution of
prizes, in the sixty-four million lottery, in eighteen months
from the commencement of the drawing. It was two months ago that
we passed this bill; and all attempts then made to convince the
people that they were deluded, were vain and useless. Sixty-four
millions they were promised, sixty-four millions they were to
have, sixty-four millions they began to want; and slates and
pencils were just as busy then in figuring out the dividends
of the sixty-four millions, to begin on the 1st of July, as
they now are in figuring out the dividends under the forty,
fifty, and sixty millions, which are to begin on the 1st of
January next. And now behold the end of the first chapter.
The 1st of July is come, but the sixty-four millions are not
in the Treasury! It is not there; and any attempt to commence
the distribution of that sum, according to the terms of the
land bill, would bankrupt the Treasury, stop the government,
and cause Congress to be called together, to levy taxes or make
loans. So much for the land bill, which two months ago received
all the praises which are now bestowed upon the deposit bill.
So the drawing had to be postponed, the performance had to
be adjourned, and the 1st of January was substituted for the
1st of July. This gives six months to go upon, and defers the
catastrophe of the mountain in labor until the presidential
election is over. Still the first of January must come; and the
ridicule would be too great, if there was nothing, or next to
nothing, to divide. And nothing, or next to nothing, there would
be, if the appropriations were fairly made, and made in time,
and if nothing but a surplus was left to divide. There would be
no more in the deposit bank, in that event, than has usually
been in the Bank of the United States--say ten, or twelve, or
fourteen, or sixteen millions; and from which, in the hands
of a single bank, none of those dangers to the country were
then seen which are now discovered in like sums in three dozen
unconnected and independent banks. Even after all the delays
and reductions in the appropriations, the surplus will now be
but a trifle--such a trifle as must expose to ridicule, or
something worse, all those who have tantalized the public with
the expectation of forty, fifty, or sixty millions to divide.
To avoid this fate, and to make up something for distribution,
then, the unexpended balances have been fallen upon; the law of
1795 is nullified; the fiscal year is changed; the policy of
the government subverted; reason, justice, propriety outraged;
all contracts, labor, service, salaries cut off, interrupted,
or reduced; appropriations recaptured, and the government
paralyzed. Sir, the people are deceived; they are made to
believe that a surplus only, an unavoidable surplus, is to be
divided, when the fact is that appropriated moneys are to be
seized.
"Sir, I am opposed to the whole policy of this measure. I am
opposed to it as going to sap the foundations of the Federal
Government, and to undo the constitution, and that by evasion,
in the very point for which the constitution was made. What
is that point? A Treasury! a Treasury! a Treasury of its own,
unconnected with, and independent of the States. It was for
this that wise and patriotic men wrote, and spoke, and prayed
for the fourteen years that intervened from the declaration of
independence, in 1776, to the formation of the constitution in
1789. It was for this that so many appeals were made, so many
efforts exerted, so many fruitless attempts so long repeated,
to obtain from the States the power of raising revenue from
imports. It was for this that the convention of 1787 met, and
but for this they never would have met. The formation of a
federal treasury, unconnected with the States, and independent
of the States, was the cause of the meeting of that convention;
it was the great object of its labors; it was the point to which
all its exertions tended, and it was the point at which failure
would have been the failure of the whole object of the meeting,
of the whole frame of the general government, and of the whole
design of the constitution. With infinite labor, pains, and
difficulty, they succeeded in erecting the edifice of the
federal treasury; we, not builders, but destroyers, "architects
of ruin," undo in a night what they accomplished in many
years. We expunge the federal treasury; we throw the federal
government back upon States for supplies; we unhinge and undo
the constitution; and we effect our purpose by an artifice which
derides, mocks, ridicules that sacred instrument, and opens the
way to its perpetual evasion by every paltry performer that is
able to dethrone one word, and exalt another in its place.
"I object to the time for another reason. There is no necessity
to act at all upon this subject, at this session of Congress.
The distribution is not to take effect until after we are in
session again, and when the true state of the treasury shall
be known. Its true state cannot be known now; but enough
is known to make it questionable whether there will be any
surplus, requiring a specific disposition, over and beyond the
wants of the country. Many appropriations are yet behind; two
Indian wars are yet to be finished; when the wars are over,
the vanquished Indians are to be removed to the West; and when
there, either the Federal Government or the States must raise
a force to protect the people from them. Twenty-five thousand
Creeks, seven thousand Seminoles, eighteen thousand Cherokees,
and others, making a totality of seventy-two thousand, are
to be removed; and the expenses of removal, and the year's
subsistence afterwards, is close upon seventy dollars per
head. It is a problem whether there will be any surplus worth
disposing of. The surplus party themselves admit there will
be a disappointment unless they go beyond the surplus, and
seize the appropriated moneys. The Senator from New-York [Mr.
Wright], has made an exposition, as candid and perspicuous as
it is patriotic and unanswerable, showing that there will be
an excess of appropriations over the money in the treasury on
the day that we adjourn; and that we shall have to depend upon
the accruing revenue of the remainder of the year to meet the
demands which we authorize. This is the state of the surplus
question: problematical, debatable; the weight of the evidence
and the strength of the argument entirely against it; time
enough to ascertain the truth, and yet a determination to reject
all evidence, refuse all time, rush on to the object, and
divide the money, cost what it may to the constitution, the
government, the good of the States, and the purity of elections.
The catastrophe of the land bill project ought certainly to be a
warning to us. Two months ago it was pushed through, as the only
means of saving the country, as the blessed act which was to
save the republic. It was to commence on the first day of July
its magnificent operations of distributing sixty four millions;
now it lies a corpse in the House of Representatives, a monument
of haste and folly, its very authors endeavoring to supersede
it by another measure, because it could not take effect without
ruining the country; and, what is equally important to them,
ruining themselves.
"Admitting that the year produces more revenue than is wanting,
is it wise, is it statesmanlike, is it consonant with our
experience, to take fright at the event, and throw the money
away? Did we not have forty millions of income in the year
1817? and did we not have an empty treasury in 1819? Instead of
taking fright and throwing the money away, the statesman should
look into the cause of things; he should take for his motto the
prayer of Virgil: _Cognoscere causa rerum_. Let me know the
cause of things; and, learning this cause, act accordingly.
If the redundant supply is accidental and transient, it will
quickly correct itself; if founded in laws, alter them. This
is the part not merely of wisdom, but of common sense: it was
the conduct of 1817, when the excessive supply was seen to be
the effect of transient causes--termination of the war and
efflorescence of the paper system--and left to correct itself,
which it did in two years. It should be the conduct now, when
the excessive income is seen to be the effect of the laws and
the paper system combined, and when legislation or regulation is
necessary to correct it. Reduction of the tariff; reduction of
the price of land to actual settlers; rejection of bank paper
from universal receivability for public dues; these are the
remedies. After all, the whole evil may be found in a single
cause, and the whole remedy may be seen in a single measure.
The public lands are exchangeable for paper. Seven hundred and
fifty machines are at work striking off paper; that paper is
performing the grand rounds, from the banks to the public lands,
and from the lands to the banks. Every body, especially a public
man, may take as much as his trunks can carry. The public domain
is changing into paper; the public treasury is filling up with
paper; the new States are deluged with paper; the currency is
ruining with paper; farmers, settlers, cultivators, are outbid,
deprived of their selected homes, or made to pay double for
them, by public men loaded, not like Philip's ass, with bags of
gold, but like bank advocates, with bales of paper. Sir, the
evil is in the unbridled state of the paper system, and in the
unchecked receivability of paper for federal dues. Here is the
evil. Banks are our masters; not one, but seven hundred and
fifty! and this splendid federal Congress, like a chained and
chastised slave, lies helpless and powerless at their feet.
"Sir, I can see nothing but evil, turn on which side I may,
from this fatal scheme of dividing money; not surplus money,
but appropriated funds; not by an amendment, but by a derisory
evasion of the constitution. Where is it to end? History shows
us that those who begin revolutions never end them; that those
who commence innovations never limit them. Here is a great
innovation, constituting in reality--not in figure of speech,
but in reality--a revolution in the form of our government.
We set out to divide the surplus; we are now dividing the
appropriated funds. To prevent all appropriations except to the
powerful States, will be the next step; and the small States,
in self-defence, must oppose all appropriations, and go for
a division of the whole. They will have to stand together in
the Senate, and oppose all appropriations. It will not do for
the large States to take all the appropriations first, and the
bulk of the distribution afterwards; and there will be no way
to prevent it but to refuse all appropriations, divide out
the money among the States, and let each State lay it out for
itself. A new surplus party will supersede the present surplus
party, as successive factions supersede each other in chaotic
revolutions. They will make Congress the _quæstor_ of provinces,
to collect money for the States to administer. This will be
their argument: the States know best what they need, and can lay
out the money to the best advantage, and to suit themselves.
One State will want roads and no canals; another canals and no
roads; one will want forts, another troops; one wants ships,
another steam-cars; one wants high schools, another low schools;
one is for the useful arts, another is for the fine arts, for
lyceums, athenæums, museums, arts, statuary, painting, music;
and the paper State will want all for banks. Thus will things
go on, and Congress will have no appropriation to make, except
to the President, and his head clerks, and their under clerks.
Even our own pay, like it was under the confederation, may be
remitted to our own States. The eight dollars a day may be voted
to them, and supported by the argument that they can get better
men for four dollars a day; and so save half the money, and
have the work better done. Such is the progress in this road to
ruin. Sir, I say of this measure, as I said of its progenitor,
the land bill: if I could be willing to let evil pass, that
good might come of it, I should be willing to let this bill
pass. A recoil, a reaction, a revulsion must take place. This
confederacy cannot go to ruin. This Union has a place in the
hearts of the people which will save it from nullification
in disguise, as well as from nullification in arms. One word
of myself. It is now ten years since schemes of distribution
were broached upon this floor. They began with a senator from
New Jersey, now Secretary of the navy (Mr. Dickerson). They
were denounced by many, for their unconstitutionality, their
corrupting tendencies, and their fatal effects upon the federal
and State governments. I took my position then, have stood
upon it during all the modifications of the original scheme;
and continue standing upon it now. My answer then was, pay the
public debt and reduce the taxes; my answer now is, provide for
the public defences, reduce the taxes, and bridle the paper
system. On this ground I have stood--on this I stand; and never
did I feel more satisfaction and more exultation in my vote,
when triumphant in numbers, than I now do in a minority of six."
The bill went to the House, and was concurred in by a large
majority--one hundred and fifty-five to thirty-eight--although,
under the name of distribution, there was no chance for it to pass
that House. Deeming the opposition of this small minority courageous
as well as meritorious, and deserving to be held in honorable
remembrance, their names are here set down; to wit:
Messrs. Michael W. Ash, James M. H. Beale, Benning M. Bean,
Andrew Beaumont, John W. Brown, Robert Burns, John F. H.
Claiborne, Walter Coles, Samuel Cushman, George C. Dromgoole,
John Fairfield, William K. Fuller, Ransom H. Gillet, Joseph
Hall, Thomas L. Hamer, Leonard Jarvis, Cave Johnson, Gerrit Y.
Lansing, Gideon Lee, George Loyall, Abijah Mann, jr., John Y.
Mason, James J. McKay, John McKeon, Isaac McKim, Gorham Parks,
Franklin Pierce, Henry L. Pinckney, John Roane, James Rogers,
Nicholas Sickles, William Taylor, Francis Thomas, Joel Turrill,
Aaron Vanderpoel, Aaron Ward, Daniel Wardwell, Henry A. Wise.
The bill passed the House, and was approved by the President, but
with a repugnance of feeling, and a recoil of judgment, which it
required great efforts of friends to overcome; and with a regret for
it afterwards which he often and publicly expressed. It was a grief
that his name was seen to such an act. It was a most unfortunate
act, a plain evasion of the constitution for a bad purpose--soon
gave a sad overthrow to the democracy--and disappointed every
calculation made upon it. Politically, it was no advantage to
its numerous and emulous supporters--of no disservice to its few
determined opponents--only four in number, in the Senate, the two
senators from Mississippi voting against it, for reasons found
in the constitution of their State. To the States, it was of no
advantage, raising expectations which were not fulfilled, and upon
which many of them acted as realities, and commenced enterprises to
which they were inadequate. It was understood that some of Mr. Van
Buren's friends favored the President's approval, and recommended
him to sign it--induced by the supposed effect which its rejection
might have on the democratic party in the election. The opponents
of the bill did not visit the President to give him their opinions,
nor had he heard their arguments. If they had seen him, their
opinions concurring with his own feelings and judgment, his conduct
might have been different, and the approval of the act withheld. It
might not have prevented the act from becoming a law, as two thirds
in each House might have been found to support it; but it would
have deprived the bill of the odor of his name, and saved himself
from subsequent regrets. In a party point of view, it was the
commencement of calamities, being an efficient cause in that general
suspension of specie payments, which quickly occurred, and brought
so much embarrassment on the Van Buren administration, ending in the
great democratic defeat of 1840. But of this hereafter.
CHAPTER CXLIII.
RECHARTER OF THE DISTRICT BANKS--SPEECH OF MR. BENTON: THE PARTS OF
LOCAL AND TEMPORARY INTEREST OMITTED.
"Mr. Benton rose to oppose the passage of the bill, notwithstanding
it was at the third reading, and that it was not usual to continue
opposition, which seemed to be useless, at that late stage.
But there were occasions when he never took such things into
calculation, and when he continued to resist pernicious measures,
regardless of common usages, as long as the forms of parliamentary
proceeding would allow him to go on. Thus he had acted at the
passing of the United States Bank charter, in 1832; thus he did
at the passing of the resolution against President Jackson, in
1834; and thus he did at the passing of the famous land bill, at
the present session. He had continued to speak against all these
measures, long after speaking seemed to be of any avail; and,
far from regretting, he had reason to rejoice at the course that
he had pursued. The event proved him to be right; for all these
measures, though floated through this chamber upon the swelling
wave of a resistless and impatient majority, had quickly run their
brief career. Their day of triumph had been short. The bank charter
perished at the first general election; the condemnatory resolution
was received by the continent in a tempest of execration; and
the land bill, that last hope of expiring party, has dropped an
abortion from the Senate. It is dead even here, in this chamber,
where it originated--where it was once so omnipotent that, to speak
against it, was deemed by some to be an idle consumption of time,
and by others to be an unparliamentary demonstration against the
ascertained will of the House. Yet, that land bill is finished.
That brief candle is out. The Senate has revoked that bill; has
retracted, recanted, and sung its palinode over that unfortunate
conception. It has sent out a committee--an extraordinary committee
of nine--to devise some other scheme for dividing that same money
which the land bill divides! and, in doing so, the Senate has
authentically declared a change of opinion, and a revocation of its
sentiments in favor of that bill. Thus it has happened, in recent
and signal cases, that, by continuing the contest after the battle
seemed to be lost, the battle was in fact gained; and so it may be
again. These charters may yet be defeated; and whether they will
be or not, is nothing to me. I believe them to be wrong--greatly,
immeasurably wrong!--and shall continue to oppose them without
regard to calculations, or consequences, until the rules of
parliamentary proceeding shall put an end to the contest. Mr. B.
said he had moved for a select committee, at the commencement of
the session, to examine into the condition of these banks, and he
had done so with no other object than to endeavor to provide some
checks and guards for the security of the country against the abuses
and excesses of the paper system. The select committee had not been
raised. The standing Committee on the District of Columbia had been
charged with the subject; and, seeing that they had made a report
adverse to his opinions, and brought in a bill which he could not
sanction, it would be his part to act upon the meagre materials
which had been placed before the Senate and endeavor to accomplish
as a member of that body, what could have been attempted, with
better prospects of success, as a member of a committee which had
had the management of the subject.
"Mr. B. said he had wished to have been on a select committee for
the charter of these banks; he wished to have revived the idea of a
bank without circulation, and to have disconnected the government
from the banking of the district. He had failed in his attempt to
raise such a committee; and, as an individual member of the Senate,
he could now do no more than mention in debate the ideas which he
would have wished to have ripened into legislation through the
instrumentality of a committee.
"Mr. B. said he had demonstrated that no bank of circulation ought
to be authorized in this district; and, he would add, that none to
furnish currency, except of large notes, ought to be authorized
any where; yet what are we doing? We are breeding six little
corporations at a birth, to issue $2,250,000 of paper currency:
and on what terms? No bonus; no tax on the capital; none on the
circulation; no reduction of interest in lieu of bonus or tax;
no specie but what the stockholders please to put in; and no
liability on the part of the stockholders for a failure of these
corporations to redeem their notes and pay their debts. This is
what we are doing; and now let us see what burdens and taxes
these six corporations will impose upon the business part of the
community--the productive classes among which they are to be
perpetuated. First, there is the support of these six corporation
governments; for every bank must have a government, like a State
or kingdom; and the persons who administer these corporation
governments must be paid, and paid by the people, and that according
to the rates fixed by themselves and not by the people. Each of
these six banks must have its president, cashier, clerks, and
messengers; its notary public to protest notes; and its attorney
to bring suits. The aggregate salaries, fees, and perquisites, of
all these officers of the six banks will be the first tax on the
people. Next comes the profits to the stockholders. The nett profits
of banks are usually eight to ten per cent. at present; the gross
profits are several per cent. more; and the gross profits are what
the people pay. Assuming the gross profits to be twelve per cent.,
and the annual levy upon the community will be about $270,000. The
third loss to the community will be on the fluctuations of prices
of labor and property, and the rise and fall of stocks, from the
expansions and contractions of currency, produced by making money
plenty or scarce, as it suits the interest of the bank managers.
This item cannot be calculated and depends entirely upon the
moderation and consciences of the Neptunes who preside over the flux
and reflux of the paper ocean; and to whom all tides, whether of ebb
or flow, and all conditions of the sea, whether of calm or storm,
are equally welcome, equally auspicious, and equally productive.
Then come three other heads of loss to the community, and of profit
to the bank: loss of notes from wear and tear, counterfeits imposed
upon the people for good notes, and good notes rejected by the banks
for counterfeits; and then the loss to the holders from the stoppage
and failure of banks, and the shaving in of notes and stocks. Such
are the burdens and taxes to be imposed upon the people to give
them a paper currency, when, if the paper currency were kept away,
and only large notes used, as in France, they would have a gold and
silver currency without paying a tax to any body for it, and without
being subject to any of the frightful evils resulting from the paper
system.
"Objecting to all banks of circulation, but not able to suppress
them entirely, Mr. B. suggested some ameliorations in the charters
proposed to be granted to render them less dangerous to the
community. 1. The liability of the stockholders for all the debts of
the institution, as in the Scottish banks. 2. The bank stock to be
subject to taxation, like other property. 3. To issue or receive no
note of less than twenty dollars. 4. The charters to be repealable
at the will of Congress: and he gave reasons for each of these
improvements; and first for the liability of the stockholders. He
said:
"Reasons for this liability were strong and palpable. A man that
owes should pay while he has property to pay with; and it is
iniquitous and unjustifiable that a bank director, or stockholder,
should riot in wealth while the business part of the community
should hold the bank notes which they have put into circulation, and
be able to get nothing for them after the bank had closed its doors.
Such exemptions are contrary to the rights of this community, and
one of the great causes of the failure of banks. A liability in the
stockbrokers is one of the best securities which the public can
have for the correct management and solvency of the institution.
The famous Scottish banks, which, in upwards of one hundred years'
operations, had neither once convulsed the country with contractions
and expansions, nor once stopped payment, were constituted upon this
principle. All the country banks in England, and all the bankers on
the continent of Europe, were liable to a still greater degree; for
in them each stockholder, or partner, was liable, individually, for
the whole amount of the debts of the bank. The principle proposed to
be incorporated in these charters strikes the just medium between
the common law principle, which makes each partner liable for the
whole debts of the firm; and the corporation principle in the United
States, which absolves each from all liability, and leaves the
penniless and soulless carcase of a defunct and eviscerated bank
alone responsible to the community. Liability to the amount of the
stock was an equitable principle, and with summary process for the
recovery of the amounts of notes and deposits, and the invalidity of
transfers of stock to avoid this liability, would be found a good
remedy for a great evil. If the stockholders in the three banks
which stopped payment in this city during the panic session had been
thus liable, the notes would not have been shaved out of the hands
of the holders; if the bank which stopped in Baltimore at the same
time, had been subject to this principle, the riots, which have
afflicted that city in consequence of that stoppage, would not have
taken place. Instead of these losses and riots, law and remedy would
have prevailed; every stockholder would have been summoned before a
justice of the peace--judgment granted against him on motion--for
the amount held by the complainant; and so on, until all were paid,
or he could plead that he had paid up the whole amount of his stock."
The evil of small notes he classed under three general heads: 1. The
banishment of gold and silver. 2. Encouragement to counterfeiting.
3. Throwing the burthens and losses of the paper system upon the
laboring and small-dealing part of the community, who have no share
in the profits of banking, and should not be made to bear its
losses. On these points, he said:
"The instinct of banks to sink their circulation to the lowest
denomination of notes which can be forced upon the community, is a
trait in the system universally proved to exist wherever banks of
circulation have been permitted to give a currency to a country;
and the effect of that instinct has always been to banish gold and
silver. When the Bank of England was chartered, in the year 1694,
it could issue no note less than £100 sterling; that amount was
gradually reduced by the persevering efforts of the bank, to £50;
then to £20; then to £15; then to £10; at last to £5; and finally to
£2 and £1. Those last denominations were not reached until the year
1797, or until one hundred and three years after the institution of
the bank; and as the several reductions in the size of the notes,
and the consequent increase of paper currency took place, gold
became more and more scarce; and with the issue of the one and two
pound notes, it totally disappeared from the country.
"This effect was foretold by all political economists, and
especially by Mr. Burke, then aged and retired from public life,
who wrote from his retreat, to Mr. Canning, to say to Mr. Pitt, the
Prime Minister, these prophetic words: 'If this bill for the one and
two pounds is permitted to pass, we shall never see another guinea
in England.' The bill did pass, and the prediction was fulfilled;
for not another guinea, half guinea, or sovereign, was seen in
England, for circulation, until the bill was repealed two and twenty
years afterwards! After remaining nearly a quarter of a century
without a gold circulation, England abolished her one and two pound
notes, limited her paper currency to £5 sterling, required all Bank
of England notes to be paid in gold, and allowed four years for
the act to take effect. Before the four years were out, the Bank
of England reported to Parliament that it was ready to begin gold
payments; and commenced accordingly, and has continued them ever
since.
"The encouragement of counterfeiting was the next great evil
which Mr. B. pointed out as belonging to a small note currency;
and of all the denominations of notes, he said those of one and
two pounds in England (corresponding with fives and tens in the
United States), were those to which the demoralizing business of
counterfeiting was chiefly directed! They were the chosen game
of the forging depredator! and that, for the obvious reasons that
fives and tens were small enough to pass currently among persons
not much acquainted with bank paper, and large enough to afford
some profit to compensate for the expense and labor of producing
the counterfeit, and the risk of passing it. Below fives, the
profits are too small for the labor and risk. Too many have to be
forged and passed before an article of any value can be purchased;
and the change to be got in silver, in passing one for a small
article, is too little. Of twenty and upwards, though the profit
is greater on passing them, yet the danger of detection is also
greater. On account of its larger size, the note is not only more
closely scrutinized before it is received, and the passer of it
better remembered, but the circulation of them is more confined to
business men and large dealers, and silver change will not be given
for them in buying small articles. The fives and tens, then, in
the United States, like the £1 and £2 in England, are the peculiar
game of counterfeiters, and this is fully proved by the criminal
statistics of the forgery department in both countries. According to
returns made to the British Parliament for twenty-two years--from
1797 to 1819--the period in which the one and two pound notes
were allowed to circulate, the whole number of prosecutions for
counterfeiting, or passing counterfeit notes of the Bank of England,
was 998: in that number there were 313 capital convictions; 530
inferior convictions; and 155 acquittals: and the sum of £249,900,
near a million and a quarter of dollars, was expended by the bank
in attending to prosecutions. Of this great number of prosecutions,
the returns show that the mass of them were for offences connected
with the one and two pound notes. The proportion may be distinctly
seen in the number of counterfeit notes of different denominations
detected at the Bank of England in a given period of time--from the
1st of January, 1812, to the 10th of April, 1818--being a period of
six years and three months out of the twenty-two years that the one
and two pound notes continued to circulate. The detections were, of
one pound notes, the number of 107,238; of two pound notes, 17,787;
of five pound notes, 5,826; of ten pound notes, 419; of twenty pound
notes, 54. Of all above twenty pounds, 35. The proportion of ones
and twos to the other sizes may be well seen in the tables for this
brief period; but to have any idea of the mass of counterfeiting
done upon those small notes, the whole period of twenty-two years
must be considered, and the entire kingdom of Great Britain taken
in; for the list only includes the number of counterfeits detected
at the counter of the bank; a place to which the guilty never carry
their forgeries, and to which a portion only of those circulating
in and about London could be carried. The proportion of crime
connected with the small notes is here shown to be enormously
and frightfully great. The same results are found in the United
States. Mr. B. had looked over the statistics of crime connected
with the counterfeiting of bank notes in the United States, and
found the ratio between the great and small notes to be about
the same that it was in England. He had had recourse to the most
authentic data--Bicknell's Counterfeit Detector--and there found
the editions of counterfeit notes of the local or State banks, to
be eight hundred and eighteen, of which seven hundred and fifty-six
were of ten dollars and under; and sixty-two editions only were of
twenty dollars and upwards. Of the Bank of the United States and
its branches, he found eighty-two editions of fives; seventy-one
editions of tens; twenty-six editions of twenties; and two editions
of fifties; still showing that in the United States, as well as in
England, on local banks as well as that of the United States, the
course of counterfeiting was still the same; and that the whole
stress of the crime fell upon the five and ten dollar notes in this
country, and their corresponding classes, the one and two pound
notes in England. Mr. B. also exhibited the pages of Bicknell's
Counterfeit Detector, a pamphlet covered over column after column
with its frightful lists, nearly all under twenty dollars; and he
called upon the Senate in the sacred name of the morals of the
country--in the name of virtue and morality--to endeavor to check
the fountain of this crime, by stopping the issue of the description
of notes on which it exerted nearly its whole force.
"Mr. B. could not quit the evils of the crime of counterfeiting in
the United States without remarking that the difficulty of legal
detection and punishment was so great, owing to the distance at
which the counterfeits were circulated from the banks purporting
to issue them, and the still greater difficulty (in most cases
impossible) of getting witnesses to attend in person, in States
in which they do not reside, the counterfeiters all choosing to
practise their crime and circulate their forgeries in States
which do not contain the banks whose paper they are imitating. So
difficult is it to obtain the attendance of witnesses in other
States, that the crime of counterfeiting is almost practised with
impunity. The notes under $20 feed and supply this crime; let them
be stopped, and ninety-nine hundredths of this crime will stop with
them.
"A third objection which Mr. B. urged against the notes under
twenty dollars was, that nearly the whole evils of that part of
the paper system fell upon the laboring and small dealing part of
the community. Nearly all the counterfeits lodged in their hands,
or were shaved out of their hands. When a bank failed, the mass
of its circulation being in small notes, sunk upon their hands.
The gain to the banks from the wear and tear of small notes, came
out of them; the loss from the same cause, falling upon them. The
ten or twelve percent. annual profit for furnishing a currency in
place of gold and silver (for which no interest would be paid to
the mint or the government), chiefly falls upon them; for the paper
currency is chiefly under twenty dollars. These evils they almost
exclusively bear, while they have, over and above all these, their
full proportion of all the evils resulting from the expansions and
contractions which are incessantly going on, totally destroying the
standard of value, periodically convulsing the country; and in every
cycle of five or six years making a lottery of all property, in
which all the prizes are drawn by bank managers and their friends.
"He wished the basis of circulation throughout the country to be in
hard money. Farmers, laborers, and market people, ought to receive
their payments in hard money. They ought not to be put to the risk
of receiving bank notes in all their small dealings. They are no
judges of good or bad notes. Counterfeits are sure to fall upon
their hands; and the whole business of counterfeiting was mainly
directed to such notes as they handle--those under twenty dollars.
"Mr. B. said he here wished to fix the attention of those who
were in favor of a respectable paper currency--a currency of
respectable-sized notes of twenty dollars and upwards--on the great
fact, that the larger the specie basis, the larger and safer would
be the superstructure of paper which rested upon it; the smaller
that specie basis, the smaller and more unsafe must be the paper
which rested on it. The currency of England is $300,000,000, to
wit: £8,000,000 sterling (near $40,000,000) in silver; £22,000,000
sterling (above $100,000,000) in gold; and about £30,000,000
sterling (near $150,000,000) in bank notes. The currency of the
United States is difficult to be ascertained, from the multitude of
banks, and the incessant ebb and flow of their issues; calculations
vary; but all put the paper circulation at less than $100,000,000;
and the proportion of specie and paper, at more than one half paper.
This is agreed upon all hands, and is sufficient for the practical
result, that an increase of our specie to $100,000,000, and the
suppression of small notes, will give a larger total circulation
than we now have, and a safer one. The total circulation may
then be $200,000,000, in the proportions of half paper and half
specie; and the specie, half gold and half silver. This would be an
immense improvement upon our present condition, both in quantity
and in quality; the paper part would become respectable from the
suppression of notes under twenty dollars, which are of no profit
except to the banks which issue them, and the counterfeiters
who imitate them; the specie part would be equally improved by
becoming one half gold. Mr. B. could not quit this important point,
namely, the practicability of soon obtaining a specie currency of
$100,000,000, and the one half gold, without giving other proofs
to show the facility with which it has been every where done when
attempted. He referred to our own history immediately after the
Revolution, when the disappearance of paper money was instantly
followed, as if by magic, by the appearance of gold and silver;
to France, where the energy of the great Napoleon, then first
consul, restored an abundant supply of gold and silver in one
year; to England, where the acquisition of gold was at the rate of
$24,000,000 per annum for four years after the notes under five
pounds were ordered to be suppressed; and he referred with triumph
to our own present history, when, in defiance of an immense and
powerful political and moneyed combination against gold, we will
have acquired about $20,000,000 of that metal in the two concluding
years of President Jackson's administration.
"Mr. B. took this occasion to express his regret that the true idea
of banks seemed to be lost in this country, and that here we had
but little conception of a bank, except as an issuer of currency.
A bank of discount and deposit, in contradistinction to a bank of
circulation, is hardly thought of in the United States; and it may
be news to some bank projectors, who suppose that nothing can be
done without banks to issue millions of paper, to learn that the
great bankers in London and Paris, and other capitals of Europe,
issue no paper; and, still more, it may be news to them to learn
that Liverpool and Manchester, two cities which happen to do about
as much business as a myriad of such cities as this our Washington
put together, also happen to have no banks to issue currency for
them. They use money and bills of exchange, and have banks of
discount and deposit, but no banks of circulation. Mr. Gallatin, in
his Essay upon Currency, thus speaks of them:
"'There are, however, even in England, where incorporated country
banks issuing paper are as numerous, and have been attended with
the same advantages, and the same evils, as our country banks, some
extensive districts, highly industrious and prosperous, where no
such bank does exist, and where that want is supplied by bills of
exchange drawn on London. This is the case in Lancashire, which
includes Liverpool and Manchester, and where such bills, drawn at
ninety days after date, are indorsed by each successive holder, and
circulate through numerous persons before they reach their ultimate
destination, and are paid by the drawee.'
"Mr. B. greatly regretted that such banks as those in Liverpool
and Manchester were not in vogue in the United States. They were
the right kind of banks. They did great good, and were wholly free
from mischief. They lent money; they kept money; they transferred
credits on books; they bought and sold bills of exchange; and
these bills, circulating through many hands, and indorsed by each,
answered the purpose of large bank notes, without their dangers, and
became stronger every time they were passed. To the banks it was a
profitable business to sell them, because they got both exchange and
interest. To the commercial community they were convenient, both
as a remittance and as funds in hand. To the community they were
entirely safe. Banks of discount and deposit in the United States,
issuing no currency, and issuing no bank note except of $100 and
upwards, and dealing in exchange, would be entitled to the favor and
confidence of the people and of the federal government. Such banks
only should be the depositories of the public moneys.
"It is the faculty of issuing paper currency which makes banks
dangerous to the country, and the height to which this danger has
risen in the United States, and the progress which it is making,
should rouse and alarm the whole community. It is destroying all
standard of value. It is subjecting the country to demoralizing
and ruinous fluctuations of price. It is making a lottery of
property, and making merchandise of money, which has to be bought
by the ticket holders in the great lottery at two and three per
cent. a month. It is equivalent to the destruction of weights and
measures, and like buying and selling without counting, weighing,
or measuring. It is the realization, in a different form, of the
debasement and arbitrary alteration of the value of coins practised
by the kings of Europe in former ages, and now by the Sultan of
Turkey. It is extinguishing the idea of fixed, moderate, annual
interest. Great duties are thus imposed upon the legislator; and
the first of these duties is to revive and favor the class of banks
of discount and deposit; banks to make loans, keep money, transfer
credits on books, buy and sell exchange, deal in bullion; but to
issue no paper. This class of banks should be revived and favored;
and the United States could easily revive them by confiding to them
the public deposits. The next great duty of the legislator is to
limit the issues of banks of circulation, and make them indemnify
the community in some little degree, by refunding, in annual taxes,
some part of their undue gains.
"The progress of the banking business is alarming and deplorable in
the United States. It is now computed that there are 750 banks and
their branches in operation, all having authority to issue currency;
and, what is worse, all that currency is receivable by the federal
government. The quantity of chartered bank capital, as it is called,
is estimated at near $800,000,000; the amount of this capital
reported by the banks to have been paid in is about $300,000,000;
and the quantity of paper money which they are authorized by their
charters to issue is about $750,000,000. How much of this is
actually issued can never be known with any precision; for such are
the fluctuations in the amount of a paper currency, flowing from
750 fountains, that the circulation of one day cannot be relied
upon for the next. The amount of capital, reported to be paid in,
is, however, well ascertained, and that is fixed at $300,000,000.
This, upon its face, and without recourse to any other evidence, is
proof that our banking system, as a whole, is unsolid and delusive,
and a frightful imposition upon the people. Nothing but specie can
form the capital of a bank; there are not above sixty or seventy
millions of specie in the country, and, of that, the banks have not
the one half. Thirty millions in specie is the extent; the remainder
of the capital must have been made up of that undefinable material
called 'specie funds,' or 'funds equivalent to specie,' the fallacy
of which is established by the facts already stated, and which show
that all the specie in the country put together is not sufficient
to meet the one fifth part of these 'specie funds,' or 'funds
equivalent to specie.' The equivalent, then, does not exist! credit
alone exists; and any general attempt to realize these 'specie
funds,' and turn them into specie, would explode the whole banking
system, and cover the country with ruin. There may be some solid and
substantial banks in the country, and undoubtedly there are better
and worse among them; but as a whole--and it is in that point of
view the community is interested--as a whole, the system is unsolid
and delusive; and there is no safety for the country until great and
radical reforms are effected.
"The burdens which these 750 banks impose upon the people were
then briefly touched by Mr. B. It was a great field, which he had
not time to explore, but which could not, in justice, be entirely
passed by. First, there were the salaries and fees of 750 sets of
bank officers: presidents, cashiers, clerks, messengers, notaries
public to protest notes, and attorneys to sue on them; all these
had salaries, and good salaries, paid by the people, though the
people had no hand in fixing these salaries: next, the profits to
the stockholders, which, at an average of ten per centum gross
would give thirty millions of dollars, all levied upon the people;
then came the profits to the brokers, first cousins to the bankers,
for changing notes for money, or for other notes at par; then the
gain to the banks and their friends on speculations in property,
merchandise, produce, and stocks, during the periodical visitations
of the expansions and contractions of the currency; then the gain
from the wear and tear of notes, which is so much loss to the
people; and, finally, the great chapter of counterfeiting which,
without being profitable to the bank, is a great burden to the
people, on whose hands all the counterfeits sink. The amount of
these burdens he could not compute; but there was one item about
which there was no dispute--the salaries to the officers and the
profits to the stockholders--and this presented an array of names
more numerous, and an amount of money more excessive, than was to be
found in the 'Blue Book,' with the Army and Navy Register inclusive.
"Mr. B. said this was a faint sketch of the burdens of the banking
system as carried on in the United States, where every bank is a
coiner of paper currency, and where every town, in some States,
must have its banks of circulation, while such cities as Liverpool
and Manchester have no such banks, and where the paper money of all
these machines receive wings to fly over the whole continent, and
to infest the whole land, from their universal receivability by the
federal government in payment of all dues at their custom-houses,
land-offices, post-offices, and by all the district attorneys,
marshals, and clerks, employed under the federal judiciary. The
improvidence of the States, in chartering such institutions, is
great and deplorable; but their error was trifling, compared to the
improvidence of the federal government in taking the paper coinage
of all these banks for the currency of the federal government,
maugre that clause in the constitution which recognizes nothing but
gold and silver for currency, and which was intended for ever to
defend and preserve this Union from the evils of paper money.
"Mr. B. averred, with a perfect knowledge of the fact, that the
banking system of the United States was on a worse footing than
it was in any country upon the face of the earth; and that, in
addition to its deep and dangerous defects, it was also the most
expensive and burdensome, and gave the most undue advantages to
one part of the community over another. He had no doubt but that
this banking system was more burdensome to the free citizens of the
United States than ever the feudal system was to the villeins, and
serfs, and peasants of Europe. And what did they get in return for
this vast burden? A pestiferous currency of small paper! when they
might have a gold currency without paying interest, or suffering
losses, if their banks, like those in Liverpool and Manchester,
issued no currency except as bills of exchange; or, like the Bank of
France, issued no notes but those of 500 and 1,000 francs (say $100
and $500); or even, like the Bank of England, issued no note under
£5 sterling, and payable in gold. And with how much real capital
is this banking system, so burdensome to the people of the United
States, carried on? About $30,000,000! Yes; on about $30,000,000 of
specie rests the $300,000,000 paid in, and on which the community
are paying interest, and giving profits to bankers, and blindly
yielding their faith and confidence, as if the whole $300,000,000
was a solid bed of gold and silver, instead of being, as it is, one
tenth part specie, and nine tenths paper credit!"
Other senators spoke against the recharter of these banks, without
the amelioration of their charters which the public welfare
required; but without effect. The amendments were all rejected,
and the bill passed for the recharter of the whole six by a large
vote--26 to 14. The yeas and nays were:
YEAS.--Messrs. Black, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden,
Cuthbert, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Hendricks,
Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, Knight, Leigh, Naudain,
Nicholas, Porter, Prentiss, Rives, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge,
Tomlinson, Walker, Webster.
NAYS.--Messrs. Benton, Ewing of Illinois, King of Georgia, Linn,
McKean, Mangum, Morris, Niles, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Wall,
White, Wright.
CHAPTER CXLIV.
INDEPENDENCE OF TEXAS.
During several months memorials had been coming in from public
meetings in different cities in favor of acknowledging the
independence of Texas--the public feeling in behalf of the people
of that small revolted province, strong from the beginning of the
contest, now inflamed into rage from the massacres of the Alamo
and of Goliad. Towards the middle of May news of the victory of
San Jacinto arrived at Washington. Public feeling no longer knew
any bounds. The people were exalted--Congress not less so--and
a feeling for the acknowledgment of Texian independence, if not
universal, almost general. The sixteenth of May--the first sitting
of the Senate after this great news--Mr. Mangum, of North Carolina,
presented the proceedings of a public meeting in Burke county, of
that State, praying Congress to acknowledge the independence of the
young republic. Mr. Preston said: "The effects of that victory had
opened up a curtain to a most magnificent scene. This invader had
come at the head of his forces, urged on by no ordinary impulse--by
an infuriate fanaticism--by a superstitious catholicism, goaded on
by a miserable priesthood, against that invincible Anglo-Saxon race,
the van of which now approaches the _del Norte_. It was at once a
war of religion and of liberty. And when that noble race engaged in
a war, victory was sure to perch upon their standard. This was not
merely the retribution of the cruel war upon the Alamo, but that
tide which was swollen by this extraordinary victory would roll
on; and it was not in the spirit of prophecy to say where it would
stop." Mr. Walker, of Mississippi, said:
"He had, upon the 22d of April last, called the attention of the
Senate to the struggle in Texas, and suggested the reservation
of any surplus that might remain in the treasury, for the
purpose of acquiring Texas from whatever government might remain
the government _de facto_ of that country. At that period (said
Mr. W.) no allusion had been made, he believed, by any one in
either House of Congress to the situation of affairs in Texas.
And now (said Mr. W.), upon the very day that he had called the
attention of the Senate to this subject, it appeared that Santa
Anna had been captured, and his army overthrown. Mr. W. said he
had never doubted this result. When on the 22d of April last,
resolutions were introduced before the Senate by the senator
from Ohio (Mr. Morris), requesting Congress to recognize the
independence of Texas, he (Mr. W.) had opposed laying these
resolutions on the table, and advocated their reference to
a committee of the Senate. Mr. W. said he had addressed the
Senate then under very different circumstances from those which
now existed. The cries of the expiring prisoners at the Alamo
were then resounding in our ears; the victorious usurper was
advancing onward with his exterminating warfare, and, in the
minds of many, all was gloom and despondency; but Mr. W. said
that the published report of our proceedings demonstrated that
he did not for a moment despond; that his confidence in the
rifle of the West was firm and unshaken; and that he had then
declared that the sun was not more certain to set in the western
horizon, than that Texas would maintain her independence; and
this sentiment he had taken occasion to repeat in the debate on
this subject in the Senate on the 9th of May last. Mr. W. said
that what was then prediction was now reality; and his heart
beat high, and his pulse throbbed with delight, in contemplating
this triumph of liberty. Sir (said Mr. W.), the people of the
valley of the Mississippi never could have permitted Santa Anna
and his myrmidons to retain the dominion of Texas."
Mr. Walker afterwards moved the reference of all the memorials in
relation to Texas to the Committee on Foreign Relations. If the
accounts received from Texas had been official (for as yet there
were nothing but newspaper accounts of the great victory), he would
have moved for the immediate recognition of the Texian independence.
Being unofficial, he could only move the reference to the committee
in the expectation that they would investigate the facts and bring
the subject before the Senate in a suitable form for action. Mr.
Webster said:
"That if the people of Texas had established a government _de
facto_, it was undoubtedly the duty of this government to
acknowledge their independence. The time and manner of doing
so, however, were all matters proper for grave and mature
consideration. He should have been better satisfied, had this
matter not been moved again till all the evidence had been
collected, and until they had received official information of
the important events that had taken place in Texas. As this
proceeding had been moved by a member of the administration
party, he felt himself bound to understand that the Executive
was not opposed to take the first steps now, and that in
his opinion this proceeding was not dangerous or premature.
Mr. W. was of opinion that it would be best not to act with
precipitation. If this information was true, they would
doubtless before long hear from Texas herself; for as soon as
she felt that she was a country, and had a country, she would
naturally present her claims to her neighbors, to be recognized
as an independent nation. He did not say that it would be
necessary to wait for this event, but he thought it would be
discreet to do so. He would be one of the first to acknowledge
the independence of Texas, on reasonable proof that she had
established a government. There were views connected with Texas
which he would not now present, as it would be premature to do
so; but he would observe that he had received some information
from a respectable source, which turned his attention to the
very significant expression used by Mr. Monroe in his message
of 1822, that no European Power should ever be permitted to
establish a colony on the American continent. He had no doubt
that attempts would be made by some European government to
obtain a cession of Texas from the government of Mexico."
Mr. King, of Alabama, counselled moderation and deliberation,
although he was aware that in the present excited feeling in
relation to Texas, every prudent and cautious course would be
misunderstood, and a proper reserve be probably construed into
hostility to Texian independence: but he would, so long as he
remained a member on that floor, be regardless of every personal
consideration, and place himself in opposition to all measures which
he conceived were calculated to detract from the exalted character
of this country for good faith, and for undeviating adherence to all
its treaty stipulations. He then went on to say:
"He knew not whether the information received of the
extraordinary successes of the Texans was to be relied on or
not; he sincerely hoped it might prove true; no man here felt
a deeper detestation of the bloodthirsty wretches who had
cruelly butchered their defenceless prisoners, than he did;
but, whether true or false, did it become wise, discreet,
prudent men, bound by the strongest considerations to preserve
the honor and faith of the country, to be hurried along by the
effervescence of feeling, and at once abandon the course, and,
he would say, the only true course, which this government has
invariably, heretofore, pursued towards foreign powers? We have
uniformly (said Mr. K.) recognized the existing governments--the
governments _de facto_; we have not stopped to inquire whether
it is a despotic or constitutional government; whether it is
a republic or a despotism. All we ask is, does a government
actually exist? and, having satisfied ourselves of that fact,
we look no further, but recognize it as it is. It was on this
principle (said Mr. K.)--this safe, this correct principle,
that we recognized what was called the Republic of France,
founded on the ruins of the old monarchy; then, the consular
government; a little after, the imperial; and when that was
crushed by a combination of all Europe, and that extraordinary
man who wielded it was driven into exile, we again acknowledged
the kingly government of the House of Bourbon, and now the
constitutional King Louis Philippe of Orleans.
"Sir (said Mr. K.), we take things as they are; we ask not
how governments are established--by what revolutions they are
brought into existence. Let us see an independent government in
Texas, and he would not be behind the senator from Mississippi
nor the senator from South Carolina in pressing forward to its
recognition, and establishing with it the most cordial and
friendly relations."
Mr. Calhoun went beyond all other speakers, and advocated not
only immediate recognition of the independence of Texas, but her
simultaneous admission into the Union; was in favor of acting on
both questions together, and at the present session; and saw an
interest in the slaveholding States in preventing Texas from having
the power to annoy them. And he said:
"He was of opinion that it would add more strength to the cause
of Texas, to wait for a few days, until they received official
confirmation of the victory and capture of Santa Anna, in order
to obtain a more unanimous vote in favor of the recognition of
Texas. He had been of but one opinion, from the beginning, that,
so far from Mexico being able to reduce Texas, there was great
danger of Mexico, herself, being conquered by the Texans. The
result of one battle had placed the ruler of Mexico in the power
of the Texans; and they were now able, either to dictate what
terms they pleased to him, or to make terms with the opposition
in Mexico. This extraordinary meeting had given a handful of
brave men a most powerful control over the destinies of Mexico;
he trusted they would use their victory with moderation. He
had made up his mind not only to recognize the independence of
Texas, but for her admission into this Union; and if the Texans
managed their affairs prudently, they would soon be called upon
to decide that question. No man could suppose for a moment
that that country could ever come again under the dominion of
Mexico; and he was of opinion that it was not for our interests
that there should be an independent community between us and
Mexico. There were powerful reasons why Texas should be a part
of this Union. The Southern States, owning a slave population,
were deeply interested in preventing that country from having
the power to annoy them; and the navigating and manufacturing
interests of the North and the East were equally interested in
making it a part of this Union. He thought they would soon be
called on to decide these questions; and when they did act on
it, he was for acting on both together--for recognizing the
independence of Texas, and for admitting her into the Union.
Though he felt the deepest solicitude on this subject, he was
for acting calmly, deliberately, and cautiously, but at the same
time with decision and firmness. They should not violate their
neutrality; but when they were once satisfied that Texas had
established a government, they should do as they had done in
all other similar cases: recognize her as an independent nation;
and if her people, who were once citizens of this Republic,
wished to come back to us, he would receive them with open arms.
If events should go on as they had done, he could not but hope
that, before the close of the present session of Congress, they
would not only acknowledge the independence of Texas, but admit
her into the Union. He hoped there would be no unnecessary
delay, for, in such cases, delays were dangerous; but that they
would act with unanimity, and act promptly."
The author of this View did not reply to Mr. Calhoun, being then on
ill terms with him; but he saw in the speech much to be considered
and remembered--the shadowings forth of coming events; the
revelation of a new theatre for the slavery agitation; and a design
to make the Texas question an element in the impending election. Mr.
Calhoun had been one of Mr. Monroe's cabinet, at the time that Texas
was ceded to Spain, and for reasons (as Mr. Monroe stated to General
Jackson, in the private letter heretofore quoted) of internal policy
and consideration; that is to say, to conciliate the free States,
by amputating slave territory, and preventing their opposition
to future Southern presidential candidates. He did not use those
precise words, but that was the meaning of the words used. The
cession of Texas was made in the crisis of the Missouri controversy;
and both Mr. Monroe and Mr. Calhoun received the benefit of the
conciliation it produced: Mr. Monroe in the re-election, almost
unanimous, of 1820; and Mr. Calhoun in the vice-presidential
elections of 1824 and 1828; in which he was so much a favorite of
the North as to get more votes than Mr. Adams received in the free
States, and owed to them his honorable election by the people, when
all others were defeated, on the popular vote. Their justification
(that of Mr. Monroe's cabinet) for this cession of a great province,
was, that the loss was temporary--"that it could be got back again
whenever it was wanted"--but the victory of San Jacinto was hardly
foreseen at that time. It was these reasons (Northern conciliation,
and getting it back when we pleased) that reconciled General Jackson
to the cession, at the time it was made. One of the foremost to give
away Texas, Mr. Calhoun was the very foremost to get her back; and
at an immense cost to our foreign relations and domestic peace. The
immediate admission of Texas into the Union, was his plan. She was
at war with Mexico--we at peace: to incorporate her into the Union,
was to adopt her war. We had treaties of amity with Mexico: to join
Texas in the war, was to be faithless to those treaties. We had a
presidential election depending; and to discuss the question of
Texian admission into our Union, was to bring that element into the
canvass, in which all prudent men who were adverse to the admission
(as Mr. Van Buren and his friends were), would be thrown under the
force of an immense popular current; while all that were in favor
of it would expect to swim high upon the waves of that current. The
proposition was incredibly rash, tending to involve us in war and
dishonor; and also disrespectful to Texas herself, who had not asked
for admission; and extravagantly hasty, in being broached before
there was any official news of the great victory. Before the debate
was over, the author of this View took an opportunity to reply,
without reference to other speakers, and to give reasons against
the present admission of Texas. But there was one of Mr. Calhoun's
reasons for immediate admission, which to him was enigmatical, and
at that time, incomprehensible; and that was, the prevention of
Texas "from having the power to annoy" the Southern slave States. We
had just been employed in suppressing, or exploding, this annoyance,
in the Northeast; and, in the twinkling of an eye, it sprung up in
the Southwest, two thousand miles off, and quite diagonally from its
late point of apparition. That sudden and so distant re-appearance
of the danger, was a puzzle, remaining unsolved until the Tyler
administration, and the return of Mr. Duff Green from London, with
the discovery of the British abolition plot; which was to be planted
in Texas, spread into the South, and blow up its slavery. Mr.
Bedford Brown, and others, answered Mr. Calhoun. Mr. Brown said:
"He regarded our national character as worth infinitely more
than all the territorial possessions of Mexico, her wealth, or
the wealth of all other nations added together. We occupied a
standing among the nations of the earth, of which we might well
be proud, and which we ought not to permit to be tarnished. We
have, said Mr. B., arrived at that period of our history, as
a nation, when it behooves us to act with the greatest wisdom
and circumspection. But a few years since as a nation, we were
comparatively in a state of infancy; we were now, in the
confidence of youth, and with the buoyancy of spirit incident
to this period of our existence as a nation, about to enter on
'man's estate.' Powerful in resources, and conscious of our
strength, let us not forget the sacred obligations of justice
and good faith, which form the indispensable basis of a nation's
character--greatness and freedom; and without which, no people
could long preserve the blessings of self-government. Republican
government was based on the principles of justice; and for it to
be administered on any other, either in its foreign or domestic
affairs, was to undermine its foundation and to hasten its
overthrow."
Mr. Rives concurred in the necessity for caution; and said:
"This government should act with moderation, calmness, and
dignity; and, because he wished the Senate to act with that
becoming moderation, calmness, and dignity, which ought to
characterize its deliberations on international subjects, it
was his wish that the subject might be referred. If it was
postponed, it would come up again for discussion, from morning
to morning, to the exclusion of most of the business of the
Senate, as there was nothing to prevent the presentation of
petitions every morning, to excite discussion. It was for the
purpose of avoiding these discussions, that he should vote
to refer it at once to the Committee on Foreign Relations. A
prominent member of that committee had been long and intimately
acquainted with the subject of our foreign relations, and there
were members on it representing all the different sections of
the country, to whose charge he believed the subject could be
safely committed. It would seem, from the course of debate
this morning, that gentlemen supposed the question of the
recognition of the independence of Texas, or its admission into
this Union, was directly before the Senate; and some gentlemen
had volunteered their opinions in advance of the report of the
committee. He did not vote to refer it to the committee to
receive its quietus, but that they might give their views upon
it; nor did he feel as if he were called upon to express an
opinion upon the propriety of the measure. It was strange that
senators, who stated that their opinions were made up, should
oppose the reference."
Mr. Niles, of Connecticut, was entirely in favor of preserving the
national faith inviolate, and its honor untarnished, and ourselves
from the imputation of base motives in our future conduct in
relation to Texas, and said:
"This was a case in which this government should act with
caution. In ordinary cases of this kind the question was only
one of fact, and was but little calculated to compromit the
interests or honor of the United States; but the question in
regard to Texas was very different, and vastly more important.
That is a country on our own borders, and its inhabitants, most
of them, emigrants from the United States; and most of the brave
men constituting its army, who are so heroically fighting to
redeem the province, are citizens of the United States, who
have engaged in this bold enterprise as volunteers. Were this
government to be precipitate in acknowledging the independence
of Texas, might it not be exposed to a suspicion of having
encouraged these enterprises of its citizens? There is another
consideration of more importance. Should the independence of
Texas be followed by its annexation to the United States,
the reasons for suspicions derogatory to the national faith
might be still stronger. If we, by our own act, contribute to
clothe the constituted authorities of the province with the
power of sovereignty over it, and then accept a cession of
the country from those authorities, might there not be some
reason to charge us with having recognized the independence
of the country as a means of getting possession of it? These
and other considerations require that this government should
act with caution; yet, when the proper time arrives it will be
our duty to act, and to act promptly. But he trusted that all
would feel the importance of preserving the national faith and
national honor. They should not only be kept pure, but free from
injurious suspicions, being more to be prized than any extension
of territory, wealth, population, or other acquisition, which
enters into the elements of national prosperity or power."
The various memorials were referred to the committee on foreign
relations, consisting of Mr. Clay, Mr. King of Georgia, Mr.
Tallmadge, Mr. Mangum, and Mr. Porter of Louisiana; which reported
early, and unanimously, in favor of the recognition of the
independence of Texas, as soon as satisfactory information should
be received, showing that she had a civil government in operation
capable of performing the duties and fulfilling the obligations of a
civilized power. In the report which accompanied the Resolution, its
author, Mr. Clay, said:
"Sentiments of sympathy and devotion to civil liberty,
which have always animated the people of the United States,
have prompted the adoption of the resolution, and other
manifestations of popular feeling which have been referred
to the committee, recommending an acknowledgment of the
independence of Texas. The committee shares fully in all these
sentiments; but a wise and prudent government should not act
solely on the impulse of feeling, however natural and laudable
it may be. It ought to avoid all precipitation, and not adopt
so grave a measure as that of recognizing the independence of a
new Power, until it has satisfactory information, and has fully
deliberated.
"The committee has no information respecting the recent
movements in Texas, except such as is derived from the
public prints. According to that, the war broke out in
Texas last autumn. Its professed object, like that of our
revolutionary contest in the commencement, was not separation
and independence, but a redress of grievances. In March last,
independence was proclaimed, and a constitution and form of
government were established. No means of ascertaining accurately
the exact amount of the population of Texas are at the command
of the committee. It has been estimated at some sixty or seventy
thousand souls. Nor are the precise limits of the country which
passes under the denomination of Texas known to the committee.
They are probably not clearly defined, but they are supposed to
be extensive, and sufficiently large, when peopled, to form a
respectable Power."
Mr. Southard concurred in the views and conclusion of the report,
but desired to say a few words in reply to that part of Mr.
Calhoun's speech which looked to the "balance of power, and the
perpetuation of our institutions," as a reason for the speedy
admission of Texas into the Union, and said:
"I should not have risen to express these notions, if I had not
understood the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun] to
declare that he regarded the acknowledgment of the independence
of Texas as important, and principally important, because it
prepared the way for the speedy admission of that State as
a member of our Union; and that he looked anxiously to that
event, as conducing to a proper balance of power, and to the
perpetuation of our institutions. I am not now, sir, prepared
to express an opinion on that question--a question which all
must foresee will embrace interests as wide as our Union, and
as lasting in their consequences as the freedom which our
institutions secure. When it shall be necessarily presented to
me, I shall endeavor to meet it in a manner suitable to its
magnitude, and to the vital interests which it involves; but I
will not, on the present resolution, anticipate it; nor can I
permit an inference, as to my decision upon it, to be drawn from
the vote which I now give. That vote is upon this resolution
alone, and confined to it, founded upon principles sustained
by the laws of nations, upon the unvarying practice of our
government, and upon the facts as they are now known to exist.
It relates to the independence of Texas, not to the admission of
Texas into this Union. The achievement of the one, at the proper
time, may be justified; the other may be found to be opposed by
the highest and strongest considerations of interest and duty. I
discuss neither at this time; nor am I willing that the remarks
of the senator should lead, in or out of this chamber, to the
inference that all those who vote for the resolution concur with
him in opinion. The question which he has started should be left
perfectly open and free."
The vote in favor of the Resolution reported by Mr. Clay was
unanimous--39 senators present and voting. In the House of
Representatives a similar resolution was reported from the House
Committee of foreign relations, Mr. John Y. Mason, of Virginia,
chairman; and adopted by a vote of 113 to 22. The nays were: Messrs.
John Quincy Adams, Heman Allen, Jeremiah Bailey, Andrew Beaumont,
James W. Bouldin, William Clark, Walter Coles, Edward Darlington,
George Grennell, jr., Hiland Hall, Abner Hazeltine, William Hiester,
Abbott Lawrence, Levi Lincoln, Thomas C. Love, John J. Milligan,
Dutee J. Pearce, Stephen C. Phillips, David Potts, jr., John Reed,
David Russell, William Slade.
It is remarkable that in the progress of this Texas question both
Mr. Adams and Mr. Calhoun reversed their positions--the former being
against, and the latter in favor, of its alienation in 1819; the
former being against, and the latter in favor of its recovery in
1836-'44.--Mr. Benton was the last speaker in the Senate in favor
of the recognition of independence; and his speech being the most
full and carefully historical of any one delivered, it is presented
entire in the next chapter; and, it is believed, that in going more
fully than other speakers did into the origin and events of the
Texas Revolution, it will give a fair and condensed view of that
remarkable event, so interesting to the American people.
CHAPTER CXLV.
TEXAS INDEPENDENCE--MR. BENTON'S SPEECH.
'Mr. Benton rose and said he should confine himself strictly to the
proposition presented in the resolution, and should not complicate
the practical question of recognition with speculations on the
future fate of Texas. Such speculations could have no good effect
upon either of the countries interested; upon Mexico, Texas, or the
United States. Texas has not asked for admission into this Union.
Her independence is still contested by Mexico. Her boundaries and
other important points in her political condition, are not yet
adjusted. To discuss the question of her admission into this Union,
under these circumstances, is to treat her with disrespect, to
embroil ourselves with Mexico, to compromise the disinterestedness
of our motives in the eyes of Europe; and to start among ourselves
prematurely, and without reason, a question which, whenever it
comes, cannot be without its own intrinsic difficulties and
perplexities.
"Since the three months that the affairs of Texas have been the
subject of repeated discussion in this chamber, I have imposed
on myself a reserve, not the effect of want of feeling, but the
effect of strong feeling, and some judgment combined, which has
not permitted me to give utterance to the general expression of
my sentiments. Once only have I spoken, and that at the most
critical moment of the contest, and when the reported advance of
the Mexicans upon Nacogdoches, and the actual movement of General
Gaines and our own troops in that direction, gave reason to
apprehend the encounter of flags, or the collision of arms, which
might compromise individuals or endanger the peace of nations. It
was then that I used those words, not entirely enigmatical, and
which have since been repeated by some, without the prefix of their
important qualifications, namely; that while neutrality was the
obvious line of our duty and of our interest, yet there might be
emergencies in which the obligation of duty could have no force, and
the calculations of interest could have no place; when, in fact,
a man should have no head to think! nothing but a heart to feel!
and an arm to strike! and I illustrated this sentiment. It was
after the affair of Goliad, and the imputed order to unpeople the
country, with the supposititious case of prisoners assassinated,
women violated, and children slaughtered; and these horrors to be
perpetrated in the presence or hearing of an American army. In
such a case I declared it to be my sentiment--and I now repeat it,
for I feel it to be in me--in such a case, I declared it to be my
sentiment, that treaties were nothing, books were nothing, laws were
nothing! that the paramount law of God and nature was every thing!
and that the American soldier, hearing the cries of helplessness
and weakness, and remembering only that he was a man, and born of
woman, and the father of children, should fly to the rescue, and
strike to prevent the perpetration of crimes which shock humanity
and dishonor the age. I uttered this sentiment not upon impulsion,
but with consideration; not for theatrical effect, but as a rule
for action; not as vague declamation, but with an eye to possible
or probable events, and with a view to the public justification of
General Gaines and his men, if, under circumstances appalling to
humanity, they should nobly resolve to obey the impulsions of the
heart instead of coldly consulting the musty leaves of books and
treaties.
"Beyond this I did not go, and, except in this instance, I do not
speak. Duty and interest prescribed to the United States a rigorous
neutrality; and this condition she has faithfully fulfilled.
Our young men have gone to Texas to fight; but they have gone
without the sanction of the laws, and against the orders of the
Government. They have gone upon that impulsion which, in all time,
has carried the heroic youth of all ages to seek renown in the
perils and glories of distant war. Our foreign enlistment law is
not repealed. Unlike England, in the civil war now raging in Spain,
we have not licensed interference by repealing our penalties: we
have not stimulated action by withdrawing obstacles. No member of
our Congress, like General Evans in the British Parliament, has
left his seat to levy troops in the streets of the metropolis,
and to lead them to battle and to victory in the land torn by
civil discord. Our statute against armaments to invade friendly
powers is in full force. Proclamations have attested our neutral
dispositions. Prosecutions have been ordered against violators of
law. A naval force in the gulf, and a land force on the Sabine,
have been directed to enforce the policy of the government; and
so far as acts have gone, the advantage has been on the side of
Mexico; for the Texian armed schooner Invincible has been brought
into an American port by an American ship of war. If parties and
individuals still go to Texas to fight, the act is particular, not
national, compromising none but the parties themselves, and may
take place on one side as well as on the other. The conduct of
the administration has been strictly neutral; and, as a friend to
that administration, and from my own convictions, I have conformed
to its policy, avoiding the language which would irritate, and
opposing the acts which might interrupt pacific and commercial
communications. Mexico is our nearest neighbor, dividing with us
the continent of North America, and possessing the elements of a
great power. Our boundaries are co-terminous for more than two
thousand miles. We have inland and maritime commerce. She has mines;
we have ships. General considerations impose upon each power the
duties of reciprocal friendship; especial inducements invite us to
uninterrupted commercial intercourse. As a western senator, coming
from the banks of the Mississippi, and from the State of Missouri,
I cannot be blind to the consequences of interrupting that double
line of inland and maritime commerce, which, stretching to the mines
of Mexico, brings back the perennial supply of solid money which
enriches the interior, and enables New Orleans to purchase the vast
accumulation of agricultural produce of which she is the emporium.
Wonderful are the workings of commerce, and more apt to find out its
own proper channels by its own operations than to be guided into
them by the hand of legislation. New Orleans now is what the Havana
once was--the entrepot of the Mexican trade, and the recipient of
its mineral wealth. The superficial reader of commercial statistics
would say that Mexico but slightly encourages our domestic industry;
that she takes nothing from our agriculture, and but little from our
manufactures. On the contrary, the close observer would see a very
different picture. He would see the products of our soil passing
to all the countries of Europe, exchanging into fine fabrics, and
these returning in the ships of many nations, our own predominant,
to the city of New Orleans; and thence going off in small Mexican
vessels to Matamoros, Tampico, Vera Cruz, and other Mexican ports.
The return from these ports is in the precious metals; and, to
confine myself to a single year, as a sample of the whole, it may
be stated that, of the ten millions and three quarters of silver
coin and bullion received in the United States, according to the
custom-house returns during the least year, eight millions and one
quarter of it came from Mexico alone, and the mass of it through
the port of New Orleans. This amount of treasure is not received
for nothing, nor, as it would seem on the commercial tables, for
foreign fabrics unconnected with American industry, but, in reality,
for domestic productions changed into foreign fabrics, and giving
double employment to the navigation of the country. New Orleans
has taken the place of the Havana; it has become the entrepot of
this trade; and many circumstances, not directed by law, or even
known to lawgivers, have combined to produce the result. First, the
application of steam power to the propulsion of vessels, which,
in the form of towboats, has given to a river city a prompt and
facile communication with the sea; then the advantage of full and
assorted cargoes, which brings the importing vessel to a point where
she delivers freight for two different empires; then the marked
advantage of a return cargo, with cheap and abundant supplies,
which are always found in the grand emporium of the great West;
then the discriminating duties in Mexican ports in favor of Mexican
vessels, which makes it advantageous to the importer to stop and
transship at New Orleans; finally, our enterprise, our police, and
our free institutions, our perfect security, under just laws, for
life, liberty, person and property. These circumstances, undirected
by government, and without the knowledge of government, have given
to New Orleans the supreme advantage of being the entrepot of the
Mexican trade; and have presented the unparalleled spectacle of the
noblest valley in the world, and the richest mines in the world,
sending their respective products to meet each other at the mouth
of the noblest river in the world; and there to create in lapse of
time, the most wonderful city which any age or country has ever
beheld. A look upon the map of the great West, and a tolerable
capacity to calculate the aggregate of geographical advantages, must
impress the beholder with a vast opinion of the future greatness
of New Orleans; but he will only look upon one half of the picture
unless he contemplates this new branch of trade which is making the
emporium of the Mississippi the entrepot of Mexican commerce, and
the recipient of the Mexican mines, and which, though now so great,
is still in its infancy. Let not government mar a consummation
so auspicious in its aspect, and teeming with so many rich and
precious results. Let no unnecessary collision with Mexico interrupt
our commerce, turn back the streams of three hundred mines to the
Havana, and give a wound to a noble city which must be felt to the
head-spring and source of every stream that pours its tribute into
the King of Floods.
"Thus far Mexico has no cause of complaint. The conduct of our
government has been that of rigorous neutrality. The present
motion does not depart from that line of conduct; for the proposed
recognition is not only contingent upon the _de facto_ independence
of Texas, but it follows in the train, and conforms to the spirit,
of the actual arrangements of the President General Santa Anna,
for the complete separation of the countries. We have authentic
information that the President General has agreed to an armistice;
that he has directed the evacuation of the country; that the
Mexican army is in full retreat; that the Rio Grande, a limit far
beyond the discovery and settlement of La Salle, in 1684, is the
provisional boundary; and that negotiations are impending for the
establishment of peace on the basis of separation. Mexico has had
the advantage of these arrangements, though made by a captive chief,
in the unmolested retreat and happy extrication of her troops from
their perilous position. Under these circumstances, it can be no
infringement of neutrality for the Senate of the United States to
adopt a resolution for the contingent and qualified acknowledgment
of Texian independence. Even after the adoption of the resolution,
it will remain inoperative upon the hands of the President until he
shall have the satisfactory information which shall enable him to
act without detriment to any interest, and without infraction of any
law.
"Even without the armistice and provisional treaty with Santa
Anna, I look upon the separation of the two countries as being
in the fixed order of events, and absolutely certain to take
place. Texas and Mexico are not formed for union. They are not
homogeneous. I speak of Texas as known to La Salle, the bay of St.
Bernard--(Matagorda)--and the waters which belong to it, being
the western boundary. They do not belong to the same divisions
of country, nor to the same systems of commerce, nor to the same
pursuits of business. They have no affinities--no attractions--no
tendencies to coalesce. In the course of centuries, and while
Mexico has extended her settlements infinitely further in other
directions--to the head of the Rio Grande in the north, and to
the bay of San Francisco in the northwest; yet no settlement had
been extended east, along the neighboring coast of the Gulf of
Mexico. The rich and deep cotton and sugar lands of Texas, though
at the very door of Mexico, yet requiring the application of a
laborious industry to make them productive, have presented no
temptation to the mining and pastoral population of that empire.
For ages this beautiful agricultural and planting region had lain
untouched. Within a few years, and by another race, its settlement
has begun; and the presence of this race has not smoothed, but
increased, the obstacles to union presented by nature. Sooner or
later, separation would be inevitable; and the progress of human
events has accelerated the operation of natural causes. Goliad
has torn Texas from Mexico; Goliad has decreed independence; San
Jacinto has sealed it! What the massacre decreed, the victory has
sealed; and the day of the martyrdom of prisoners must for ever be
regarded as the day of disunion between Texas and Mexico. I speak
of it politically, not morally; that massacre was a great political
blunder, a miscalculation, an error, and a mistake. It was expected
to put an end to resistance, to subdue rebellion, to drown revolt
in blood, and to extinguish aid in terror. On the contrary, it has
given life and invincibility to the cause of Texas. It has fired
the souls of her own citizens, and imparted to their courage the
energies of revenge and despair. It has given to her the sympathies
and commiseration of the civilized world. It has given her men and
money, and claims upon the aid and a hold upon the sensibilities
of the human race. If the struggle goes on, not only our America,
but Europe will send its chivalry to join in the contest. I repeat
it; that cruel morning of the Alamo, and that black day of Goliad,
were great political faults. The blood of the martyr is the seed of
the church. The blood of slaughtered patriots is the dragon's teeth
sown upon the earth, from which heroes, full grown and armed, leap
into life, and rush into battle. Often will the Mexican, guiltless
of that blood, feel the Anglo-American steel for the deed of that
day, if this war continues. Many were the innocent at San Jacinto,
whose cries, in broken Spanish, abjuring Goliad and the Alamo, could
not save their devoted lives from the avenging remembrance of the
slaughtered garrison and the massacred prisoners.
"Unhappy day, for ever to be deplored, that Sunday morning, March
6, 1836, when the undaunted garrison of the Alamo, victorious in
so many assaults over twenty times their number perished to the
last man by the hands of those, part of whom they had released on
parole two months before, leaving not one to tell how they first
dealt out to multitudes that death which they themselves finally
received. Unhappy day that Palm Sunday, March 27, when the five
hundred and twelve prisoners at Goliad, issuing from the sally port
at dawn of day, one by one, under the cruel delusion of a return
to their families, found themselves enveloped in double files of
cavalry and infantry, marched to a spot fit for the perpetration of
the horrid deed--and there, without an instant to think of parents,
country, friends, and God--in the midst of the consternation of
terror and surprise, were inhumanly set upon, and pitilessly put
to death, in spite of those moving cries which reached to heaven,
and regardless of those supplicating hands, stretched forth for
mercy, from which arms had been taken under the perfidious forms of
a capitulation. Five hundred and six perished that morning--young,
vigorous, brave, sons of respectable families, and the pride of
many a parent's heart--and their bleeding bodies, torn with wounds,
and many yet alive, were thrown in heaps upon vast fires, for the
flames to consume what the steel had mangled. Six only escaped,
and not by mercy, but by miracles. And this was the work of man
upon his brother; of Christian upon Christian; of those upon those
who adore the same God, invoke the same heavenly benediction, and
draw precepts of charity and mercy from the same divine fountain.
Accursed be the ground on which the dreadful deed was done! Sterile,
and set apart, let it for ever be! No fruitful cultivation should
ever enrich it; no joyful edifice should ever adorn it; but shut
up, and closed by gloomy walls, the mournful cypress, the weeping
willow, and the inscriptive monument, should for ever attest the
foul deed of which it was the scene, and invoke from every passenger
the throb of pity for the slain, and the start of horror for the
slayer. And you, neglected victims of the Old Mission and San
Patricio, shall you be forgotten because your numbers were fewer,
and your hapless fate more concealed? No! but to you also justice
shall be done. One common fate befell you all; one common memorial
shall perpetuate your names, and embalm your memories. Inexorable
history will sit in judgment upon all concerned, and will reject
the plea of government orders, even if those orders emanated from
the government, instead of being dictated to it. The French National
Convention, in 1793, ordered all the English prisoners who should
be taken in battle to be put to death. The French armies refused to
execute the decree. They answered, that French soldiers were the
protectors, not the assassins of prisoners; and all France, all
Europe, the whole civilized world, applauded the noble reply.
"But let us not forget that there is some relief to this black
and bloody picture--some alleviation to the horror of its
appalling features. There was humanity, as well as cruelty, at
Goliad--humanity to deplore what it could not prevent. The letter
of Colonel Fernandez does honor to the human heart. Doubtless many
other officers felt and mourned like him, and spent the day in
unavailing regrets. The ladies, Losero and others, of Matamoros,
saving the doomed victims in that city, from day to day, by their
intercessions, appear like ministering angels. Several public
journals, and many individuals, in Mexico, have given vent to
feelings worthy of Christians, and of the civilization of the age;
and the poor woman on the Gaudaloupe, who succored and saved the
young Georgian (Hadaway), how nobly she appears! He was one of the
few that escaped the fate of the Georgia battalion sent to the
Old Mission. Overpowered by famine and despair, without arms and
without comrades, he entered a solitary house filled with Mexican
soldiers hunting the fugitives of his party. His action amazed them;
and, thinking it a snare, they stepped out to look for the armed
body of which he was supposed to be the decoy. In that instant
food was given him by the humane woman, and instant flight to the
swamp was pointed out. He fled, receiving the fire of many guns
as he went; and, escaping the perils of the way, the hazards of
battle at San Jacinto, where he fought, and of Indian massacre in
the Creek nation, when the two stages were taken and part of his
travelling companions killed, he lives to publish in America that
instance of devoted humanity in the poor woman of the Gaudaloupe.
Such acts as all these deserve to be commemorated. They relieve the
revolting picture of military barbarity--soften the resentments of
nations--and redeem a people from the offence of individuals.
"Great is the mistake which has prevailed in Mexico, and in some
parts of the United States, on the character of the population which
has gone to Texas. It has been common to disparage and to stigmatize
them. Nothing could be more unjust; and, speaking from knowledge
either personally or well acquired (for it falls to my lot to know,
either from actual acquaintance or good information the mass of its
inhabitants), I can vindicate them from erroneous imputations, and
place their conduct and character on the honorable ground which they
deserve to occupy. The founder of the Texian colony was Mr. Moses
Austin, a respectable and enterprising native of Connecticut, and
largely engaged in the lead mines of Upper Louisiana when I went to
the Territory of Missouri in 1815. The present head of the colony,
his son, Mr. Stephen F. Austin, then a very young man, was a member
of the Territorial Legislature, distinguished for his intelligence,
business habits, and gentlemanly conduct. Among the grantees we
distinguish the name of Robertson, son of the patriarchal founder
and first settler of West Tennessee. Of the body of the emigrants,
most of them are heads of families or enterprising young men, gone
to better their condition by receiving grants of fine land in a
fine climate, and to continue to live under the republican form of
government to which they had been accustomed. There sits one of
them (pointing to Mr. Carson, late member of Congress from North
Carolina, and now Secretary of State for Texas). We all know him;
our greetings on his appearance in this chamber attest our respect;
and such as we know him to be, so do I know the multitude of those
to be who have gone to Texas. They have gone, not as intruders, but
as grantees; and to become a barrier between the Mexicans and the
marauding Indians who infested their borders.
"Heartless is the calumny invented and propagated, not from this
floor, but elsewhere, on the cause of the Texian revolt. It is said
to be a war for the extension of slavery. It had as well be said
that our own Revolution was a war for the extension of slavery.
So far from it, that no revolt, not even our own, ever had a more
just and a more sacred origin. The settlers in Texas went to live
under the form of government which they had left behind in the
United States--a government which extends so many guarantees for
life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, and which
their American and English ancestors had vindicated for so many
hundred years. A succession of violent changes in government,
and the rapid overthrow of rulers, annoyed and distressed them;
but they remained tranquil under every violence which did not
immediately bear on themselves. In 1822 the republic of 1821 was
superseded by the imperial diadem of Iturbide. In 1823 he was
deposed and banished, returned and was shot, and Victoria made
President. Mentuno and Bravo disputed the presidency with Victoria;
and found, in banishment, the mildest issue known among Mexicans
to unsuccessful civil war. Pedraza was elected in 1828; Guerrero
overthrew him the next year. Then Bustamente overthrew Guerrero;
and, quickly, Santa Anna overthrew Bustamente, and, with him, all
the forms of the constitution, and the whole frame of the federative
government. By his own will, and by force, Santa Anna dissolved
the existing Congress, convened another, formed the two Houses
into one, called it a convention; and made it the instrument for
deposing, without trial, the constitutional Vice-President, Gomez
Farias, putting Barragan into his place, annihilating the State
governments, and establishing a consolidated government, of which
he was monarch, under the retained republican title of President.
Still, the Texians did not take up arms: they did not acquiesce,
but they did not revolt. They retained their State government in
operation, and looked to the other States, older and more powerful
than Texas, to vindicate the general cause, and to re-establish the
federal constitution of 1824. In September, 1835, this was still
her position. In that month, a Mexican armed vessel appeared off
the coast of Texas, and declared her ports blockaded. At the same
time, General Cos appeared in the West with an army of fifteen
hundred men, with orders to arrest the State authorities, to disarm
the inhabitants, leaving one gun to every five hundred souls; and
to reduce the State to unconditional submission. Gonzales was the
selected point for the commencement of the execution of these
orders; and the first thing was the arms, those trusty rifles
which the settlers had brought with them from the United States,
which were their defence against savages, their resource for
game, and the guard which converted their houses into castles
stronger than those 'which the king cannot enter.' A detachment
of General Cos's army appeared at the village of Gonzales, on the
28th of September, and demanded the arms of the inhabitants; it
was the same demand, and for the same purpose, which the British
detachment, under Major Pitcairn had made at Lexington, on the
19th of April 1775. It was the same demand! and the same answer
was given--resistance--battle--victory! for the American blood was
at Gonzales as it had been at Lexington; and between using their
arms, and surrendering their arms, that blood can never hesitate.
Then followed the rapid succession of brilliant events, which, in
two months, left Texas without an armed enemy in her borders, and
the strong forts of Goliad and the Alamo, with their garrisons and
cannon, the almost bloodless prizes of a few hundred Texian rifles.
This was the origin of the revolt; and a calumny more heartless can
never be imagined than that which would convert this just and holy
defence of life, liberty, and property, into an aggression for the
extension of slavery.
"Just in its origin, valiant and humane in its conduct, sacred
in its object, the Texian revolt has illustrated the Anglo-Saxon
character, and given it new titles to the respect and admiration of
the world.
"It shows that liberty, justice, valor--moral, physical, and
intellectual power--discriminate that race wherever it goes. Let
our America rejoice, let Old England rejoice, that the Brassos and
Colorado, new and strange names--streams far beyond the western
bank of the Father of Floods--have felt the impress, and witnessed
the exploits of a people sprung from their loins, and carrying
their language, laws, and customs, their _magna charta_ and its
glorious privileges, into new regions and far distant climes. Of the
individuals who have purchased lasting renown in this young war, it
would be impossible, in this place to speak in detail, and invidious
to discriminate; but there is one among them whose position forms
an exception, and whose early association with myself justifies and
claims the tribute of a particular notice. I speak of him whose
romantic victory has given to the Jacinto[11] that immortality in
grave and serious history which the diskos of Apollo had given to
it in the fabulous pages of the heathen mythology. General Houston
was born in the State of Virginia, county of Rockbridge: he was
appointed an ensign in the army of the United States, during the
late war with Great Britain, and served in the Creek campaign
under the banners of Jackson. I was the lieutenant colonel of the
regiment to which he belonged, and the first field officer to whom
he reported. I then marked in him the same soldierly and gentlemanly
qualities which have since distinguished his eventful career: frank,
generous, brave; ready to do, or to suffer, whatever the obligations
of civil or military duty imposed; and always prompt to answer the
call of honor, patriotism, and friendship. Sincerely do I rejoice in
his victory. It is a victory without alloy, and without parallel,
except at New Orleans. It is a victory which the civilization of
the age, and the honor of the human race, required him to gain:
for the nineteenth century is not the age in which a repetition
of the Goliad matins could be endured. Nobly has he answered the
requisition; fresh and luxuriant are the laurels which adorn his
brow.
[11] Hyacinth; hyacinthus; huakinthos; water flower.
"It is not within the scope of my present purpose, to speak of
military events, and to celebrate the exploits of that vanguard
of the Anglo-Saxons who are now on the confines of the ancient
empire of Montezuma; but that combat of the San Jacinto! it must
for ever remain in the catalogue of military miracles. Seven
hundred and fifty citizens, miscellaneously armed with rifles,
muskets, belt pistols, and knives, under a leader who had never seen
service, except as a subaltern, march to attack near double their
numbers--march in open day across a clear prairie, to attack upwards
of twelve hundred veterans, the élite of an invading army of seven
thousand, posted in a wood, their flanks secured, front intrenched;
and commanded by a general trained in civil wars, victorious in
numberless battles; and chief of an empire of which no man becomes
chief except as conqueror. In twenty minutes, the position is
forced. The combat becomes a carnage. The flowery prairie is stained
with blood; the hyacinth is no longer blue, but scarlet. Six hundred
Mexicans are dead; six hundred more are prisoners, half wounded; the
President General himself is a prisoner; the camp and baggage all
taken; and the loss of the victors, six killed and twenty wounded.
Such are the results, and which no European can believe, but those
who saw Jackson at New Orleans. Houston is the pupil of Jackson; and
he is the first self-made general, since the time of Mark Antony,
and the King Antigonus, who has taken the general of the army and
the head of the government captive in battle. Different from Antony,
he has spared the life of his captive, though forfeited by every
law, human and divine.
"I voted, in 1821, to acknowledge the absolute independence of
Mexico; I vote now to recognize the contingent and expected
independence of Texas. In both cases, the vote is given upon the
same principle--upon the principle of disjunction where conjunction
is impossible or disastrous. The Union of Mexico and Spain had
become impossible; that of Mexico and Texas is no longer desirable
or possible. A more fatal present could not be made than that of
the future incorporation of the Texas of La Salle with the ancient
empire of Montezuma. They could not live together, and extermination
is not the genius of the age; and, besides, is more easily talked of
than done. Bloodshed only could be the fruit of their conjunction;
and every drop of that blood would be the dragon's teeth sown upon
the earth. No wise Mexican should wish to have this Trojan horse
shut up within their walls."
CHAPTER CXLVI.
THE SPECIE CIRCULAR.
The issue of the Treasury order, known as the "Specie Circular," was
one of the events which marked the foresight, the decision, and the
invincible firmness of General Jackson. It was issued immediately
after the adjournment of Congress, and would have been issued before
the adjournment, except for the fear that Congress would counteract
it by law. It was an order to all the land-offices to reject paper
money, and receive nothing but gold and silver in payment of the
public lands; and was issued under the authority of the resolution
of the year 1816 which, in giving the Secretary of the Treasury
discretionary authority to receive the notes of specie paying
banks in revenue payments, gave him also the right to reject them.
The number of these banks had now become so great, the quantity
of notes issued so enormous, the facility of obtaining loans so
universal, and the temptation to converting shadowy paper into real
estate, so tempting, that the rising streams of paper from seven
hundred and fifty banks took their course towards the new States,
seat of the public domain--discharging in accumulated volume there
collected torrents upon the different land-offices. The sales were
running up to five millions a month, with the prospect of unbounded
increase after the rise of Congress; and it was this increase from
the land sales which made that surplus which the constitution had
been burlesqued to divide among the States. And there was no limit
to this conversion of public land into inconvertible paper. In the
custom-house branch of the revenue there was a limit in the amount
to be received--limited by the amount of duties to be paid: but in
the land-office branch there was no limit. It was therefore at that
point that the remedy was wanted; and, for that reason, the "Specie
Circular" was limited in its application to the land-offices; and
totally forbade the sale of the public lands for any thing but hard
money. It was an order of incalculable value to the United States,
and issued by President Jackson in known disregard of the will both
of the majority of Congress and of his cabinet.
Before the adjournment of Congress, and in concert with the
President, the author of this View had attempted to get an act of
Congress to stop the evil; and in support of his motion to that
effect gave his opinion of the evil itself, and of the benefits
which would result from its suppression. He said:
"He was able to inform the Senate how it happened that the sales
of the public lands had deceived all calculations, and run up
from four millions a year to five millions a quarter; it was
this: speculators went to banks, borrowed five, ten, twenty,
fifty thousand dollars in paper, in small notes, usually under
twenty dollars, and engaged to carry off these notes to a great
distance, sometimes five hundred or a thousand miles; and there
laid them out for public lands. Being land-office money, they
would circulate in the country; many of these small notes would
never return at all, and their loss would be a clear gain to
the bank; others would not return for a long time; and the bank
would draw interest on them for years before they had to redeem
them. Thus speculators, loaded with paper, would outbid settlers
and cultivators, who had no undue accommodations from banks,
and who had nothing but specie to give for lands, or the notes
which were its real equivalent. Mr. B. said that, living in a
new State, it came within his knowledge that such accommodations
as he had mentioned were the main cause of the excessive sales
which had taken place in the public lands, and that the effect
was equally injurious to every interest concerned--except the
banks and the speculators: it was injurious to the treasury,
which was filling up with paper; to the new States, which were
flooded with paper; and to settlers and cultivators, who were
outbid by speculators, loaded with this borrowed paper. A return
to specie payments for lands is the remedy for all these evils."
Having exposed the evil, and that to the country generally as well
as to the federal treasury, Mr. B. went on to give his opinion of
the benefits of suppressing it; and said:
"It would put an end to every complaint now connected with
the subject, and have a beneficial effect upon every public
and private interest. Upon the federal government its effect
would be to check the unnatural sale of the public lands to
speculators for paper; it would throw the speculators out of
market, limit the sales to settlers and cultivators, stop
the swelling increases of paper surpluses in the treasury,
put an end to all projects for disposing of surpluses; and
relieve all anxiety for the fate of the public moneys in the
deposit banks. Upon the new States, where the public lands are
situated, its effects would be most auspicious. It would stop
the flood of paper with which they are inundated, and bring
in a steady stream of gold and silver in its place. It would
give them a hard-money currency, and especially a share of the
gold currency; for every emigrant could then carry gold to the
country. Upon the settler and cultivator who wished to purchase
land its effect would be peculiarly advantageous. He would be
relieved from the competition of speculators; he would not have
to contend with those who received undue accommodations at
banks, and came to the land-offices loaded with bales of bank
notes which they had borrowed upon condition of carrying them
far away, and turning them loose where many would be lost, and
never get back to the bank that issued them. All these and many
other good effects would thus be produced, and no hardship or
evil of any kind could accrue to the meritorious part of the
country; for the settler and cultivator who wishes to buy land
for use, or for a settlement for his children, or to increase
his farm, would have no difficulty in getting hard money to make
his purchase. He has no undue accommodations from banks. He
has no paper but what is good; such as he can readily convert
into specie. To him the exaction of specie payments from all
purchasers would be a rule of equality, which would enable him
to purchase what he needs without competition with fictitious
and borrowed capital."
Mr. B. gave a view of the actual condition of the paper currency,
which he described as hideous and appalling, doomed to a
catastrophe; and he advised every prudent man, as well as the
government, to fly from its embrace. His voice, and his warning,
answered no purpose. He got no support for his motion. A few
friends were willing to stand by him, but the opposition senators
stood out in unbroken front against it, reinforced largely by the
friends of the administration: but it is in vain to attribute the
whole opposition to the measure merely to the mistaken opinions of
friends, and the resentful policy of foes. There was another cause
operating to the same effect; and the truth of history requires
it to be told. There were many members of Congress engaged in
these land speculations, upon loans of bank paper; and who were
unwilling to see a sudden termination of so profitable a game. The
rejection of the bill it was thought would be sufficient; and on
the news of it the speculation redoubled its activity. But there
was a remedy in reserve for the cure of the evil which they had
not foreseen, and which was applied the moment that Congress was
gone. Jackson was still President! and he had the nerve which the
occasion required. He saw the public lands fleeting away--saw that
Congress would not interfere--and knew the majority of his cabinet
to be against his interference. He did as he had often done in
councils of war--called the council together to hear a decision.
He summoned his cabinet--laid the case before them--heard the
majority of adverse opinions:--and directed the order to issue. His
private Secretary, Mr. Donelson, was directed to prepare a draught
of the order. The author of this View was all the while in the
office of this private Secretary. Mr. Donelson came to him, with
the President's decision, and requested him to draw up the order.
It was done--the rough draught carried back to the council--put
into official form--signed--issued. It was a second edition of the
removal of the deposits scene, and made an immense sensation. The
disappointed speculators raged. Congress was considered insulted,
the cabinet defied, the banks disgraced. But the vindication of the
measure soon came, in the discovery of the fact, that some tens of
millions of this bank paper was on its way to the land-offices to be
changed into land--when overtaken by this fatal "Specie Circular,"
and turned back to the sources from which it came.
CHAPTER CXLVII.
DEATH OF MR. MADISON, FOURTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
He died in the last year of the second term of the presidency
of General Jackson, at the advanced age of eighty-six, his mind
clear and active to the last, and greatly occupied with solicitous
concern for the safety of the Union which he had contributed so
much to establish. He was a patriot from the beginning. "When the
first blood was shed in the streets of Boston, he was a student
in the process of his education at Princeton College, where the
next year, he received the degree of Bachelor of Arts. He was even
then so highly distinguished by the power of application and the
rapidity of progress, that he performed all the exercises of the
two senior collegiate years in one--while at the same time his
deportment was so exemplary, that Dr. Witherspoon, then at the head
of the college, and afterwards himself one of the most eminent
patriots and sages of our revolution, always delighted in bearing
testimony to the excellency of his character at that early stage
of his career; and said to Thomas Jefferson long afterwards, when
they were all colleagues in the revolutionary Congress, that in the
whole career of Mr. Madison at Princeton, he had never known him
say, or do, an indiscreet thing." So wrote Mr. John Quincy Adams
in his discourse upon the "Life of James Madison," written at the
request of the two Houses of Congress: and in this germ of manhood
is to be seen all the qualities of head and heart which mature
age, and great events, so fully developed, and which so nobly went
into the formation of national character while constituting his
own: the same quick intellect, the same laborious application,
the same purity of morals, the same decorum of deportment. He had
a rare combination of talent--a speaker, a writer, a counsellor.
In these qualities of the mind he classed with General Hamilton;
and was, perhaps, the only eminent public man of his day who
so classed, and so equally contended in three of the fields of
intellectual action. Mr. Jefferson was accustomed to say he was
the only man that could answer Hamilton. Perspicuity, precision,
closeness of reasoning, and strict adherence to the unity of his
subject, were the characteristics of his style; and his speeches
in Congress, and his dispatches from the State Department, may be
equally studied as models of style, diplomatic and parliamentary
as sources of information, as examples of integrity in conducting
public questions: and as illustrations of the amenity with which
the most earnest debate, and the most critical correspondence,
can be conducted by good sense, good taste, and good temper. Mr.
Madison was one of the great founders of our present united federal
government, equally efficient in the working convention which
framed the constitution and the written labors which secured its
adoption. Co-laborer with General Hamilton in the convention and
in the Federalist--both members of the old Congress and of the
convention at the same time, and working together in both bodies
for the attainment of the same end, until the division of parties
in Washington's time began to estrange old friends, and to array
against each other former cordial political co-laborers. As the
first writer of one party, General Hamilton wrote some leading
papers, which, as the first writer of the other party, Mr. Madison
was called upon to answer: but without forgetting on the part of
either their previous relations, their decorum of character, and
their mutual respect for each other. Nothing that either said could
give an unpleasant personal feeling to the other; and, though
writing under borrowed names, their productions were equally known
to each other and the public; for none but themselves could imitate
themselves. Purity, modesty, decorum--a moderation, temperance, and
virtue in everything--were the characteristics of Mr. Madison's life
and manners; and it is grateful to look back upon such elevation
and beauty of personal character in the illustrious and venerated
founders of our Republic, leaving such virtuous private characters
to be admired, as well as such great works to be preserved. The
offer of this tribute to the memory of one of the purest of public
men is the more gratefully rendered, private reasons mixing with
considerations of public duty. Mr. Madison is the only President
from whom he ever asked a favor, and who granted immediately all
that was asked--a lieutenant-colonelcy in the army of the United
States in the late war with Great Britain.
CHAPTER CXLVIII.
DEATH OF MR. MONROE, FIFTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
He died during the first term of the administration of President
Jackson, and is appropriately noticed in this work next after Mr.
Madison, with whom he had been so long and so intimately associated,
both in public and in private life; and whose successor he had been
in successive high posts, including that of the presidency itself.
He is one of our eminent public characters which have not attained
their due place in history; nor has any one attempted to give him
that place but one--Mr. John Quincy Adams--in his discourse upon the
life of Mr. Monroe. Mr. Adams, and who could be a more competent
judge? places him in the first line of American statesmen, and
contributing, during the fifty years of his connection with the
public affairs, a full share in the aggrandisement and advancement
of his country. His parts were not shining, but solid. He lacked
genius, but he possessed judgment: and it was the remark of Dean
Swift, well illustrated in his own case and that of his associate
friends, Harley and Bolingbroke (three of the rarest geniuses that
ever acted together, and whose cause went to ruin notwithstanding
their wit and eloquence), that genius was not necessary to the
conducting of the affairs of state: that judgment, diligence,
knowledge, good intentions, and will, were sufficient. Mr. Monroe
was an instance of the soundness of this remark, as well as the
three brilliant geniuses of Queen Anne's time, and on the opposite
side of it. Mr. Monroe had none of the mental qualities which dazzle
and astonish mankind; but he had a discretion which seldom committed
a mistake--an integrity that always looked to the public good--a
firmness of will which carried him resolutely upon his object--a
diligence that mastered every subject--and a perseverance that
yielded to no obstacle or reverse. He began his patriotic career
in the military service, at the commencement of the war of the
revolution--went into the general assembly of his native State at
an early age--and thence, while still young, into the continental
Congress. There he showed his character, and laid the foundation
of his future political fortunes in his uncompromising opposition
to the plan of a treaty with Spain by which the navigation of the
Mississippi was to be given up for twenty-five years in return
for commercial privileges. It was the qualities of judgment, and
perseverance, which he displayed on that occasion, which brought
him those calls to diplomacy in which he was afterwards so much
employed with three of the then greatest European powers--France,
Spain, Great Britain. And it was in allusion to this circumstance
that President Jefferson afterwards, when the right of deposit at
New Orleans had been violated by Spain, and when a minister was
wanted to recover it, said, "Monroe is the man: the defence of
the Mississippi belongs to him." And under this appointment he
had the felicity to put his name to the treaty which secured the
Mississippi, its navigation and all the territory drained by its
western waters, to the United States for ever. Several times in
his life he seemed to miscarry, and to fall from the top to the
bottom of the political ladder: but always to reascend as high, or
higher than ever. Recalled by Washington from the French mission, to
which he had been appointed from the Senate of the United States,
he returned to the starting point of his early career--the general
assembly of his State--served as a member from his county--was
elected Governor; and from that post restored by Jefferson to the
French mission, soon to be followed by the embassies to Spain
and England. Becoming estranged from Mr. Madison about the time
of that gentleman's first election to the presidency, and having
returned from his missions a little mortified that Mr. Jefferson had
rejected his British treaty without sending it to the Senate, he
was again at the foot of the political ladder, and apparently out
of favor with those who were at its top. Nothing despairing, he
went back to the old starting point--served again in the Virginia
general assembly--was again elected Governor: and from that post was
called to the cabinet of Mr. Madison, to be his double Secretary
of State and War. He was the effective power in the declaration of
war against Great Britain. His residence abroad had shown him that
unavenged British wrongs was lowering our character with Europe, and
that war with the "mistress of the seas" was as necessary to our
respectability in the eyes of the world, as to the security of our
citizens and commerce upon the ocean. He brought up Mr. Madison to
the war point. He drew the war report which the committee on foreign
relations presented to the House--that report which the absence of
Mr. Peter B. Porter, the chairman, and the hesitancy of Mr. Grundy,
the second on the committee, threw into the hands of Mr. Calhoun,
the third on the list and the youngest of the committee; and the
presentation of which immediately gave him a national reputation.
Prime mover of the war, he was also one of its most efficient
supporters, taking upon himself, when adversity pressed, the actual
duties of war minister, financier, and foreign secretary at the
same time. He was an enemy to all extravagance, to all intrigue,
to all indirection in the conduct of business. Mr. Jefferson's
comprehensive and compendious eulogium upon him, as brief as true,
was the faithful description of the man--"honest and brave." He
was an enemy to nepotism, and no consideration or entreaty--no
need of the support which an office would give, or intercession
from friends--could ever induce him to appoint a relative to any
place under the government. He had opposed the adoption of the
constitution until amendments were obtained; but these had, he
became one of its firmest supporters, and labored faithfully,
anxiously and devotedly, to administer it in its purity. He was
the first President under whom the author of this View served,
commencing his first senatorial term with the commencement of the
second presidential term of this last of the men of the revolution
who were spared to fill the office in the great Republic which they
had founded.
CHAPTER CXLIX.
DEATH OF CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL.
He died in the middle of the second term of General Jackson's
presidency, having been chief justice of the Supreme Court of the
United States full thirty-five years, presiding all the while (to
use the inimitable language of Mr. Randolph), "with native dignity
and unpretending grace." He was supremely fitted for high judicial
station:--a solid judgment, great reasoning powers, acute and
penetrating mind: with manners and habits to suit the purity and
the paucity of the ermine:--attentive, patient, laborious: grave on
the bench, social in the intercourse of life: simple in his tastes,
and inexorably just. Seen by a stranger come into a room, and he
would be taken for a modest country gentleman, without claims to
attention, and ready to take the lowest place in company, or at
table, and to act his part without trouble to any body. Spoken to,
and closely observed, he would be seen to be a gentleman of finished
breeding, of winning and prepossessing talk, and just as much mind
as the occasion required him to show. Coming to man's estate at the
beginning of the revolution he followed the current into which so
many young men, destined to become eminent, so ardently entered;
and served in the army, and with notice and observation, under the
eyes of Washington. Elected to Congress at an early age he served
in the House of Representatives in the time of the elder Mr. Adams,
and found in one of the prominent questions of the day a subject
entirely fitted to his acute and logical turn of mind--the case of
the famous Jonathan Robbins, claiming to be an American citizen,
reclaimed by the British government as a deserter, delivered up, and
hanged at the yard-arm of an English man-of-war. Party spirit took
up the case, and it was one to inflame that spirit. Mr. Marshall
spoke in defence of the administration, and made the master speech
of the day, when there were such master speakers in Congress as
Madison, Gallatin, William B. Giles, Edward Livingston, John
Randolph. It was a judicial subject, adapted to the legal mind of
Mr. Marshall, requiring a legal pleading: and well did he plead
it. Mr. Randolph has often been heard to say that it distanced
competition--leaving all associates and opponents far behind, and
carrying the case. Seldom has one speech brought so much fame,
and high appointment to any one man. When he had delivered it
his reputation was in the zenith: in less than nine brief months
thereafter he was Secretary at War, Secretary of State, Minister
to France, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United
States. Politically, he classed with the federal party, and was one
of those high-minded and patriotic men of that party, who, acting on
principle, commanded the respect of those even who deemed them wrong.
CHAPTER CL.
DEATH OF COL. BURR, THIRD VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
He was one of the few who, entering the war of independence with
ardor and brilliant prospects, disappointed the expectations he
had created, dishonored the cause he had espoused, and ended in
shame the career which he had opened with splendor. He was in the
adventurous expedition of Arnold through the wilderness to Quebec,
went ahead in the disguise of a priest to give intelligence of the
approach of aid to General Montgomery, arrived safely through many
dangers, captivated the General by the courage and address which
he had shown, was received by him into his military family; and
was at his side when he was killed. Returning to the seat of war
in the Northern States he was invited by Washington, captivated
like Montgomery by the soldierly and intellectual qualities he
had shown, to his headquarters, with a view to placing him on his
staff; but he soon perceived that the brilliant young man lacked
principle; and quietly got rid of him. The after part of his life
was such as to justify the opinion which Washington had formed
of him; but such was his address and talent as to rise to high
political distinction: Attorney General of New-York, Senator in
Congress, and Vice-President of the United States. At the close of
the presidential election of 1800, he stood equal with Mr. Jefferson
in the vote which he received, and his undoubted successor at
the end of Mr. Jefferson's term. But there his honors came to a
stand, and took a downward turn, nor ceased descending until he was
landed in the abyss of shame, misery, and desolation. He intrigued
with the federalists to supplant Mr. Jefferson--to get the place
of President, for which he had not received a single vote--was
suspected, detected, baffled--lost the respect of his party, and was
thrown upon crimes to recover a position, or to avenge his losses.
The treasonable attempt in the West, and the killing of General
Hamilton, ended his career in the United States. But although he
had deceived the masses, and reached the second office of the
government, with the certainty of attaining the first if he only
remained still, yet there were some close observers whom he never
deceived. The early mistrust of Washington has been mentioned: it
became stronger as Burr mounted higher in the public favor; and in
1794, when a senator in Congress, and when the republican party
had taken him for their choice for the French mission in the place
of Mr. Monroe recalled, and had sent a committee of which Mr.
Madison was chief to ask his nomination from Washington, that wise
and virtuous man peremptorily refused it, giving as a categorical
reason, that his rule was invariable, never to appoint an immoral
man to any office. Mr. Jefferson had the same ill opinion of him,
and, notwithstanding his party zeal, always considered him in
market when the federalists had any high office to bestow. But
General Hamilton was most thoroughly imbued with a sense of his
unworthiness, and deemed it due to his country to balk his election
over Jefferson; and did so. His letters to the federal members of
Congress painted Burr in his true character, and dashed far from
his grasp, and for ever, the gilded prize his hand was touching.
For that frustration of his hopes, four years afterwards, he
killed Hamilton in a duel, having on the part of Burr the spirit
of an assassination--cold-blooded, calculated, revengeful, and
falsely-pretexted. He alleged some trivial and recent matter for the
challenge, such as would not justify it in any code of honor; and
went to the ground to kill upon an old grudge which he was ashamed
to avow. Hard was the fate of Hamilton--losing his life at the
early age of forty-two for having done justice to his country in
the person of the man to whom he stood most politically opposed,
and the chief of the party by which he had been constrained to
retire from the scene of public life at the age of thirty-four--the
age at which most others begin it--he having accomplished gigantic
works. He was the man most eminently and variously endowed of all
the eminent men of his day--at once soldier and statesman, with a
head to conceive, and a hand to execute: a writer, an orator, a
jurist: an organizing mind, able to grasp the greatest system; and
administrative, to execute the smallest details: wholly turned to
the practical business of life, and with a capacity for application
and production which teemed with gigantic labors, each worthy to
be the sole product of a single master intellect; but lavished in
litters from the ever teeming fecundity of his prolific genius.
Hard his fate, when, withdrawing from public life at the age of
thirty-four, he felt himself constrained to appeal to posterity for
that justice which contemporaries withheld from him. And the appeal
was not in vain. Statues rise to his memory: history embalms his
name: posterity will do justice to the man who at the age of twenty
was "the principal and most confidential aid of Washington," who
retained the love and confidence of the Father of his country to the
last; and to whom honorable opponents, while opposing his systems
of policy, accorded honor, and patriotism, and social affections,
and transcendental abilities.--This chapter was commenced to write a
notice of the character of Colonel Burr; but that subject will not
remain under the pen. At the appearance of that name, the spirit of
Hamilton starts up to rebuke the intrusion--to drive back the foul
apparition to its gloomy abode--and to concentrate all generous
feeling on itself.
CHAPTER CLI.
DEATH OF WILLIAM B. GILES, OF VIRGINIA.
He also died under the presidency of General Jackson. He was one
of the eminent public men coming upon the stage of action with the
establishment of the new constitution--with the change from a League
to a Union; from the confederation to the unity of the States--and
was one of the most conspicuous in the early annals of our Congress.
He had that kind of speaking talent which is most effective in
legislative bodies, and which is so different from set-speaking.
He was a debater; and was considered by Mr. Randolph to be, in our
House of Representatives, what Charles Fox was admitted to be in
the British House of Commons: the most accomplished debater which
his country had ever seen. But their acquired advantages were very
different, and their schools of practice very opposite. Mr. Fox
perfected himself in the House, speaking on every subject; Mr. Giles
out of the House, talking to every body. Mr. Fox, a ripe scholar,
addicted to literature, and imbued with all the learning of all the
classics in all time; Mr. Giles neither read nor studied, but talked
incessantly with able men, rather debating with them all the while:
and drew from this source of information, and from the ready powers
of his mind, the ample means of speaking on every subject with the
fulness which the occasion required, the quickness which confounds
an adversary, and the effect which a lick in time always produces.
He had the kind of talent which was necessary to complete the
circle of all sorts of ability which sustained the administration
of Mr. Jefferson. Macon was wise, Randolph brilliant, Gallatin and
Madison able in argument; but Giles was the ready champion, always
ripe for the combat--always furnished with the ready change to meet
every bill. He was long a member of the House; then senator, and
governor; and died at an advanced age, like Patrick Henry, without
doing justice to his genius in the transmission of his labors to
posterity; because, like Henry, he had been deficient in education
and in reading. He was the intimate friend of all the eminent men of
his day, which sufficiently bespeaks him a gentleman of manners and
heart, as well as a statesman of head and tongue.
CHAPTER CLII.
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1836.
Mr. Van Buren was the candidate of the democratic party; General
Harrison the candidate of the opposition; and Mr. Hugh L. White
that of a fragment of the democracy. Mr. Van Buren was elected,
receiving one hundred and seventy electoral votes, to seventy-three
given to General Harrison, and twenty-six given to Mr. White. The
States voting for each, were:--Mr. Van Buren: Maine, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North
Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, Missouri,
Michigan, Arkansas. For General Harrison: Vermont, New Jersey,
Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana. For Mr. White:
Georgia and Tennessee. Massachusetts complimented Mr. Webster
by bestowing her fourteen votes upon him; and South Carolina,
as in the two preceding elections, threw her vote away upon a
citizen not a candidate, and not a child of her soil--Mr. Mangum
of North Carolina--disappointing the expectations of Mr. White's
friends, whose standing for the presidency had been instigated by
Mr. Calhoun, to divide the democratic party and defeat Mr. Van
Buren. Colonel Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky, was the democratic
candidate for the vice-presidency, and received one hundred and
forty-seven votes, which, not being a majority of the whole number
of votes given, the election was referred to the Senate, to choose
between the two highest on the list; and that body being largely
democratic, he was duly elected: receiving thirty-three out of
forty-nine senatorial votes. The rest of the vice-presidential vote,
in the electoral colleges, had been between Mr. Francis Granger,
of New York, who received seventy-seven votes; Mr. John Tyler, of
Virginia, who received forty-seven; and Mr. William Smith, of South
Carolina, complimented by Virginia with her twenty-three votes.
Mr. Granger, being the next highest on the list, after Colonel
Johnson, was voted for as one of the two referred to the Senate;
and received sixteen votes. A list of the senators voting for each
will show the strength of the respective parties in the Senate, at
the approaching end of President Jackson's administration; and how
signally all the efforts intended to overthrow him had ended in the
discomfiture of their authors, and converted an absolute majority
of the whole Senate into a meagre minority of one third. The votes
for Colonel Johnson were: Mr. Benton of Missouri; Mr. Black of
Mississippi; Mr. Bedford Brown of North Carolina; Mr. Buchanan
of Pennsylvania; Mr. Cuthbert of Georgia; Mr. Dana of Maine; Mr.
Ewing of Illinois; Mr. Fulton of Arkansas; Mr. Grundy of Tennessee;
Mr. Hendricks of Indiana; Mr. Hubbard of Maine; Mr. William Rufus
King of Alabama; Mr. John P. King of Georgia; Mr. Louis F. Linn of
Missouri; Mr. Lucius Lyon of Michigan Mr. McKean of Pennsylvania;
Mr. Gabriel Moore of Alabama; Mr. Morris of Ohio; Mr. Alexander
Mouton of Louisiana; Mr. Wilson C. Nicholas of Louisiana; Mr.
Niles of Connecticut; Mr. John Norvell of Michigan; Mr. John Page
of New Hampshire; Mr. Richard E. Parker of Virginia; Mr. Rives of
Virginia; Mr. John M. Robinson of Illinois; Mr. Ruggles of Maine;
Mr. Ambrose H. Sevier of Arkansas; Mr. Peleg Sprague of Maine; Mr.
Robert Strange of North Carolina; Mr. Nathaniel P. Talmadge of New
York; Mr. Tipton of Indiana; Mr. Robert J. Walker of Mississippi;
Mr. Silas Wright of New York. Those voting for Mr. Francis Granger
were: Mr. Richard H. Bayard of Delaware; Mr. Clay; Mr. John M.
Clayton of Delaware; Mr. John Crittenden of Kentucky; Mr. John Davis
of Massachusetts; Mr. Thomas Ewing of Ohio; Mr. Kent of Maryland;
Mr. Nehemiah Knight of Rhode Island; Mr. Prentiss of Vermont; Mr.
Asher Robbins of Rhode Island; Mr. Samuel L. Southard of New Jersey;
Mr. John S. Spence of Maryland; Mr. Swift of Vermont; Mr. Gideon
Tomlinson of Connecticut; Mr. Wall of New Jersey; Mr. Webster. South
Carolina did not vote, neither in the person of Mr. Calhoun nor in
that of his colleague, Mr. Preston: an omission which could not be
attributed to absence or accident, as both were present; nor fail
to be remarked and considered ominous in the then temper of the
State, and her refusal to vote in the three preceding presidential
elections.
CHAPTER CLIII.
LAST ANNUAL MESSAGE OF PRESIDENT JACKSON.
At the opening of the second Session of the twenty-fourth Congress,
President Jackson delivered his last Annual Message, and under
circumstances to be grateful to his heart. The powerful opposition
in Congress had been broken down, and he saw full majorities
of ardent and tried friends in each House. We were in peace and
friendship with all the world, and all exciting questions quieted
at home. Industry in all its branches was prosperous. The revenue
was abundant--too much so. The people were happy. His message, of
course, was first a recapitulation of this auspicious state of
things, at home and abroad; and then a reference to the questions
of domestic interest and policy which required attention, and
might call for action. At the head of these measures stood the
deposit act of the last session--the act which under the insidious
and fabulous title of a deposit of a surplus of revenue with the
States--made an actual distribution of that surplus; and was
intended by its contrivers to do so. His notice of this measure went
to two points--his own regrets for having signed the act, and his
misgivings in relation to its future observation. He said:
"The consequences apprehended, when the deposit act of the last
session received a reluctant approval, have been measurably
realized. Though an act merely for the deposit of the surplus
moneys of the United States in the State Treasuries, for safe
keeping, until they may be wanted for the service of the general
government, it has been extensively spoken of as an act to give
the money to the several States, and they have been advised
to use it as a gift, without regard to the means of refunding
it when called for. Such a suggestion has doubtless been made
without a due consideration of the obligation of the deposit
act, and without a proper attention to the various principles
and interests which are affected by it. It is manifest that
the law itself cannot sanction such a suggestion, and that, as
it now stands, the States have no more authority to receive
and use these deposits without intending to return them,
than any deposit bank, or any individual temporarily charged
with the safe-keeping or application of the public money,
would now have for converting the same to their private use,
without the consent and against the will of the government.
But, independently of the violation of public faith and moral
obligation which are involved in this suggestion, when examined
in reference to the terms of the present deposit act, it is
believed that the considerations which should govern the future
legislation of Congress on this subject, will be equally
conclusive against the adoption of any measure recognizing the
principles on which the suggestion has been made."
This misgiving was well founded. Before the session was over there
was actually a motion to release the States from their obligation
to restore the money--to lay which motion on the table there were
seventy-three resisting votes--an astonishing number in itself,
and the more so as given by the same members, sitting in the same
seats, who had voted for the act as a deposit a few months before.
Such a vote was ominous of the fate of the money; and that fate was
not long delayed. Akin to this measure, and in fact the parent of
which it was the bastard progeny, was distribution itself, under
its own proper name; and which it was evident was soon to be openly
attempted, encouraged as its advocates were by the success gained in
the deposit act. The President, with his characteristic frankness
and firmness, impugned that policy in advance; and deprecated its
effects under every aspect of public and private justice, and of
every consideration of a wise or just policy. He said:
"To collect revenue merely for distribution to the States,
would seem to be highly impolitic, if not as dangerous as
the proposition to retain it in the Treasury. The shortest
reflection must satisfy every one that to require the people
to pay taxes to the government merely that they may be paid
back again, is sporting with the substantial interests of the
country, and no system which produces such a result can be
expected to receive the public countenance. Nothing could be
gained by it, even if each individual who contributed a portion
of the tax could receive back promptly the same portion. But it
is apparent that no system of the kind can ever be enforced,
which will not absorb a considerable portion of the money, to be
distributed in salaries and commissions to the agents employed
in the process, and in the various losses and depreciations
which arise from other causes; and the practical effect of such
an attempt must ever be to burden the people with taxes, not
for purposes beneficial to them, but to swell the profits of
deposit banks, and support a band of useless public officers. A
distribution to the people is impracticable and unjust in other
respects. It would be taking one man's property and giving it
to another. Such would be the unavoidable result of a rule of
equality (and none other is spoken of, or would be likely to
be adopted), inasmuch as there is no mode by which the amount
of the individual contributions of our citizens to the public
revenue can be ascertained. We know that they contribute
_unequally_, and a rule therefore that would distribute to them
_equally_, would be liable to all the objections which apply
to the principle of an equal division of property. To make the
general government the instrument of carrying this odious
principle into effect, would be at once to destroy the means of
its usefulness, and change the character designed for it by the
framers of the constitution."
There was another consideration connected with this policy of
distribution which the President did not name, and could not, in the
decorum and reserve of an official communication to Congress: it was
the intended effect of these distributions--to debauch the people
with their own money, and to gain presidential votes by lavishing
upon them the spoils of their country. To the honor of the people
this intended effect never occurred; no one of those contriving
these distributions ever reaching the high object of their ambition.
Instead of distribution--instead of raising money from the people to
be returned to the people, with all the deductions which the double
operation of collecting and dividing would incur, and with the
losses which unfaithful agents might inflict--instead of that idle
and wasteful process, which would have been childish if it had not
been vicious, he recommended a reduction of taxes on the comforts
and necessaries of life, and the levy of no more money than was
necessary for the economical administration of the government; and
said:
"In reducing the revenue to the wants of the government,
your particular attention is invited to those articles which
constitute the necessaries of life. The duty on salt was laid
as a war tax, and was no doubt continued to assist in providing
for the payment of the war debt. There is no article the
release of which from taxation would be felt so generally and
so beneficially. To this may be added all kinds of fuel and
provisions. Justice and benevolence unite in favor of releasing
the poor of our cities from burdens which are not necessary to
the support of our government, and tend only to increase the
wants of the destitute."
The issuance of the "Treasury Circular" naturally claimed a place
in the President's message; and received it. The President gave his
reason for the measure in the necessity of saving the public domain
from being exchanged for bank paper money, which was not wanted, and
might be of little value or use when wanted; and expressed himself
thus:
"The effects of an extension of bank credits, and over-issues
of bank paper, have been strikingly illustrated in the sales of
the public lands. From the returns made by the various registers
and receivers in the early part of last summer it was perceived
that the receipts arising from the sales of the public lands,
were increasing to an unprecedented amount. In effect, however,
these receipts amounted to nothing more than credits in bank.
The banks lent out their notes to speculators; they were paid
to the receivers, and immediately returned to the banks, to be
lent out again and again; being mere instruments to transfer
to speculators the most valuable public land, and pay the
government by a credit on the books of the banks. Those credits
on the books of some of the western banks, usually called
deposits, were already greatly beyond their immediate means of
payment, and were rapidly increasing. Indeed each speculation
furnished means for another; for no sooner had one individual or
company paid in the notes, than they were immediately lent to
another for a like purpose; and the banks were extending their
business and their issues so largely, as to alarm considerate
men, and render it doubtful whether these bank credits, if
permitted to accumulate, would ultimately be of the least value
to the government. The spirit of expansion and speculation
was not confined to the deposit banks, but pervaded the whole
multitude of banks throughout the Union, and was giving rise
to new institutions to aggravate the evil. The safety of the
public funds, and the interest of the people generally, required
that these operations should be checked; and it became the
duty of every branch of the general and State governments to
adopt all legitimate and proper means to produce that salutary
effect. Under this view of my duty, I directed the issuing of
the order which will be laid before you by the Secretary of the
Treasury, requiring payment for the public lands sold to be
made in specie, with an exception until the 15th of the present
month, in favor of actual settlers. This measure has produced
many salutary consequences. It checked the career of the Western
banks, and gave them additional strength in anticipation of the
pressure which has since pervaded our Eastern as well as the
European commercial cities. By preventing the extension of the
credit system, it measurably cut off the means of speculation,
and retarded its progress in monopolizing the most valuable of
the public lands. It has tended to save the new States from
a non-resident proprietorship, one of the greatest obstacles
to the advancement of a new country, and the prosperity of an
old one. It has tended to keep open the public lands for the
entry of emigrants at government prices, instead of their being
compelled to purchase of speculators at double or treble prices.
And it is conveying into the interior large sums in silver
and gold, there to enter permanently into the currency of the
country, and place it on a firmer foundation. It is confidently
believed that the country will find in the motives which induced
that order, and the happy consequences which will have ensued,
much to commend and nothing to condemn."
The people were satisfied with the Treasury Circular; they saw its
honesty and good effects; but the politicians were not satisfied
with it. They thought they saw in it a new exercise of illegal
power in the President--a new tampering with the currency--a new
destruction of the public prosperity; and commenced an attack upon
it the moment Congress met, very much in the style of the attack
upon the order for the removal of the deposits; and with fresh
hopes from the resentment of the "thousand banks," whose notes had
been excluded, and from the discontent of many members of Congress
whose schemes of speculation had been balked. And notwithstanding
the democratic majorities in the two Houses, the attack upon the
"Circular" had a great success, many members being interested in
the excluded banks, and partners in schemes for monopolizing the
lands. A bill intended to repeal the Circular was actually passed
through both Houses; but not in direct terms. That would have been
too flagrant. It was a bad thing, and could not be fairly done, and
therefore gave rise to indirection and ambiguity of provisions, and
complication of phrases, and a multiplication of amphibologies,
which brought the bill to a very ridiculous conclusion when it got
to the hands of General Jackson. But of this hereafter.
The intrusive efforts made by politicians and missionaries, first,
to prevent treaties from being formed with the Indians to remove
from the Southern States, and then to prevent the removal after the
treaties were made, led to serious refusals on the part of some
of these tribes to emigrate; and it became necessary to dispatch
officers of high rank and reputation, with regular troops, to keep
down outrages and induce peaceable removal. Major General Jesup
was sent to the Creek nation, where he had a splendid success in a
speedy and bloodless accomplishment of his object. Major General
Scott was sent to the Cherokees, where a pertinacious resistance
was long encountered, but eventually and peaceably overcome. The
Seminole hostilities in Florida were just breaking out; and the
President, in his message, thus notices all these events:
"The military movements rendered necessary by the aggressions
of the hostile portions of the Seminole and Creek tribes of
Indians, and by other circumstances, have required the active
employment of nearly our whole regular force, including the
marine corps, and of large bodies of militia and volunteers.
With all these events, so far as they were known at the seat
of government before the termination of your last session,
you are already acquainted; and it is therefore only needful
in this place to lay before you a brief summary of what has
since occurred. The war with the Seminoles during the summer
was, on our part, chiefly confined to the protection of our
frontier settlements from the incursions of the enemy; and, as
a necessary and important means for the accomplishment of that
end, to the maintenance of the posts previously established.
In the course of this duty several actions took place, in
which the bravery and discipline of both officers and men were
conspicuously displayed, and which I have deemed it proper to
notice in respect to the former, by the granting of brevet rank
for gallant services in the field. But as the force of the
Indians was not so far weakened by these partial successes as to
lead them to submit, and as their savage inroads were frequently
repeated, early measures were taken for placing at the disposal
of Governor Call, who, as commander-in-chief of the territorial
militia, had been temporarily invested with the command, an
ample force, for the purpose of resuming offensive operations
in the most efficient manner, so soon as the season should
permit. Major General Jesup was also directed, on the conclusion
of his duties in the Creek country, to repair to Florida, and
assume the command. Happily for the interests of humanity, the
hostilities with the Creeks were brought to a close soon after
your adjournment, without that effusion of blood, which at one
time was apprehended as inevitable. The unconditional submission
of the hostile party was followed by their speedy removal to the
country assigned them west of the Mississippi. The inquiry as to
the alleged frauds in the purchase of the reservations of these
Indians, and the causes of their hostilities, requested by the
resolution of the House of Representatives of the 1st of July
last to be made by the President, is now going on, through the
agency of commissioners appointed for that purpose. Their report
may be expected during your present session. The difficulties
apprehended in the Cherokee country have been prevented, and the
peace and safety of that region and its vicinity effectually
secured, by the timely measures taken by the war department, and
still continued."
The Bank of the United States was destined to receive another, and
a parting notice from General Jackson, and greatly to its further
discredit, brought upon it by its own lawless and dishonest course.
Its charter had expired, and it had delayed to refund the stock
paid for by the United States, or to pay the back dividend; and had
transferred itself with all its effects, and all its subscribers
except the United States, to a new corporation, under the same
name, created by a _proviso_ to a road bill in the General Assembly
of Pennsylvania, obtained by bribery, as subsequent legislative
investigation proved. This transfer, or transmigration, was a new
and most amazing procedure. The metempsychosis of a bank was a
novelty which confounded and astounded the senses, and set the wits
of Congress to work to find out how it could legally be done. The
President, though a good lawyer and judge of law, did not trouble
himself with legal subtleties and disquisitions. He took the broad,
moral, practical, business view of the question; and pronounced it
to be dishonest, unlawful, and irresponsible; and recommended to
Congress to look after its stock. The message said:
"The conduct and present condition of that bank, and the great
amount of capital vested in it by the United States, require
your careful attention. Its charter expired on the third day of
March last, and it has now no power but that given in the 21st
section, 'to use the corporate name, style, and capacity, for
the purpose of suits, for the final settlement and liquidation
of the affairs and accounts of the corporation, and for the sale
and disposition of their estate, real, personal, and mixed, and
not for any other purpose, or in any other manner whatsoever,
nor for a period exceeding two years after the expiration of
the said term of incorporation.' Before the expiration of
the charter, the stockholders of the bank obtained an act of
incorporation from the legislature of Pennsylvania, excluding
only the United States. Instead of proceeding to wind up their
concerns, and pay over to the United States the amount due on
account of the stock held by them, the president and directors
of the old bank appear to have transferred the books, papers,
notes, obligations, and most or all of its property, to this new
corporation, which entered upon business as a continuation of
the old concern. Amongst other acts of questionable validity,
the notes of the expired corporation are known to have been used
as its own, and again put in circulation. That the old bank had
no right to issue or reissue its notes after the expiration of
its charter, cannot be denied; and that it could not confer any
such right on its substitute, any more than exercise it itself,
is equally plain. In law and honesty, the notes of the bank
in circulation, at the expiration of its charter, should have
been called in by public advertisement, paid up as presented,
and, together with those on hand, cancelled and destroyed.
Their re-issue is sanctioned by no law, and warranted by no
necessity. If the United States be responsible in their stock
for the payment of these notes, their re-issue by the new
corporation, for their own profit, is a fraud on the government.
If the United States is not responsible, then there is no legal
responsibility in any quarter, and it is a fraud on the country.
They are the redeemed notes of a dissolved partnership, but,
contrary to the wishes of the retiring partner, and without his
consent, are again re-issued and circulated. It is the high
and peculiar duty of Congress to decide whether any further
legislation be necessary for the security of the large amount
of public property now held and in use by the new bank, and
for vindicating the rights of the government, and compelling a
speedy and honest settlement with all the creditors of the old
bank, public and private, or whether the subject shall be left
to the power now possessed by the executive and judiciary. It
remains to be seen whether the persons, who, as managers of
the old bank, undertook to control the government, retained
the public dividends, shut their doors upon a committee of the
House of Representatives, and filled the country with panic to
accomplish their own sinister objects, may now, as managers of
a new Bank, continue with impunity to flood the country with a
spurious currency, use the seven millions of government stock
for their own profit, and refuse to the United States all
information as to the present condition of their own property,
and the prospect of recovering it into their own possession.
The lessons taught by the bank of the United States cannot
well be lost upon the American people. They will take care
never again to place so tremendous a power in irresponsible
hands, and it will be fortunate if they seriously consider the
consequences which are likely to result on a smaller scale from
the facility with which corporate powers are granted by their
State government."
This novel and amazing attempt of the bank to transmigrate into
the body of another bank with all its effects, was a necessity of
its position--the necessity which draws a criminal to even insane
acts to prevent the detection, exposure, and ruin from which guilt
recoils in not less guilty contrivances. The bank was broken, and
could not wind up, and wished to postpone, or by chance avert
the dreaded discovery. It was in the position of a glass vase,
cracked from top to bottom, and ready to split open if touched, but
looking as if whole while sitting unmoved on the shelf. The great
bank was in this condition, and therefore untouchable, and saw no
resource except in a metempsychosis--a difficult process for a
soulless institution--and thereby endeavoring to continue its life
without a change of name, form, or substance. The experiment was a
catastrophe, as might have been expected beforehand; and as was soon
seen afterwards.
The injury resulting to the public service from the long delay
in making the appropriations at the last session--delayed while
occupied with distribution bills until the season for labor had well
passed away. On this point the message said:
"No time was lost, after the making of the requisite
appropriations, in resuming the great national work of
completing the unfinished fortifications on our seaboard, and
of placing them in a proper state of defence. In consequence,
however, of the very late day at which those bills were passed,
but little progress could be made during the season which has
just closed. A very large amount of the moneys granted at your
last session accordingly remains unexpended; but as the work
will be again resumed at the earliest moment in the coming
spring, the balance of the existing appropriations, and, in
several cases which will be laid before you, with the proper
estimates, further sums for the like objects, may be usefully
expended during the next year."
Here was one of the evils of dividing the public money, and of
factious opposition to the government. The session of 1834-'5 had
closed without a dollar for the military defences, leaving half
finished works unfinished, and finished works unarmed; and that in
the presence of a threatening collision with France; and at the
subsequent session of 1835-6, the appropriations were not made until
the month of July and when they could not be used or applied.
Scarcely did the railroad system begin to spread itself along the
highways of the United States than the effects of the monopoly
and extortion incident to moneyed corporations, began to manifest
itself in exorbitant demands for the transportation of the mails,
and in capricious refusals to carry them at all except on their own
terms. President Jackson was not the man to submit to an imposition,
or to capitulate to a corporation. He brought the subject before
Congress, and invited particular attention to it in a paragraph of
his message; in which he said:
"Your particular attention is invited to the subject of mail
contracts with railroad companies. The present laws providing
for the making of contracts are based upon the presumption that
competition among bidders will secure the service at a fair
price. But on most of the railroad lines there is no competition
in that kind of transportation, and advertising is therefore
useless. No contract can now be made with them, except such as
shall be negotiated before the time of offering or afterwards,
and the power of the Postmaster-general to pay them high prices
is, practically, without limitation. It would be a relief to
him, and no doubt would conduce to the public interest, to
prescribe by law some equitable basis upon which such contracts
shall rest, and restrict him by a fixed rule of allowance. Under
a liberal act of that sort, he would undoubtedly be able to
secure the services of most of the railroad companies, and the
interest of the Department would be thus advanced."
The message recommended a friendly supervision over the Indian
tribes removed to the West of the Mississippi, with the important
suggestion of preventing intestine war by military interference, as
well as improving their condition by all the usual means. On these
points, it said:
"The national policy, founded alike in interest and in humanity,
so long and so steadily pursued by this government, for the
removal of the Indian tribes originally settled on this side
of the Mississippi, to the west of that river, may be said to
have been consummated by the conclusion of the late treaty with
the Cherokees. The measures taken in the execution of that
treaty, and in relation to our Indian affairs generally, will
fully appear by referring to the accompanying papers. Without
dwelling on the numerous and important topics embraced in them,
I again invite your attention to the importance of providing
a well-digested and comprehensive system for the protection,
supervision and improvement of the various tribes now planted
in the Indian country. The suggestions submitted by the
commissioner of Indian affairs, and enforced by the secretary,
on this subject, and also in regard to the establishment of
additional military posts in the Indian country, are entitled
to your profound consideration. Both measures are necessary for
the double purpose of protecting the Indians from intestine
war, and in other respects complying with our engagements to
them, and of securing our Western frontier against incursions,
which otherwise will assuredly be made on it. The best hopes
of humanity, in regard to the aboriginal race, the welfare
of our rapidly extending settlements, and the honor of the
United States, are all deeply involved in the relations
existing between this government and the emigrating tribes. I
trust, therefore, that the various matters submitted in the
accompanying documents, in respect to those relations, will
receive your early and mature deliberation; and that it may
issue in the adoption of legislative measures adapted to the
circumstances and duties of the present crisis."
This suggestion of preventing intestine wars (as they are called)
in the bosoms of the tribes, is founded equally in humanity to
the Indians and duty to ourselves. Such wars are nothing but
massacres, assassinations and confiscations. The stronger party
oppress a hated, or feared minority or chief; and slay with
impunity (in some of the tribes), where the assumption of a form of
government, modelled after that of the white race, for which they
have no capacity, gives the justification of executions to what
is nothing but revenge and assassination. Under their own ancient
laws, of blood for blood, and for the slain to avenge the wrong,
this liability of personal responsibility restrained the killings
to cases of public justifiable necessity. Since the removal of that
responsibility, revenge, ambition, plunder, take their course: and
the consequence is a series of assassinations which have been going
on for a long time; and still continue. To aggravate many of these
massacres, and to give their victims a stronger claim upon the
protection of the United States, they are done upon those who are
friends to the United States, upon accusations of having betrayed
the interest of the tribe in some treaty for the sale of lands. The
United States claim jurisdiction over their country, and exercise it
in the punishment of some classes of criminals; and it would be good
to extend it to the length recommended by President Jackson.
The message would have been incomplete without a renewal of the
standing recommendation to take the presidential election out of the
hands of intermediate bodies, and give it directly to the people.
He earnestly urged an amendment to the constitution to that effect;
but that remedy being of slow, difficult, and doubtful attainment,
the more speedy process by the action of the people becomes the
more necessary. Congressional caucuses were put down by the people
in the election of 1824: their substitute and successor--national
conventions--ruled by a minority, and managed by intrigue and
corruption, are about as much worse than a Congress caucus as
Congress itself would be if the members appointed, or contrived the
appointment, of themselves, instead of being elected by the people.
The message appropriately concluded with thanks to the people for
the high honors to which they had lifted him, and their support
under arduous circumstances, and said:
"Having now finished the observations deemed proper on this,
the last occasion I shall have of communicating with the
two Houses of Congress at their meeting, I cannot omit an
expression of the gratitude which is due to the great body
of my fellow citizens, in whose partiality and indulgence I
have found encouragement and support in the many difficult and
trying scenes through which it has been my lot to pass during
my public career. Though deeply sensible that my exertions have
not been crowned with a success corresponding to the degree of
favor bestowed upon me, I am sure that they will be considered
as having been directed by an earnest desire to promote the
good of my country; and I am consoled by the persuasion that
whatever errors have been committed will find a corrective in
the intelligence and patriotism of those who will succeed us.
All that has occurred during my administration is calculated
to inspire me with increased confidence in the stability of
our institutions, and should I be spared to enter upon that
retirement which is so suitable to my age and infirm health, and
so much desired by me in other respects, I shall not cease to
invoke that beneficent Being to whose providence we are already
so signally indebted for the continuance of his blessings on our
beloved country."
CHAPTER CLIV.
FINAL REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS.
At the commencement of the annual session of 1836-'37, President
Jackson had the gratification to make known to Congress the
completion of the long-pursued policy of removing all the Indians
in the States, and within the organized territories of the Union,
to their new homes west of the Mississippi. It was a policy
commencing with Jefferson, pursued by all succeeding Presidents, and
accomplished by Jackson. The Creeks and Cherokees had withdrawn from
Georgia and Alabama; the Chickasaws and Choctaws from Mississippi
and Alabama; the Seminoles had stipulated to remove from Florida;
Louisiana, Arkansas and Missouri had all been relieved of their
Indian population; Kentucky and Tennessee, by earlier treaties with
the Chickasaws, had received the same advantage. This freed the
slave States from an obstacle to their growth and prosperity, and
left them free to expand, and to cultivate, to the full measure
of their ample boundaries. All the free Atlantic States had long
been relieved from their Indian populations, and in this respect
the northern and southern States were now upon an equality. The
result has been proved to be, what it was then believed it would
be, beneficial to both parties; and still more so to the Indians
than to the whites. With them it was a question of extinction,
the time only the debatable point. They were daily wasting under
contact with the whites, and had before their eyes the eventual but
certain fate of the hundreds of tribes found by the early colonists
on the Roanoke, the James River, the Potomac, the Susquehannah,
the Delaware, the Connecticut, the Merrimac, the Kennebec and the
Penobscot. The removal saved the southern tribes from that fate;
and in giving them new and unmolested homes beyond the verge of the
white man's settlement, in a country temperate in climate, fertile
in soil, adapted to agriculture and to pasturage, with an outlet for
hunting, abounding with salt water and salt springs--it left them
to work out in peace the problem of Indian civilization. To all the
relieved States the removal of the tribes within their borders was a
great benefit--to the slave States transcendently and inappreciably
great. The largest tribes were within their limits, and the best of
their lands in the hands of the Indians, to the extent, in some of
the States, as Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, of a third or a
quarter of their whole area. I have heretofore shown, in the case of
the Creeks and the Cherokees in Georgia, that the ratification of
the treaties for the extinction of Indian claims within her limits,
and which removed the tribes which encumbered her, received the
cordial support of northern senators; and that, in fact, without
that support these great objects could not have been accomplished.
I have now to say the same of all the other slave States. They were
all relieved in like manner. Chickasaws and Choctaws in Mississippi
and Alabama; Chickasaw claims in Tennessee and Kentucky; Seminoles
in Florida; Caddos and Quapaws in Louisiana and in Arkansas;
Kickapoos, Delawares, Shawnees, Osages, Iowas, Pinkeshaws, Weas,
Peorias, in Missouri; all underwent the same process, and with the
same support and result. Northern votes, in the Senate, came to the
ratification of every treaty, and to the passage of every necessary
appropriation act in the House of Representatives. Northern men may
be said to have made the treaties, and passed the acts, as without
their aid it could not have been done, constituting, as they did, a
large majority in the House, and being equal in the Senate, where
a vote of two-thirds was wanting. I do not go over these treaties
and laws one by one, to show their passage, and by what votes. I
did that in the case of the Creek treaty and the Cherokee treaty,
for the removal of these tribes from Georgia; and showed that the
North was unanimous in one case, and nearly so in the other, while
in both treaties there was a southern opposition, and in one of
them (the Cherokee), both Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Clay in the negative:
and these instances may stand for an illustration of the whole. And
thus the area of slave population has been almost doubled in the
slave States, by sending away the Indians to make room for their
expansion; and it is unjust and cruel--unjust and cruel in itself,
independent of the motive--to charge these Northern States with
a design to abolish slavery in the South. If they had harbored
such design--if they had been merely unfriendly to the growth and
prosperity of these Southern States, there was an easy way to
have gratified their feelings, without committing a breach of the
constitution, or an aggression or encroachment upon these States:
they had only to sit still and vote against the ratification of the
treaties, and the enactment of the laws which effected this great
removal. They did not do so--did not sit still and vote against
their Southern brethren. On the contrary, they stood up and spoke
aloud, and gave to these laws and treaties an effective and zealous
support. And I, who was the Senate's chairman of the committee of
Indian affairs at this time, and know how these things were done,
and who was so thankful for northern help at the time; I, who know
the truth and love justice, and cherish the harmony and union of
the American people, feel it to be my duty and my privilege to note
this great act of justice from the North to the South, to stand
in history as a perpetual contradiction of all imputed design in
the free States to abolish slavery in the slave States. I speak of
States, not of individuals or societies.
I have shown that this policy of the universal removal of the
Indians from the East to the West of the Mississippi originated
with Mr. Jefferson, and from the most humane motives, and after
having seen the extinction of more than forty tribes in his own
State of Virginia; and had been followed up under all subsequent
administrations. With General Jackson it was nothing but the
continuation of an established policy, but one in which he heartily
concurred, and of which his local position and his experience made
him one of the safest of judges; but, like every other act of his
administration, it was destined to obloquy and opposition, and
to misrepresentations, which have survived the object of their
creation, and gone into history. He was charged with injustice
to the Indians, in not protecting them against the laws and
jurisdiction of the States; with cruelty, in driving them away from
the bones of their fathers; with robbery, in taking their lands for
paltry considerations. Parts of the tribes were excited to resist
the execution of the treaties, and it even became necessary to send
troops and distinguished generals--Scott to the Cherokees, Jesup
to the Creeks--to effect their removal; which, by the mildness and
steadiness of these generals, and according to the humane spirit of
their orders, was eventually accomplished without the aid of force.
The outcry raised against General Jackson, on account of these
measures, reached the ears of the French traveller and writer on
American democracy (De Tocqueville), then sojourning among us and
collecting materials for his work, and induced him to write thus in
his chapter 18:
"The ejectment of the Indians very often takes place, at the
present day, in a regular, and, as it were, legal manner. When
the white population begins to approach the limit of a desert
inhabited by a savage tribe, the government of the United States
usually dispatches envoys to them, who assemble the Indians
in a large plain, and having first eaten and drunk with them,
accost them in the following manner: 'What have you to do in
the land of your fathers? Before long you must dig up their
bones in order to live. In what respect is the country you
inhabit better than another? Are there no woods, marshes or
prairies, except where you dwell? and can you live nowhere but
under your own sun? Beyond those mountains, which you see at
the horizon--beyond the lake which bounds your territory on the
west--there lie vast countries where beasts of chase are found
in great abundance. Sell your lands to us, and go and live
happily in those solitudes.'
"After holding this language, they spread before the eyes of
the Indians fire-arms, woollen garments, kegs of brandy, glass
necklaces, bracelets of tinsel, ear-rings, and looking-glasses.
If, when they have beheld all these riches, they still hesitate,
it is insinuated that they have not the means of refusing their
required consent, and that the government itself will not long
have the power of protecting them in their rights. What are
they to do? Half convinced, half compelled, they go to inhabit
new deserts, where the importunate whites will not permit them
to remain ten years in tranquillity. In this manner do the
Americans obtain, at a very low price, whole provinces, which
the richest sovereigns in Europe could not purchase."
The Grecian Plutarch deemed it necessary to reside forty years in
Rome, to qualify himself to write the lives of some Roman citizens;
and then made mistakes. European writers do not deem it necessary
to reside in our country at all in order to write our history. A
sojourn of some months in the principal towns--a rapid flight along
some great roads--the gossip of the steamboat, the steam-car, the
stage-coach, and the hotel--the whispers of some earwigs--with the
reading of the daily papers and the periodicals, all more or less
engaged in partisan warfare--and the view of some debates, or scene,
in Congress, which may be an exception to its ordinary decorum
and intelligence: these constitute a modern European traveller's
qualifications to write American history. No wonder that they commit
mistakes, even where the intent is honest. And no wonder that Mons.
de Tocqueville, with admitted good intentions, but with no "forty
years" residence among us, should be no exception to the rule
which condemns the travelling European writer of American history
to the compilation of facts manufactured for partisan effect, and
to the invention of reasons supplied from his own fancy. I have
already had occasion, several times, to correct the errors of
Mons. de Tocqueville. It is a compliment to him, implicative of
respect, and by no means extended to others, who err more largely,
and of purpose, but less harmfully. His error in all that he has
here written is profound! and is injurious, not merely to General
Jackson, to whom his mistakes apply, but to the national character,
made up as it is of the acts of individuals; and which character it
is the duty of every American to cherish and exalt in all that is
worthy, and to protect and defend from all unjust imputation. It
was in this sense that I marked this passage in De Tocqueville for
refutation as soon as his book appeared, and took steps to make the
contradiction (so far as the alleged robbery and cheating of the
Indians was concerned) authentic and complete and as public and
durable as the archives of the government itself. In this sense I
had a call made for a full, numerical, chronological and official
statement of all our Indian purchases, from the beginning of the
federal government in 1789 to that day, 1840--tribe by tribe,
cession by cession, year by year--for the fifty years which the
government had existed; with the number of acres acquired at each
cession, and the amount paid for each.
The call was made in the Senate of the United States, and answered
by document No. 616, 1st session, 26th Congress, in a document of
thirteen printed tabular pages, and authenticated by the signatures
of Mr. Van Buren, President; Mr. Poinsett, Secretary at War; and
Mr. Hartley Crawford, Commissioner of Indian Affairs. From this
document it appeared, that the United States had paid to the Indians
eighty-five millions of dollars for land purchases up to the year
1840! to which five or six millions may be added for purchases
since--say ninety millions. This is near six times as much as the
United States gave the great Napoleon for Louisiana, the whole
of it, soil and jurisdiction; and nearly three times as much as
all three of the great foreign purchases--Louisiana, Florida and
California--cost us! and that for soil alone, and for so much as
would only be a fragment of Louisiana or California. Impressive as
this statement is in the gross, it becomes more so in the detail,
and when applied to the particular tribes whose imputed sufferings
have drawn so mournful a picture from Mons. de Tocqueville. These
are the four great southern tribes--Creeks, Cherokees, Chickasaws
and Choctaws. Applied to them, and the table of purchases and
payments stands thus: To the Creek Indians twenty-two millions of
dollars for twenty-five millions of acres; which is seven millions
more than was paid France for Louisiana, and seventeen millions
more than was paid Spain for Florida. To the Choctaws, twenty-three
millions of dollars (besides reserved tracts), for twenty millions
of acres, being three millions more than was paid for Louisiana and
Florida. To the Cherokees, for eleven millions of acres, was paid
about fifteen millions of dollars, the exact price of Louisiana or
California. To the Chickasaws, the whole net amount for which this
country sold under the land system of the United States, and by the
United States land officers, three millions of dollars for six and
three-quarter millions of acres, being the way the nation chose to
dispose of it. Here are fifty-six millions to four tribes, leaving
thirty millions to go to the small tribes whose names are unknown to
history, and which it is probable the writer on American democracy
had never heard of when sketching the picture of their fancied
oppressions.
I will attend to the case of these small remote tribes, and
say that, besides their proportion of the remaining thirty-six
millions of dollars, they received a kind of compensation suited
to their condition, and intended to induct them into the comforts
of civilized life. Of these I will give one example, drawn from a
treaty with the Osages, in 1839; and which was only in addition to
similar benefits to the same tribe, in previous treaties, and which
were extended to all the tribes which were in the hunting state.
These benefits were, to these Osages, two blacksmith's shops, with
four blacksmiths, with five hundred pounds of iron and sixty pounds
of steel annually; a grist and a saw mill, with millers for the
same; 1,000 cows and calves; two thousand breeding swine; 1,000
ploughs; 1,000 sets of horse-gear; 1,000 axes; 1,000 hoes; a house
each for ten chiefs, costing two hundred dollars apiece; to furnish
these chiefs with six good wagons, sixteen carts, twenty-eight yokes
of oxen, with yokes and log-chain; to pay all claims for injuries
committed by the tribe on the white people, or on other Indians, to
the amount of thirty thousand dollars; to purchase their reserved
lands at two dollars per acre; three thousand dollars to reimburse
that sum for so much deducted from their annuity, in 1825, for
property taken from the whites, and since returned; and, finally,
three thousand dollars more for an imputed wrongful withholding of
that amount, for the same reason, in the annuity payment of the
year 1829. In previous treaties, had been given seed grains, and
seed vegetables, with fruit seeds and fruit trees; domestic fowls;
laborers to plough up their ground and to make their fences, to
raise crops and to save them, and teach the Indians how to farm;
with spinning, weaving, and sewing implements, and persons to
show their use. Now, all this was in one single treaty, with an
inconsiderable tribe, which had been largely provided for in the
same way in six different previous treaties! And all the rude
tribes--those in the hunting state, or just emerging from it--were
provided for in the same manner, the object of the United States
being to train them to agriculture and pasturage--to conduct them
from the hunting to the pastoral and agricultural state; and for
that purpose, and in addition to all other benefits, are to be added
the support of schools, the encouragement of missionaries, and a
small annual contribution to religious societies who take charge of
their civilization.
Besides all this, the government keeps up a large establishment
for the special care of the Indians, and the management of their
affairs; a special bureau, presided over by a commissioner at
Washington City; superintendents in different districts; agents,
sub-agents, and interpreters, resident with the tribe; and all
charged with seeing to their rights and interests--seeing that the
laws are observed towards them; that no injuries are done them by
the whites; that none but licensed traders go among them; that
nothing shall be bought from them which is necessary for their
comfort, nor any thing sold to them which may be to their detriment.
Among the prohibited articles are spirits of all kinds; and so
severe are the penalties on this head, that forfeiture of the
license, forfeiture of the whole cargo of goods, forfeiture of the
penalty of the bond, and immediate suit in the nearest federal court
for its recovery, expulsion from the Indian country, and disability
for ever to acquire another license, immediately follow every
breach of the laws for the introduction of the smallest quantity of
any kind of spirits. How unfortunate, then, in M. de Tocqueville
to write, that kegs of brandy are spread before the Indians to
induce them to sell their lands! How unfortunate in representing
these purchases to be made in exchange for woollen garments, glass
necklaces, tinsel bracelets, ear-rings, and looking-glasses! What a
picture this assertion of his makes by the side of the eighty-five
millions of dollars at that time actually paid to those Indians
for their lands, and the long and large list of agricultural
articles and implements--long and large list of domestic animals
and fowls--the ample supply of mills and shops, with mechanics
to work them and teach their use--the provisions for schools and
missionaries, for building fences and houses--which are found in
the Osage treaty quoted, and which are to be found, more or less,
in every treaty with every tribe emerging from the hunter state.
The fact is, that the government of the United States has made it a
fixed policy to cherish and protect the Indians, to improve their
condition, and turn them to the habits of civilized life; and great
is the wrong and injury which the mistake of this writer has done to
our national character abroad, in representing the United States as
cheating and robbing these children of the forest.
But Mons. de Tocqueville has quoted names and documents, and
particular instances of imposition upon Indians, to justify his
picture; and in doing so has committed the mistakes into which
a stranger and sojourner may easily fall. He cites the report
of Messrs. Clark and Cass, and makes a wrong application--an
inverted application--of what they reported. They were speaking of
the practices of disorderly persons in trading with the Indians
for their skins and furs. They were reporting to the government
an abuse, for correction and punishment. They were not speaking
of United States commissioners, treating for the purchase of
lands, but of individual traders, violating the laws. They were
themselves those commissioners and superintendents of Indian
affairs, and governors of Territories, one for the northwest, in
Michigan, the other for the far west, in Missouri; and both noted
for their justice and humanity to the Indians, and for their
long and careful administration of their affairs within their
respective superintendencies. Mons. de Tocqueville has quoted their
words correctly, but with the comical blunder of reversing their
application, and applying to the commissioners themselves, in their
land negotiations for the government, the cheateries which they were
denouncing to the government, in the illicit traffic of lawless
traders. This was the comic blunder of a stranger: yet this is to
appear as American history in Europe, and to be translated into our
own language at home, and commended in a preface and notes.
CHAPTER CLV.
RECISION OF THE TREASURY CIRCULAR.
Immediately upon the opening of the Senate and the organization
of the body, Mr. Ewing, of Ohio, gave notice of his intention to
move a joint resolution to rescind the treasury circular; and on
hearing the notice, Mr. Benton made it known that he would oppose
the resolution at the second reading--a step seldom resorted to,
except when the measure to be so opposed is deemed too flagrantly
wrong to be entitled to the honor of rejection in the usual forms of
legislation. The debate came on promptly, and upon the lead of the
mover of the resolution, in a prepared and well-considered speech,
in which he said:
"This extraordinary paper was issued by the Secretary of the
Treasury on the 11th of July last, in the form of a circular
to the receivers of public money in the several land offices
in the United States, directing them, after the 15th of August
then next, to receive in payment for public lands nothing but
gold and silver and certificates of deposits, signed by the
Treasurer of the United States, with a saving in favor of
actual settlers, and bona fide residents in the State in which
the land happened to lie. This saving was for a limited time,
and expires, I think, to-morrow. The professed object of this
order was to check the speculations in public lands; to check
excessive issues of bank paper in the West, and to increase the
specie currency of the country; and the necessity of the measure
was supported, or pretended to be supported, by the opinions
of members of this body and the other branch of Congress. But,
before I proceed to examine in detail this paper, its character,
and its consequences, I will briefly advert to the state of
things out of which it grew. I am confident, and I believe I
can make the thing manifest, that the avowed objects were not
the only, nor even the leading objects for which this order was
framed; they may have influenced the minds of some who advised
it, but those who planned, and those who at last virtually
executed it, were governed by other and different motives,
which I shall proceed to explain. It was foreseen, prior to the
commencement of the last session of Congress, that there would
be a very large surplus of money in the public treasury beyond
the wants of the country for all their reasonable expenditures.
It was also well understood that the land bill, or some other
measure for the distribution of this fund, would be again
presented to Congress; and, if the true condition of the public
sentiment were known and understood, that its distribution,
in some form or other, would be demanded by the country. On
the other hand, it seems to have been determined by the party,
and some of those who act with it thoroughly, that the money
should remain where it was in the deposit banks, so that it
could be wielded at pleasure by the executive. This order grew
out of the contest to which I have referred. It was issued not
by the advice of Congress or under the sanction of any law. It
was delayed until Congress was fairly out of the city, and all
possibility of interference by legislation was removed; and then
came forth this new and last expedient. It was known that these
funds, received for public lands, had become a chief source of
revenue, and it may have occurred to some that the passage of a
treasury order of this kind would have a tendency to embarrass
the country; and as the bill for the regulation of the deposits
had just passed, the public might be brought to believe that
all the mischief occasioned by the order was the effect of the
distribution bill. It has, indeed, happened, that this scheme
has failed; the public understand it rightly, but that was not
by any means certain at the time the measure was devised. It was
not then foreseen that the people would as generally see through
the contrivance as it has since been found that they do. There
may have been various other motives which led to the measure.
Many minds were probably to be consulted; for it is not to be
presumed that a step like this was taken without consultation,
and guided by the will of a single individual alone. That is
not the way in which these things are done. No doubt one effect
hoped for by some was, that a check would be put to the sales of
the public lands. The operation of the order would naturally be,
to raise the price of land by raising the price of the currency
in which it was to be paid for. But, while this would be the
effect on small buyers, those who purchased on a large scale
would be enabled to sell at an advance of ten or fifteen per
cent. over what would have been given if the United States lands
had been open to purchasers in the ordinary way. Those who had
borrowed money of the deposit banks and paid it out for lands,
would thus be enabled to make sales to advantage; and by means
of such sales make payment to the banks who found it necessary
to call in their large loans, in order to meet the provisions of
the deposit bill. The order, therefore, was likely to operate
to the common benefit of the deposit banks and the great land
dealers, while it counteracted the effect of the obnoxious
deposit bill. There may have been yet another motive actuating
some of those who devised this order. There was danger that the
deposit banks, when called upon to refund the public treasure,
would be unable to do it: indeed, it was said on this floor that
the immediate effect of the distribution bill would be to break
those banks. How this treasury order would operate to collect
the specie of the country into the land offices, whence it
would immediately go into the deposit banks, and would prove an
acceptable aid to them while making the transfers required by
law. These seem to me to have been among the real motives which
led to the adoption of that order."
Mr. Ewing then argued at length against the legality of the treasury
circular, quoting the joint resolution of 1816, and insisting that
its provisions had been violated; also insisting on the largeness
of the surplus, and that it had turned out to be much larger than
was admitted by the friends of the administration; which latter
assertion was in fact true, because the appropriations for the
public service (the bills for which were in the hands of the
opposition members) had been kept off till the middle of the summer,
and could not be used; and so left some fifteen millions in the
treasury of appropriated money which fell under the terms of the
deposit act, and became divisible as surplus.
Mr. Benton replied to Mr. Ewing, saying:
"In the first of these objects the present movement is twin
brother to the famous resolution of 1833, but without its
boldness; for that resolution declared its object upon its face,
while this one eschews specification, and insidiously seeks
a judgment of condemnation by inference and argument. In the
second of these objects every body will recognize the great
design of the second branch of the same famous resolution of
1833, which, in the restoration of the deposits to the Bank of
the United States, clearly went to the establishment of the
paper system, and its supremacy over the federal government. The
present movement, therefore, is a second edition of the old one,
but a lame and impotent affair compared to that. Then, we had
a magnificent panic; now, nothing but a miserable starveling!
For though the letter of the president of the Bank of the
United States announced, early in November, that the meeting of
Congress was the time for the new distress to become intense,
yet we are two weeks deep in the session, and no distress
memorial, no distress deputation, no distress committees, to
this hour! Nothing, in fact, in that line, but the distress
speech of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ewing]; so that the new
panic of 1836 has all the signs of being a lean and slender
affair--a mere church-mouse concern--a sort of dwarfish, impish
imitation of the gigantic spectre which stalked through the land
in 1833."
Mr. Benton then showed that this subaltern and Lilliputian panic was
brought upon the stage in the same way, and by the same managers,
with its gigantic brother of 1833-'34; and quoted from a published
letter of Mr. Biddle in November preceding, and a public speech of
Mr. Clay in the month of September preceding, in which they gave
out the programme for the institution of the little panic; and
the proceeding against the President for violating the laws; and
against the treasury order itself as the cause of the new distress.
Mr. Biddle in his publication said: "Our pecuniary condition seems
to be a strange anomaly. When Congress adjourned, it left the
country with abundant crops, and high prices for them--with every
branch of industry flourishing, and with more specie than we ever
had before--with all the elements of universal prosperity. None of
these have undergone the slightest change; yet, after a few months,
Congress will re-assemble, and find the whole country suffering
intense pecuniary distress. The occasion of this, and the remedy for
it, will occupy our thoughts. In my judgment, the main cause of it
is the mismanagement of the revenue--mismanagement in two respects:
the mode of executing the distribution law, and the order requiring
specie for the payment of the public lands--an act which seems to
me a most wanton abuse of power, if not a flagrant usurpation.
The remedy follows the causes of the evils. The first measure of
relief, therefore, should be the instant repeal of the treasury
order requiring specie for lands; the second, the adoption of a
proper system to execute the distribution law. These measures would
restore confidence in twenty-four hours, and repose in at least as
many days. If the treasury will not adopt them voluntarily, Congress
should immediately command it." This was the recommendation, or
mandate, of the president of the Bank of the United States, still
acting as a part of the national legislative power even in its new
transformation, and keeping an eye upon that distribution which
Congress passed as a deposit, which he had recommended as raising
the price of the State stocks held by the bank; and the delay in
the delivery of which he considers as one of the causes which had
brought on the new distress. Mr. Clay in his Lexington speech had
taken the same grounds; and speaking of the continued tampering with
the currency by the administration, went on to say:
"One rash, lawless, and crude experiment succeeds another. He
considered the late treasury order, by which all payments for
public lands were to be in specie, with one exception, for a
short duration, a most ill-advised, illegal, and pernicious
measure. In principle it was wrong, in practice it will favor
the very speculation which it professes to endeavor to suppress.
The officer who issued it, as if conscious of its obnoxious
character, shelters himself behind the name of the President.
But the President and Secretary had no right to promulgate any
such order. The law admits of no such discrimination. If the
resolution of the 30th of April, 1816, continued in operation
(and the administration on the occasion of the removal of
the deposits, and on the present occasion, relies upon it as
in full force), it gave the Secretary no such discretion as
he has exercised. That resolution required and directed the
Secretary of the Treasury to adopt such measures as he might
deem necessary, 'to cause, as soon as may be, all duties, taxes,
debts, or sums of money, accruing or becoming payable to the
United States, to be collected and paid in the legal currency of
the United States, or treasury notes, or notes of the Bank of
the United States, as by law provided and declared, or in notes
of banks which are payable and paid on demand, in said legal
currency of the United States.' This resolution was restrictive
and prohibitory upon the Secretary only as to the notes of banks
not redeemable in specie on demand. As to all such notes, he was
forbidden to receive them from and after the 20th of February,
1817. As to the notes of banks which were payable and paid on
demand in specie, the resolution was not merely permissive, it
was compulsory and mandatory. He was bound, and is yet bound, to
receive them, until Congress interfere."
Mr. Benton replied to the arguments of Mr. Ewing, the letter of
Mr. Biddle, and the speech of Mr. Clay; and considered them all
as identical, and properly answered in the lump, without special
reference to the co-operating assailants. On the point of the
alleged illegality of the treasury order, he produced the Joint
Resolution of 1816 under which it was done; and then said:
"This is the law, and nothing can be plainer than the right
of selection which it gives to the Secretary of the Treasury.
Four different _media_ are mentioned in which the revenue may
be collected, and the Secretary is made the actor, the agent,
and the power, by which the collection is to be effected. He
is to do it in one, or in another. He may choose several, or
all, or two, or one. All are in the disjunctive. No two are
joined together, but all are disjoined, and presented to him
individually and separately. It is clearly the right of the
Secretary to order the collections to be made in either of the
four _media_ mentioned. That the resolution is not mandatory
in favor of any one of the four, is obvious from the manner in
which the notes of the Bank of the United States are mentioned.
They were to be received as then provided for by law; for the
bank charter had then just passed; and the 14th section had
provided for the reception of the notes of this institution
until Congress, by law, should direct otherwise. The right of
the institution to deliver its notes in payment of the revenue,
was anterior to this resolution, and always held under that
14th section, never under this joint resolution, and when that
section was repealed at the last session of this Congress,
that right was admitted to be gone, and has never been claimed
since. The words of the law are clear; the practice under
it has been uniform and uninterrupted from the date of its
passage to the present day. For twenty years, and under three
Presidents, all the Secretaries of the Treasury have acted
alike. Each has made selections, permitting the notes of some
specie-paying banks to be received, and forbidding others. Mr.
Crawford did it in numerous instances; and fierce and universal
as were the attacks upon that eminent patriot, during the
presidential canvass of 1824, no human being ever thought of
charging him with illegality in this respect. Mr. Rush twice
made similar selections, during the administration of Mr. Adams,
and no one, either in the same cabinet with him, or out of the
cabinet against him, ever complained of it. For twenty years
the practice has been uniform; and every citizen of the West
knows that that practice was the general, though not universal,
exclusion of the Western specie-paying bank paper from the
Western land offices. This every man in the West knows, and
knows that that general exclusion continued down to the day that
the Bank of the United States ceased to be the depository of the
public moneys. It was that event which opened the door to the
receivability of State bank paper which has since been enjoyed."
Having vindicated the treasury order from the charge of illegality,
Mr. Benton took up the head of the new distress, and said:
"The news of all this approaching calamity was given out in
advance in the Kentucky speech and the Philadelphia letter,
already referred to; and the fact of its positive advent and
actual presence was vouched by the senator from Ohio [Mr. Ewing]
on the last day that the Senate was in session. I do not permit
myself (said Mr. B.) to bandy contradictory asseverations and
debatable assertions across this floor. I choose rather to make
an issue, and to test assertion by the application of evidence.
In this way I will proceed at present. I will take the letter
of the president of the Bank of the United States as being
official in this case, and most authoritative in the distress
department of this combined movement against President Jackson.
He announces, in November, the forthcoming of the national
calamity in December; and after charging part of this ruin and
mischief on the mode of executing what he ostentatiously styles
the distribution law, when there is no such law in the country,
he goes on to charge the remainder, being ten-fold more than the
former upon the Treasury order which excludes paper money from
the land offices."
Mr. Benton then read Mr. Biddle's description of the new distress,
which, in his publication was awful and appalling, but which, he
said, was nowhere visible except in the localities where the bank
had power to make it. It was a picture of woe and ruin, but not
without hope and remedy if Congress followed his directions; in the
mean time he thus instructed the country how to behave, and promised
his co-operation--that of the bank--in the overthrow of President
Jackson, and his successor, Mr. Van Buren (for that is what he meant
in this passage):
"In the mean time, all forbearance and calmness should be
maintained. There is great reason for anxiety--none whatever for
alarm; and with mutual confidence and courage, the country may
yet be able to defend itself against the government. In that
struggle my own poor efforts shall not be wanting. I go for the
country, whoever rules it. I go for the country, loved when
worst governed--and it will afford me far more gratification
to assist in repairing wrongs, than to triumph over those who
inflict them."
This pledge of aid in a struggle with the government was a key
to unlock the meaning of the movements then going on to produce
the general suspension of specie payments in all the banks which
saluted the administration of Mr. Van Buren in the first quarter
of its existence, and intended to produce it in its first month.
Considering specie payments as the only safety of the country, and
foreseeing the general bank explosions, chiefly contrived by the
Bank of the United States, which was to re-appear in the ruin, and
claim its re-establishment as the only remedy for the evils which
itself and its confederates created, Mr. Benton said:
"There is no safety for the federal revenues but in the total
exclusion of local paper, and that from every branch of the
revenue--customs, lands, and post office. There is no safety for
the national finances but in the constitutional medium of gold
and silver. After forty years of wandering in the wilderness
of paper money, we have approached the confines of the
constitutional medium. Seventy-five millions of specie in the
country, with the prospect of annual increase of ten or twelve
millions for the next four years; three branch mints to commence
next spring, and the complete restoration of the gold currency;
announce the success of President Jackson's great measures
for the reform of the currency and vindicate the constitution
from the libel of having prescribed an impracticable currency.
The success is complete; and there is no way to thwart it,
but to put down the treasury order, and to re-open the public
lands to the inundation of paper money. Of this, it is not to
be dissembled, there is great danger. Four deeply interested
classes are at work to do it--speculators, local banks, United
States Bank, and politicians out of power. They may succeed, but
he (Mr. B.) would not despair. The darkest hour of night is just
before the break of day; and, through the gloom ahead, he saw
the bright vision of the constitutional currency erect, radiant,
and victorious. Through regulation, or explosion, success must
eventually come. If reform measures go on, gold and silver will
be gradually and temperately restored; if reform measures are
stopped, then the paper system runs riot, and explodes from its
own expansion. Then the Bank of the United States will exult
in the catastrophe, and claim its own re-establishment as the
only adequate regulator of the local banks. Then it will be said
the specie experiment has failed! But no; the contrary will be
known, that the specie experiment has not failed, but it was
put down by the voice and power of the interested classes, and
must be put up again by the voice and power of the disinterested
community."
This was uttered in December 1836: in April 1837 it was history.
Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, replied to Mr. Benton; and said:
"The senator from Missouri had exhibited a table, the results
of which he had pressed with a very triumphant air. Was it
extraordinary that the deposit banks should be strengthened?
The effect of the order went directly to sustain them. But
it was at the expense of all the other banks of the country.
Under this order, all the specie was collected and carried into
their vaults: an operation which went to disturb and embarrass
the general circulation of the country, and to produce that
pecuniary difficulty which was felt in all quarters of the
Union. Mr. C. did not profess to be competent to judge how far
the whole of this distress was attributable to the operation
of the treasury order, but of this at least he was very sure,
through a great part of the Western country, it was universally
attributed to that cause. The senator from Missouri supposed
that the order had produced no part of this pressure. If not,
he would ask what it had produced? Had it increased the specie
in the country? Had it increased the specie in actual and
general circulation? If it had done no evil, what good had it
done? This, he believed was as yet undiscovered. So far as
it had operated at all, it had been to derange the state of
the currency, and to give it a direction inverse to the course
of business. The honorable senator, however, could not see
how moving money across a street could operate to affect the
currency; and seemed to suppose that moving money from west to
east, or from east to west, would have as little effect. Money,
however, if left to itself, would always move according to the
ordinary course of business transactions. This course might
indeed be disturbed for a time, but it would be like forcing the
needle away from the pole: you might turn it round and round as
often as you pleased, but, left to itself, it would still settle
at the north. Our great commercial cities were the natural
repositories where money centred and settled. There it was
wanted, and it was more valuable if left there than if carried
into the interior. Any intelligent business man in the West
would rather have money paid him for a debt in New-York than at
his own door. It was worth more to him. If, then, specie was
forced, by treasury tactics, to take a direction contrary to the
natural course of business, and to move from east to west, the
operation would be beneficial to none, injurious to all. It was
not in the power of government to keep it in a false direction
or position. Specie was in exile whenever it was forced out of
that place where business called for it. Such an operation did
no real good. It was a forced movement and was soon overcome by
the natural course of things.
"Mr. C. was well aware that men might be deluded and mystified
on this subject, and that while the delusion lasted, this
treasury order might be held up before the eyes of men as a
splendid arrangement in finance; but it was only like the
natural rainbow, which owed its very existence to the mist in
which it had its being. The moment the atmosphere was clear,
its bright colors vanished from the view. So it would be with
this matter. The specie of the country must resume its natural
course. Man might as well escape from the physical necessities
of their nature, as from the laws which governed the movements
of finance: and the man who professed to reverse or dispense
with the one was no greater quack than he who made the same
professions with regard to the other.
"But it was said to be the distribution bill which had done all
the mischief; and Mr. C. was ready to admit that the manner in
which the government had attempted to carry that law into effect
might in part have furnished the basis for such a supposition.
He had no doubt that the pecuniary evils of the country had been
aggravated by the manner in which this had been done."
Mr. Webster also replied to Mr. Benton, in an elaborate speech, in
which, before arguing the legal question, he said:
"The honorable member from Missouri (Mr. Benton) objects even
to giving the resolution to rescind a second reading. He avails
himself of his right, though it be not according to general
practice, to arrest the progress of the measure at its first
stage. This, at least, is open, bold, and manly warfare.
The honorable member, in his elaborate speech, founds his
opposition to this resolution, and his support of the treasury
order, on those general principles respecting currency which
he is known to entertain, and which he has maintained for many
years. His opinions some of us regard as altogether ultra and
impracticable; looking to a state of things not desirable in
itself, even if it were practicable; and, if it were desirable,
as being far beyond the power of this government to bring about.
"The honorable member has manifested much perseverance and
abundant labor, most undoubtedly, in support of his opinions;
he is understood, also, to have had countenance from high
places; and what new hopes of success the present moment holds
out to him, I am not able to judge, but we shall probably soon
see. It is precisely on these general and long-known opinions
that he rests his support of the treasury order. A question,
therefore, is at once raised between the gentleman's principles
and opinions on the subject of the currency, and the principles
and opinions which have generally prevailed in the country,
and which are, and have been, entirely opposite to his. That
question is now about to be put to the vote of the Senate. In
the progress and by the termination of this discussion, we
shall learn whether the gentleman's sentiments are or are not
to prevail, so far, at least, as the Senate is concerned. The
country will rejoice, I am sure, to see some declaration of
the opinions of Congress on a subject about which so much has
been said, and which is so well calculated, by its perpetual
agitation, to disquiet and disturb the confidence of society.
"We are now fast approaching the day when one administration
goes out of office, and another is to come in. The country has
an interest in learning, as soon as possible, whether the new
administration, while it receives the power and patronage, is
to inherit, also, the topics and the projects of the past;
whether it is to keep up the avowal of the same objects and
the same schemes, especially in regard to the currency. The
order of the Secretary is prospective, and, on the face of it,
perpetual. Nothing in or about it gives it the least appearance
of a temporary measure. On the contrary, its terms imply no
limitation in point of duration, and the gradual manner in
which it is to come into operation shows plainly an intention
of making it the settled and permanent policy of government.
Indeed, it is but now beginning its complete existence. It is
only five or six days since its full operation has commenced. Is
it to stand as the law of the land and the rule of the treasury,
under the administration which is to ensue? And are those
notions of an exclusive specie currency, and opposition to all
banks, on which it is defended, to be espoused and maintained by
the new administration, as they have been by its predecessor?
These are questions, not of mere curiosity, but of the highest
interest to the whole country. In considering this order, the
first thing naturally is, to look for the causes which led to
it, or are assigned for its promulgation. And these, on the
face of the order itself, are declared to be 'complaints which
have been made of frauds, speculations, and monopolies, in the
purchase of the public lands, and the aid which is said to be
given to effect these objects, by excessive bank credits, and
dangerous, if not partial, facilities through bank drafts and
bank deposits, and the general evil influence likely to result
to the public interest, and especially the safety of the great
amount of money in the treasury, and the sound condition of
the currency of the country, from the further exchange of the
national domain in this manner, and chiefly for bank credits and
paper money.'
"This is the catalogue of evils to be cured by this order.
In what these frauds consist, what are the monopolies
complained of, or what is precisely intended by these injurious
speculations, we are not informed. All is left on the general
surmise of fraud, speculation, and monopoly. It is not avowed
or intimated that the government has sustained any loss,
either by the receipt of the bank notes which proved not to
be equivalent to specie, or in any other way. And it is not a
little remarkable that these evils, of fraud, speculation, and
monopoly, should have become so enormous and so notorious, on
the 11th of July, as to require this executive interference for
their suppression, and yet that they should not have reached
such a height as to make it proper to lay the subject before
Congress, although Congress remained in session until within
seven days of the date of the order. And what makes this
circumstance still more remarkable, is the fact that, in his
annual message, at the commencement of the same session, the
President had spoken of the rapid sales of the public lands as
one of the most gratifying proofs of the general prosperity of
the country, without suggesting that any danger whatever was
to be apprehended from fraud, speculation, or monopoly. His
words were: 'Among the evidences of the increasing prosperity
of the country, not the least gratifying, is that afforded by
the receipts from the sales of the public lands, which amount,
in the present year, to the unexpected sum of eleven millions.'
From the time of the delivery of that message, down to the date
of the treasury order, there had not been the least change, so
far as I know, or so far as we are informed, in the manner of
receiving payment for the public lands. Every thing stood, on
the 11th of July, 1836, as it had stood at the opening of the
session, in December, 1835. How so different a view of things
happened to be taken at the two periods, we may be able to
learn, perhaps, in the further progress of this debate.
"The order speaks of the 'evil influence' likely to result from
the further exchange of the public lands into 'paper money.'
Now, this is the very language of the gentleman from Missouri.
He habitually speaks of the notes of all banks, however
solvent, and however promptly their notes may be redeemed in
gold and silver, as 'paper money.' The Secretary has adopted
the honorable member's phrases, and he speaks, too, of all the
bank notes received at the land offices, although every one of
them is redeemable in specie, on demand, but as so much 'paper
money.' In this respect, also, sir, I hope we may know more as
we grow older, and be able to learn whether, in times to come,
as in times recently passed, the justly obnoxious and odious
character of 'paper money' is to be applied to the issues of
all the banks in all the States, with whatever punctuality they
redeem their bills. This is quite new, as financial language.
By paper money, in its obnoxious sense, I understand paper
issues on credit alone, without capital, without funds assigned
for its payment, resting only on the good faith and the future
ability of those who issue it. Such was the paper money of our
revolutionary times; and such, perhaps, may have been the true
character of the paper of particular institutions since. But
the notes of banks of competent capitals, limited in amount to
a due proportion to such capitals, made payable on demand in
gold and silver, and always so paid on demand, are paper money
in no sense but one; that is to say, they are made of paper,
and they circulate as money. And it may be proper enough for
those who maintain that nothing should so circulate but gold and
silver, to denominate such bank notes 'paper money,' since they
regard them but as paper intruders into channels which should
flow only with gold and silver. If this language of the order is
authentic, and is to be so hereafter, and all bank notes are to
be regarded and stigmatized as mere 'paper money,' the sooner
the country knows it the better.
"The member from Missouri charges those who wish to rescind the
treasury order with two objects: first, to degrade and disgrace
the President; and, next, to overthrow the constitutional
currency of the country. For my own part, sir, I denounce
nobody; I seek to degrade or disgrace nobody. Holding the order
illegal and unwise, I shall certainly vote to rescind it;
and, in the discharge of this duty, I hope I am not expected
to shrink back, lest I might do something which might call in
question the wisdom of the Secretary, or even of the President.
And I hope that so much of independence as may be manifested by
free discussion and an honest vote is not to cause denunciation
from any quarter. If it should, let it come."
It became a very extended debate, in which Mr. Niles, Mr. Rives,
Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Southard, Mr. Strange of N. C., Mr. Clay, Mr.
Walker of Miss., and others partook. The subject having been
referred to the committee of public lands, of which Mr. Walker was
chairman, reported a bill, "limiting and designating the funds
receivable for the revenues of the United States;" the object of
which was to rescind the treasury circular without naming it, and
to continue the receipt of bank notes in payment of all dues to the
government. Soon after the bill was reported, and had received its
second reading, a motion was made in the Senate to lay the impending
subject (public lands) on the table for the purpose of considering
the bill reported by Mr. Walker to limit and designate the funds
receivable in public dues. Mr. Benton was taken by surprise by this
motion, which was immediately agreed to, and the bill ordered to be
engrossed for a third reading the next day. To that third reading
Mr. Benton looked for his opportunity to speak; and availed himself
of it, commencing his speech with giving the reason why he did not
speak the evening before when the question was on the engrossment
of the bill. He said he could not have foreseen that the subject
depending before the Senate, the bill for limiting the sales of the
public lands to actual settlers, would be laid down for the purpose
of taking up this subject out of its order; and, therefore, had not
brought with him some memorandums which he intended to use when
this subject came up. He did not choose to ask for delay, because
his habit was to speak to subjects when they were called; and in
this particular cause he did not think it material when he spoke;
for he was very well aware that his speaking would not affect the
fate of the bill. It would pass; and that was known to all in the
chamber. It was known to the senator from Ohio (Mr. Ewing) who
indulged himself in saying he thought otherwise a few days ago;
but that was only a good-natured way of stimulating his friends,
and bringing them up to the scratch. The bill would pass, and that
by a good vote, for it would have the vote of the opposition, and
a division of the administration vote. Why, then, did he speak?
Because it was due to his position, and the part he had acted on
the currency questions, to express his sentiments more fully on
this bill, so vital to the general currency, than could be done
by a mere negative vote. He should, therefore, speak against it,
and should direct his attention to the bill reported by the Public
Land Committee, which had so totally changed the character of the
proceeding on this subject. The recision of the treasury order was
introduced a resolution--it went out a resolution--but it came back
a bill, and a bill to regulate, not the land office receipts only,
but all the receipts of the federal government; and in this new form
is to become statute law, and a law to operate on all the revenues,
and to repeal all other laws upon the subject to which it related.
In this new form it assumes an importance, and acquires an effect,
infinitely beyond a resolution, and becomes in fact, as well as in
name, a totally new measure. Mr. B. reminded the Senate that he had,
in his first speech on this subject, given it as his opinion, that
two main objects were proposed to be accomplished by the rescinding
resolution; first, the implied condemnation of President Jackson for
violating the laws and constitution, and destroying the prosperity
of the country; and, secondly, the imposition of the paper currency
of the States upon the federal government. With respect to the first
of these objects, he presumed it was fully proved by the speeches
of all the opposition senators who had spoken on this subject; and,
with respect to the second, he believed it would find its proof in
the change which the original resolution had undergone, and the form
it was now assuming of statute law, and especially with the proviso
which was added at the end of the second section.
Mr. B. then took up the bill reported by the committee, and
remarked, first, upon its phraseology, not in the spirit of
verbal criticism, but in the spirit of candid objection and fair
argument. There were cases in which words were things, and this
was one of those cases. Money was a thing, and the only words in
the constitution of that thing were, "gold and silver coin." The
bill of the committee was systematically exclusive of the words
which meant this thing, and used words which included things
which were not money. These words were, then, a fair subject of
objection and argument, because they went to set aside the money of
the constitution, and to admit the public revenues to be paid in
something which was not money. The title of the bill uses the word
"funds." It professes to designate the funds receivable for the
revenues of the United States. Upon this word Mr. B. had remarked
before, as being one of the most indefinite in the English language;
and, so far from signifying money only, even paper money only, that
it comprehended every variety of paper security, public or private,
individual or corporate out of which money could be raised. The
retention of this word by the committee, after the objections made
to it, were indicative of their intentions to lay open the federal
treasury to the reception of something which was not constitutional
money; and this intention, thus disclosed in the title to the bill,
was fully carried out in its enactments. The words "legal currency
of the United States" are twice used in the first section, when the
words "gold and silver" would have been more appropriate and more
definite, if hard money was intended.
Mr. B. admitted that, in the eye of a regular bred constitutional
lawyer, legal currency might imply constitutional currency; but
certain it was that the common and popular meaning of the phrase was
not limited to constitutional money, but included every currency
that the statute law made receivable for debts. Thus, the notes of
the Bank of the United States were generally considered as legal
currency, because receivable by law in payment of public dues; and
in like manner the notes of all specie-paying banks would, under
the committee's bill, rise to the dignity of legal currency. The
second section of the bill twice used the word "cash;" a word which,
however understood at the Bank of England, where it always means
ready money, and where ready money signifies gold coin in hand, yet
with the banks with which we have to deal it has no such meaning,
but includes all sorts of current paper money on hand, as well as
gold and silver on hand.
Having remarked upon the phraseology of the bill, and shown that a
paper currency composed of the notes of a thousand local banks, not
only might become the currency of the federal government, but was
evidently intended to be made its currency; and that in the face of
all the protestations of the friends of the administration in favor
of re-establishing the national gold currency, Mr. B. would now
take up the bill of the committee under two or three other aspects,
and show it to be as mistaken in its design as it would be impotent
in its effect. In the first place, it transferred the business of
suppressing the small note circulation from the deposit branch
to the collecting branch of the public revenue. At present, the
business was in a course of progress through the deposit banks, as
a condition of holding the public moneys; and, as such, had a place
in the deposit act of the last session, and also had a place in the
President's message of the last session, where the suppression of
paper currency under twenty dollars was expressly referred to the
action of the deposit banks, and as a condition of their retaining
the public deposits. It was through the deposit banks, and not
through the reception of local bank paper, that the suppression
of small notes should be effected. In the next place, he objected
to the committee's bill, because it proposed to make a bargain
with each of the thousand banks now in the United States, and the
hundreds more which will soon be born; and to give them a right--a
right by law--to have their notes received at the federal treasury.
He was against such a bargain. He had no idea of making a contract
with these thousand banks for the reception of their notes. He had
no idea of contracting with them, and giving them a right to plead
the constitution of the United States against us, if, at any time,
after having agreed to receive their notes, upon condition that they
would give up their small circulation, they should choose to say we
had impaired the contract by not continuing to receive them; and so
either relapse into the issue of this small trash, or have recourse
to the judicial process to compel the United States to abide the
contract, and continue the reception of all their notes. Mr. B. had
no idea of letting down this federal government to such petty and
inconvenient bargains with a thousand moneyed corporations. The
government of the United States ought to act as a government, and
not as a contractor. It should prescribe conditions, and not make
bargains. It should give the law. He was against these bargains,
even if they were good ones; but they were bad bargains, wretchedly
bad, and ought to be rejected as such, even if all higher and nobler
considerations were out of the question. What is the consideration
that the United States is to receive? A mere individual agreement
with each bank by itself, that in three years it will cease to issue
notes under ten dollars and in five years it will cease to issue
notes under twenty dollars. What is the price which she pays for
this consideration? In the first place, it receives the notes of
such bank as gold and silver at all the land-offices, custom-houses,
and post-offices, of the United States; and, of course, pays them
out again as gold and silver to all her debtors. In the next place,
it compels the deposit banks to credit them as cash. In the third
place, it accredits the whole circulation of the banks, and makes
it current all over the United States, in consequence of universal
receivability for all federal dues. In other words, it endorses,
so far as credit is concerned, the whole circulation of every bank
that comes into the bargain thus proposed. This is certainly a
most wretched bargain on the part of the United States--a bargain
in which what she receives is ruinous to her; for the more local
payment she receives in payment of her revenues, the worse for her,
and the sooner will her treasury be filled with unavailable funds.
Mr. B. having gone over these objections to the committee's bill,
would now ascend to a class of objections of a higher and graver
character. He had already remarked that the committee had carried
out a resolution, and had brought back a bill; that the committee
proposed a statutory enactment, where the senator from Ohio [Mr.
Ewing], and the senator from Virginia [Mr. Rives], had only proposed
a joint resolution; and he had already further remarked, that in
addition to this total change in the mode of action, the committee
had added what neither of these senators had proposed, a clause,
under a proviso, to enact paper money into cash--to pass paper money
to the credit of the United States, as cash--and to punish, by the
loss of the deposits, any deposit bank which should refuse so to
receive, so to credit, and so to pass, the notes "receivable" under
the provisions of their bill. These two changes make entirely a new
measure--one of wholly a different character from the resolutions
of the two senators--a measure which openly and in terms, and under
penalties undertakes to make local State paper a legal tender to the
federal government, and to compel the reception of all its revenues
in the notes "receivable" under the provisions of the committee's
bill. After this gigantic step--this colossal movement--in favor of
paper money, there was but one step more for the committee to take;
and that was to make these notes a legal tender in all payments
from the federal government. But that step was unnecessary to
be taken in words, for it is taken in fact, when the other great
step becomes law. For it is incontestable that what the government
receives, it must pay out; and what it pays out becomes the currency
of the country. So that when this bill passes, the paper money of
the local banks will be a tender by law to the federal government,
and a tender by _duresse_ from the government to its creditors and
the people. This is the state to which the committee's bill will
bring us! and now, let us pause and contemplate, for a moment, the
position we occupy, and the vast ocean of paper on which we are
proposed to be embarked.
We stand upon a constitution which recognizes nothing but gold and
silver for money; we stand upon a legislation of near fifty years,
which recognizes nothing but gold and silver money. Now, for the
first time, we have a statutory enactment proposed to recognize the
paper of a wilderness of local banks for money, and in so doing to
repeal all prior legislation by law, and the constitution by fact.
This is an era in our legislation. It is statute law to control all
other law, and is not a resolution to aid other laws, and to express
the opinions of Congress. It is statutory enactment to create law,
and not a declaratory resolution to expound law; and the effects
of this statute would be, to make a paper government--to insure
the exportation of our specie--to leave the State banks without
foundations to rest upon--to produce a certain catastrophe in the
whole paper system--to revive the pretensions of the United States
Bank--and to fasten for a time the Adam Smith system upon the
Federal Government and the whole Union.
* * * * *
Mr. Benton concluded his speech with a warning against the coming
explosion of the banks; and said:
* * * * *
The day of revulsion may come sooner or later, and its effects may
be more or less disastrous; but, come it must, and disastrous, to
some degree, it must be. The present bloat in the paper system
cannot continue; the present depreciation of money exemplified
in the high price of every thing dependent upon the home market,
cannot last. The revulsion will come, as surely as it did in
1819-'20. But it will come with less force if the treasury order is
maintained, and if paper money shall be excluded from the federal
treasury. But, let these things go as they may, and let reckless
or mischievous banks do what they please, there is still a refuge
for the wise and good; there is still an ark of safety for every
honest bank, and for every prudent man; it is in the mass of gold
and silver now in the country--the seventy odd millions which the
wisdom of President Jackson's administration has accumulated--and
by getting their share of which, all who are so disposed can take
care of themselves. Sir (said Mr. B.), I have performed a duty to
myself, not pleasant, but necessary. This bill is to be an era in
our legislation and in our political history. It is to be a point
upon which the future age will be thrown back, and from which future
consequences will be traced. I separate myself from it; I wash my
hands of it; I oppose it. I am one of those who promised gold, not
paper. I promised the currency of the constitution, not the currency
of corporations. I did not join in putting down the Bank of the
United States, to put up a wilderness of local banks. I did not join
in putting down the paper currency of a national bank, to put up a
national paper currency of a thousand local banks. I did not strike
Cæsar to make Anthony master of Rome.
Mr. Walker replied to what he called the bill of indictment
preferred by the Senator from Missouri against the committee on
public lands; and after some prefatory remarks went on to say:
"But when that senator, having exhausted the argument, or
having none to offer had indulged in violent and intemperate
denunciation of the Committee on Public Lands, and of the
report made by him as their organ, Mr. W. could not withhold
the expression of his surprise and astonishment. Mr. W. said it
was his good fortune to be upon terms of the kindest personal
intercourse with every senator, and these friendly relations
should not be interrupted by any aggression upon his part.
And now, Mr. W. said, he called upon the whole Senate to bear
witness, as he was sure they all cheerfully would, that in this
controversy he was not the aggressor, and that nothing had been
done or said by him to provoke the wrath of the senator from
Missouri, unless, indeed, to differ from him in opinion upon
any subject constituted an offence in the mind of that senator.
If such were the views of that gentleman, if he was prepared to
immolate every senator who would not worship the same images of
gold and silver which decorated the political chapel of the
honorable gentleman, Mr. W. was fearful that the senator from
Missouri would do execution upon every member of the Senate
but himself, and be left here alone in his glory. Mr. W. said
he recurred to the remarks of the senator from Missouri with
feelings of regret, rather than of anger or excitement; and
that he could not but hope, that when the senator from Missouri
had calmly reflected upon this subject, he would himself see
much to regret in the course he had pursued in relation to
the Committee on Public Lands, and much to recall that he had
uttered under feelings of temporary excitement. Sir (said Mr.
W.), being deeply solicitous to preserve unbroken the ranks of
the democratic party in this body, participating with the people
in grateful recollection of the distinguished services rendered
by the senator from Missouri to the democracy of the Union, he
would pass by many of the remarks made by that senator on this
subject.
"[Mr. Benton here rose from his chair, and demanded, with much
warmth, that Mr. Walker should not pass by one of them. Mr. W.
asked, what one? Mr. B. replied, in an angry tone, Not one, sir.
Then Mr. W. said he would examine them all, and in a spirit of
perfect freedom; that he would endeavor to return blow for blow;
and that, if the senator from Missouri desired, as it appeared
he did, an angry controversy with him, in all its consequences,
in and out of this house, he could be gratified.]
"Sir (said Mr. W.), why has the senator from Missouri assailed
the Committee on Public Lands, and himself, as its humble organ?
He was not the author of this measure, so much denounced by
the senator from Missouri, nor had he said one word upon the
subject. The measure originated with the senator from Virginia
[Mr. Rives]. He was the author of the measure, and had been,
and still was, its able, zealous, and successful advocate. Why,
then, had the senator from Missouri assailed him (Mr. W.), and
permitted the author of the measure to escape unpunished? Sir,
are the arrows which appear to be aimed by the senator from
Missouri at the humble organ of the Committee on Public lands,
who reported this bill, intended to inflict a wound in another
quarter? Is one senator the apparent object of assault, when
another is designed as the real victim? Sir, when the senator
from Missouri, without any provocation, like a thunderbolt from
an unclouded sky, broke upon the Senate in a perfect tempest
of wrath and fury, bursting upon his poor head like a tropical
tornado, did he intend to sweep before the avenging storm
another individual more obnoxious to his censure?
"Sir (said Mr. W.), the senator from Missouri has thrice
repeated the prayer, 'God save the country from the Committee
on Public Lands;' but Mr. W. fully believed if the prayer of
the country could be heard within these walls, it would be, God
save us from the wild, visionary, ruinous, and impracticable
schemes of the senator of Missouri, for exclusive gold and
silver currency; and such is not only the prayer of the
country, but of the Senate, with scarcely a dissenting voice.
Sir, if the senator from Missouri could, by his mandate, in
direct opposition to the views of the President, heretofore
expressed, sweep from existence all the banks of the States,
and establish his exclusive constitutional currency of gold
and silver, he would bring upon this country scenes of ruin
and distress without a parallel--an immediate bankruptcy of
nearly every debtor, and of almost every creditor to whom
large amounts were due, a prodigious depreciation in the price
of all property and all products, and an immediate cessation
by States and individuals of nearly every work of private
enterprise or public improvement. The country would be involved
in one universal bankruptcy, and near the grave of the nation's
prosperity would perhaps repose the scattered fragments of
those great and glorious institutions which give happiness to
millions here, and hopes to millions more of disenthralment from
despotic power. Sir, in resistance to the power of the Bank of
the United States, in opposition to the re-establishment of
any similar institution, the senator from Missouri would find
Mr. W. with him; but he could not enlist as a recruit in this
new crusade against the banks of his own and every other State
in the Union. These institutions, whether for good or evil,
are created by the States, cherished and sustained by them, in
many cases owned in whole or in part by the States, and closely
united with their prosperity; and what right have we to destroy
them? What right had he, a humble servant of the people of
Mississippi, to say to his own, or any other State, your State
legislation is wrong--your State institution, your State banks,
must be annihilated, and we will legislate here to effect this
object. Are we the masters or servants of the sovereign States,
that we dare speak to them in language like this--that we dare
attempt to prostrate here those institutions which are created
and maintained by those very States which we represent on this
floor? These may be the opinions entertained by some senators
of their duty to the States they represent, but they were not
his (Mr. W's) views or his opinions. He was sincerely desirous
to co-operate with his State in limiting any dangerous powers
of the banks, in enlarging the circulation of gold and silver,
and in suppressing the small note currency, so as to avoid that
explosion which was to be apprehended from excessive issues of
bank paper. But a total annihilation of all the banks of his own
State, now possessing a chartered capital of near forty millions
of dollars, would, Mr. W. knew, produce almost universal
bankruptcy, and was not, he believed, anticipated by any one of
his constituents.
"But the senator from Missouri tells us that this measure of the
committee is a repeal of the constitution, by authorizing the
receipt of paper money in revenue payments. If so, then the
constitution never has had an existence; for the period cannot
be designated when paper money was not so receivable by the
federal government. This species of money was expressly made
receivable for the public dues by an act of Congress, passed
immediately after the adoption of the constitution, and which
remained in force until eighteen hundred and eleven. It was
so received, as a matter of practice, from eighteen hundred
and eleven until eighteen hundred and sixteen, when, again, by
an act of Congress then passed, and which has just expired,
it was so authorized to be received during all that period.
Now, although these acts have expired, there is that which is
equivalent to a law still in force, expressly authorizing the
notes of the specie-paying banks of the States to be received in
revenue payments. It is the joint resolution of eighteen hundred
and sixteen, adopted by both houses of Congress, and approved by
President Madison.
"Where is the distinction, in principle, as regards the
reception of bank paper on public account, between the two
provisions? And the senator from Missouri, in thus denouncing
the bill of the committee as a repeal of the constitution,
denounces directly the President of the United States. Congress,
no more than a State legislature, can make any thing but
gold or silver a tender in payment of debts by one citizen
to another; but that Congress, or a State legislature, or an
individual, may waive their constitutional rights, and receive
bank paper or drafts, in payment of any debt, is a principle of
universal adoption in theory and practice, and never doubted
by any one until at the present session by the senator from
Missouri. The distinction of the senator in this respect was as
incomprehensible to him (Mr. W.) as he believed it was to every
senator, and, indeed, was discernible only by the magnifying
powers of a solar microscope. It was a point-no-point, which,
like the logarithmic spiral, or asymptote of the hyperbolic
curve, might be for ever approached without reaching; an
infinitesimal, the ghost of an idea, not only without length,
breadth, thickness, shape, weight, or dimensions, but without
position--a mere imaginary nothing, which flitted before the
bewildered vision of the honorable senator, when traversing,
in his fitful somnambulism, that tesselated pavement of gold,
silver, and bullion, which that senator delighted to occupy.
Sir, the senator, from Missouri might have heaped mountain
high his piles of metal; he might have swept, in his Quixotic
flight, over the banks of the States, putting to the sword
their officers, stockholders, directory, and legislative bodies
by which they were chartered; he might, in his reveries, have
demolished their charters, and consumed their paper by the fire
of his eloquence; he might have transacted, in fancy, with a
metallic currency of twenty-eight millions in circulation, an
actual annual business of fifteen hundred millions, and Mr. W.
would not have disturbed his beatific visions, nor would any
other senator--for they were visions only, that could never
be realized--but when, descending from his ethereal flights,
he seized upon the Committee on Public Lands as criminals,
arraigned them as violators of the constitution, and prayed
Heaven for deliverance from them, Mr. W. could be silent no
longer. Yes, even then he would have passed lightly over the
ashes of the theories of the honorable Senator, for, if he
desired to make assaults upon any, it would be upon the living,
and not the dead; but that senator, in the opening of his
(Mr. W.'s) address, had rejected the olive branch which, upon
the urgent solicitation of mutual friends, against his own
judgment, he had extended to the honorable senator. The senator
from Missouri had thus, in substance, declared his 'voice was
still for war.' Be it so; but he hoped the Senate would all
recollect that he (Mr. W.) was not the aggressor; and that,
whilst he trusted he never would wantonly assail the feelings
or reputation of any senator, he thanked God that he was not so
abject or degraded as to submit, with impunity, to unprovoked
attacks or unfounded accusations from any quarter. Could he thus
submit, he would be unfit to represent the noble, generous, and
gallant people, whose rights and interests it was his pride and
glory to endeavor to protect, whose honor and character were
dearer to him than life itself, and should never be tarnished by
any act of his, as one of their humble representatives upon this
floor."
Mr. Rives returned thanks to Mr. Walker for his able and
satisfactory defence of the bill, which in fact was his own
resolution changed into a bill. He should not be able to add much
to what had been said by the honorable senator, but was desirous of
adding his mite in reply to so much of what had been so zealously
urged by the senator from Missouri (Mr. Benton), as had not been
touched upon by the chairman of the land committee; and did so in an
elaborate speech a few days thereafter. Mr. Benton did not reply to
either of the senators; he believed that the events of a few months
would answer them, and the vote being immediately taken, the bill
was passed almost unanimously--only five dissenting votes. The yeas
and nays were:
YEAS--Messrs. Black, Brown, Buchanan, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden,
Cuthbert, Dana, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton,
Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of
Georgia, Knight, McKean, Moore, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page,
Parker, Prentiss, Preston, Rives, Robbins, Robinson, Sevier,
Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Walker, Wall,
Webster, White.--41.
NAYS--Messrs. Benton, Linn, Morris, Ruggles, Wright--5.
The name of Mr. Calhoun is not in either list of these votes. He had
a reason for not voting, which he expressed to the Senate, before
the vote was taken; thus:
"He had been very anxious to express his opinions somewhat at
large upon this subject. He put no faith in this measure to
arrest the downward course of the country. He believed the state
of the currency was almost incurably bad, so that it was very
doubtful whether the highest skill and wisdom could restore
it to soundness; and it was destined, at no distant time,
to undergo an entire revolution. An explosion he considered
inevitable, and so much the greater, the longer it should be
delayed. Mr. C. would have been glad to go over the whole
subject; but as he was now unprepared to assign his reasons for
the vote which he might give, he was unwilling to vote at all."
The explosion of the banks, which Mr. Calhoun considered inevitable,
was an event so fully announced by its "shadow coming before," that
Mr. Benton was astonished that so many senators could be blind to
its approach, and willing, by law, to make their notes receivable in
all payments to the federal government. The bill went to the House
of Representatives, where a very important amendment was reported
from the Committee of Ways and Means to which the bill had been
referred, intended to preserve to the Secretary of the Treasury his
control over the receivability of money for the public dues, so as
to enable him to protect the constitutional currency and reject
the notes of banks deemed by him to be unworthy of credit. That
amendment was in these words, and its rejection goes to illustrate
the character of the bill that was passed:
"_And be it further enacted_, That no part of this act shall
be construed as repealing any existing law relative to the
collection of the revenue from customs or public lands in the
legal currency, or as substituting bank notes of any description
as a lawful currency for coin, as provided in the constitution
of the United States; nor to deprive the Secretary of the
Treasury of the power to direct the collectors or receivers of
the public revenue, whether derived from duties, taxes, debts,
or sales of the public lands, not to receive in payment, for any
sum due to the United States, the notes of any bank or banks
which the said Secretary may have reason to believe unworthy
of credit, or which he apprehends may be compelled to suspend
specie payments."
Mr. Cambreleng, chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, in
support of this amendment, said it had been reported for the
purpose of preventing a misconstruction of the bill as it came from
the Senate, and securing the public revenue from serious frauds,
and asked for the yeas and nays. The amendment was cut off by a
sustained call for the previous question; and the bill passed by a
strong vote--143 to 59 The nays were:
NAYS--Messrs. Ash, Barton, Bean, Beaumont, Black, Bockee, Boyd,
Brown, Burns, Cambreleng, Chaney, Chapin, Coles, Cushman,
Doubleday, Dromgoole, Efner, Fairfield, Farlin, Fry, Fuller,
Galbraith, J. Hall, Hamer, Hardin, A. G. Harrison, Hawes, Holt,
Huntington, Jarvis, C. Johnson, B. Jones, Lansing, J. Lee,
Leonard, Logan, Loyall, A. Mann, W. Mason, M. Mason, McKay,
McKeon, McLean, Page, Parks, F. Pierce, Joseph Reynolds, Rogers,
Seymour, Shinn, Sickles, Smith, Taylor, Thomas, J. Thomson,
Turrill, Vanderpoel, Ward, Wardwell--59.
It was near the end of the session before the bill passed the House
of Representatives. It only got to the hands of the President in the
afternoon of the day before the constitutional dissolution of the
Congress. He might have retained it (for want of the ten days for
consideration which the constitution allowed him), without assigning
any reason to Congress for so doing; but he chose to assign a
reason which, though good and valid in itself, may have been helped
on to its conclusions by the evil tendencies of the measure. That
reason was the ambiguous and equivocal character of the bill, and
the diversity of interpretations which might be placed upon its
provisions; and was contained in the following message to the Senate:
"The bill from the Senate entitled 'An act designating and
limiting the funds receivable for the revenues of the United
States', came to my hands yesterday, at two o'clock P. M. On
perusing it, I found its provisions so complex and uncertain,
that I deemed it necessary to obtain the opinion of the Attorney
General of the United States on several important questions,
touching its construction and effect, before I could decide on
the disposition to be made of it. The Attorney General took up
the subject immediately, and his reply was reported to me this
day, at five o'clock P. M. As this officer, after a careful and
laborious examination of the bill, and a distinct expression of
his opinion on the points proposed to him, still came to the
conclusion that the construction of the bill, should it become
a law, would be yet a subject of much perplexity and doubt (a
view of the bill entirely coincident with my own), and as I
cannot think it proper, in a matter of such interest and of such
constant application, to approve a bill so liable to diversity
of interpretations, and more especially as I have not had time,
amid the duties constantly pressing on me, to give the subject
that deliberate consideration which its importance demands, I
am constrained to retain the bill, without acting definitively
thereon; and to the end that my reasons for this step may be
fully understood. I shall cause this paper, with the opinion of
the Attorney General, and the bill in question, to be deposited
in the Department of State."
Thus the firmness of the President again saved the country from an
immense calamity, and in a few months covered him with the plaudits
of a preserved and grateful country.
CHAPTER CLVI.
DISTRIBUTION OF LANDS AND MONEY--VARIOUS PROPOSITIONS
The spirit of distribution, having got a taste of that feast in the
insidious deposit bill at the preceding session, became ungovernable
in its appetite for it at this session, and open and undisguised
in its efforts to effect its objects. Within the first week of the
meeting of Congress, Mr. Mercer, a representative from Virginia,
moved a resolution that the Committee of Ways and Means be directed
to bring in a bill to release the States from all obligation ever
to return the dividends they should receive under the so-called
deposit act. It was a bold movement, considering that the States
had not yet received a dollar, and that it was addressed to the
same members, sitting in the same chairs, who had enacted the
measure under the character of a deposit, to be sacredly returned
to the United States whenever desired; and under that character
had gained over to the support of the act two classes of voters
who could not otherwise have been obtained; namely, those who
condemned the policy of distribution, and those who denied its
constitutionality. Mr. Dunlap, of Tennessee, met Mr. Mercer's motion
at the threshold--condemned it as an open conversion of deposit into
distribution--as a breach of the condition on which the deposit was
obtained--as unfit to be discussed; and moved that it be laid upon
the table--a motion that precludes discussion, and brings on an
immediate vote. Mr. Mercer asked for the yeas and nays, which being
taken showed the astonishing spectacle of seventy-three members
recording their names against the motion. The vote was 126 to 73.
Simultaneously with Mr. Mercer's movement in the House to pull the
mask from the deposit bill, and reveal it in its true character,
was Mr. Clay's movement in the Senate to revive his land-money
distribution bill, to give it immediate effect, and continue its
operation for five years. In the first days of the session he gave
notice of his intention to bring in his bill; and quickly followed
up his notice with its actual introduction. On presenting the bill,
he said it was due to the occasion to make some explanations: and
thus went on to make them:
"The operation of the bill which had heretofore several times
passed the Senate, and once the House, commenced on the last
of December, 1822, and was to continue five years. It provided
for a distribution of the nett proceeds of the public lands
during that period, upon well-known principles. But the deposit
act of the last session had disposed of so large a part of
the divisible fund under the land bill, that he did not think
it right, in the present state of the treasury, to give the
bill--which he was about to apply for leave to introduce--that
retrospective character. He had accordingly, in the draught
which he was going to submit, made the last day of the present
month its commencement, and the last day of the year 1841 its
termination. If it should pass, therefore, in this shape, the
period of its duration will be the same as that prescribed
in the former bills. The Senate will readily comprehend the
motive for fixing the end of the year 1841, as it is at that
time that the biennial reductions of ten per cent. upon the
existing duties cease, according to the act of the 2d March
1833, commonly called the compromise act, and a reduction of
one half of the excess beyond twenty per cent. of any duty then
remaining, is to take effect. By that time, a fair experiment
of the land bill will have been made, and Congress can then
determine whether the proceeds of the national domain shall
continue to be equitably divided, or shall be applied to the
current expenses of the government. The bill in his hand assigns
to the new State of Arkansas her just proportion of the fund,
and grants to her 500,000 acres of land as proposed to other
States. A similar assignment and grant are not made to Michigan,
because her admission into the Union is not yet complete. But
when that event occurs, provision is made by which that State
will receive its fair dividend. He had restored, in this
draught, the provision contained in the original plan for the
distribution of the public lands, which he had presented to the
Senate, by which the States, in the application of the fund,
are restricted to the great objects of education, internal
improvement, and colonization. Such a restriction would, he
believed relieve the Legislatures of the several States from
embarrassing controversies about the disposition of the fund,
and would secure the application of what was common in its
origin, to common benefits in its ultimate destination. But it
was scarcely necessary for him to say that this provision, as
well as the fate of the whole bill, depended upon the superior
wisdom of the Senate and of the House. In all respects, other
than those now particularly mentioned, the bill is exactly as it
passed this body at the last session."
The bill was referred to the Committee on Public Lands, consisting
of Mr. Walker of Mississippi, Mr. Ewing of Ohio, Mr. King of
Alabama, Mr. Ruggles of Maine, Mr. Fulton of Arkansas. The committee
returned the bill with an amendment, proposing to strike out the
entire bill, and substitute for it a new one, to restrict the sale
of the lands to actual settlers in limited quantities. In the course
of the discussion of the bill, Mr. Benton offered an amendment,
securing to any head of a family, any young man over the age of
eighteen, and any widow, a settlement right in 160 acres at reduced
prices, and inhabitation and cultivation for five years: which
amendment was lost by a close vote--18 to 20. The yeas and nays were:
Yeas--Messrs. Benton, Black, Dana, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton,
Hendricks, King of Alabama, Linn, Moore, Morris, Nicholas,
Rives, Robinson, Sevier, Strange, Tipton, Walker, White--18.
Nays--Messrs. Bayard, Brown, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden,
Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Hubbard, Kent, King of Georgia, Niles,
Page, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Swift, Tallmadge, Wright--20.
The substitute reported by the committee on public lands, after an
extended debate, and various motions of amendment, was put to the
vote, and adopted--twenty-four to sixteen--the yeas and nays being:
YEAS--Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Ewing of
Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Alabama,
Linn, Lyon, Moore, Mouton, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page,
Rives, Robinson, Strange, Walker, Wright--24.
NAYS--Messrs. Bayard, Calhoun, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Kent, King
of Georgia, Knight, Prentiss, Robbins, Sevier, Southard, Swift,
Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, White--16.
So Mr. Clay's plan of a five years' open distribution of the land
money to the States, in addition to the actual distribution, under
the deposit mask, was now defeated in the Senate: but that did
not put an end to kindred schemes. They multiplied in different
forms; and continued to vex Congress to almost the last day of its
existence. Mr. Calhoun brought a plan for the cession of all the
public lands to the States in which they lay, to be sold by them
on graduated prices, extending to thirty-five years, on condition
that the States should take the expenses of the land system on
themselves, and pay thirty-three and a third per centum, of the
sales, to the federal treasury. Mr. Benton objected, on principle,
to any complication of moneyed or property transactions between
the States and the federal government, leading, as they inevitably
would, to dissension and contention; and ending in controversies
between the members and the head of the federal government: and,
on detail, because the graduation was extended beyond a period
when the new States would be strong enough to obtain better terms,
without the complication of a contract, and the condition of a
purchase. Within the thirty-five years, there would be three new
apportionments of representatives, under the censuses of 1840, 1850,
and 1860--doubling or trebling the new States' representation each
time; also several new States admitted; so that they would be strong
enough to take effectual measures for the extinction of the federal
titles within the States, on just and equitable principles. Mr.
Buchanan openly assailed Mr. Calhoun's proposition as a bid for the
presidency; and said:
"He had heard a great deal said about bribing the people with
their own money; arguments of that kind had been reiterated,
but they had never had much effect on him. But speaking on
the same principles on which this had been said, and without
intending any thing personal toward the honorable senator from
South Carolina, he would say this was the most splendid bribe
that had ever yet been offered. It was to give the entire
public domain to the people of the new States, without fee or
reward, and on the single condition that they should not bring
all the land into market at once. It was the first time such a
proposition had been brought forward for legislation; and he
solemnly protested against the principle that Congress had any
right, in equity or justice, to give what belonged to the entire
people of the Union to the inhabitants of any State or States
whatever. After warmly expressing his dissent to the amendment,
Mr. B. said he hoped it would not receive the sanction of any
considerable portion of the Senate."
Mr. Sevier of Arkansas, said it might be very true that presidential
candidates would bid deep for the favor of the West; but that was
no reason why the West should refuse a good offer, when made.
Deeming this a good one, and beneficial to the new States, he was
for taking it. Mr. Linn, of Missouri, objected to the proposition of
Mr. Calhoun, as an amendment to the bill in favor of actual settlers
(in which form it was offered), because it would be the occasion of
losing both measures; and said:
"He might probably vote for it as an independent proposition,
but could not as it now stood. He had set out with the
determination to vote against every amendment which should
be proposed, as the bill had once been nearly lost by the
multiplication of them. If this amendment should be received,
the residue of the session would be taken up in discussing it,
and nothing would be done for his constituents. He wanted them
to know that he had done his utmost, which was but little,
to carry into effect their wishes, and to secure their best
interests in the settlement of the new country. He was anxious
to obtain the passage of an equitable pre-emption law, which
should secure to them their homes, and not throw the country
into the hands of great capitalists, as had been done in the
case of the Holland Land Company, and thus retard the settlement
of the West. As to the evasions of previous pre-emption laws,
of which so much had been said, he believed they either had
no existence in Missouri, or had been grossly exaggerated. In
the course of his professional duty (Mr. Linn is a physician,
in large practice), he had occasion to become extensively
acquainted with the people concerning whom these things had been
asserted (he referred to the emigrants who had settled in that
State, under the pre-emption law of 1814), and he could say,
nothing of the kind had fallen under his observation. They had
come there, in most cases, poor, surrounded by all the evils and
disadvantages of emigration to a new country; he had attended
many of them in sickness; and he could truly aver that they
were, as a whole, the best and most upright body of people he
had ever known.
"Mr. L. said he was a practical man, though his temperament
might be somewhat warm. He looked to things which were
attainable, and in the near prospect of being obtained, rather
than at those contingent and distant. Here was a bill, far
advanced in the Senate, and, as he hoped, on the eve of passing.
He believed it would secure a great good to his constituents;
and he could not consent to risk that bill by accepting the
amendment proposed by the senator from South Carolina. If the
senator from Arkansas would let this go, he might possibly find
that it was a better thing than he could ever get again. He
wanted that Congress should so regulate the public lands, and so
arrange the terms on which it was disposed of, as to furnish in
the West an opportunity for poor men to become rich, and every
worthy and industrious man prosperous and happy."
Mr. Calhoun felt himself called upon to rise in defence of his
proposition, and in vindication of his own motives in offering it;
and did so, in a brief speech, saying:
"When the Senate had entered upon the present discussion, he had
had little thought of offering a proposition like this. He had,
indeed, always seen that there was a period coming when this
government must cede to the new States the possession of their
own soil; but he had never thought, till now, that period was
so near. What he had seen this session, however, and especially
the nature and character of the bill which was now likely to
pass, had fully satisfied him that the time had arrived. There
were at present eighteen senators from the new States. In four
years, there would be six more, which would make twenty-four.
All, therefore, must see that, in a very short period, those
States would have this question in their own hands. And it had
been openly said that they ought not to accept of the present
proposition, because they would soon be able to get better
terms. He thought, therefore, that, instead of attempting to
resist any longer what must eventually happen, it would be
better for all concerned that Congress should yield at once to
the force of circumstances, and cede the public domain. His
objects in this movement were high and solemn objects. He wished
to break down the vassalage of the new States. He desired that
this government should cease to hold the relation of a landlord.
He wished, further, to draw this great fund out of the vortex
of the presidential contest, with which it had openly been
announced to the Senate there was an avowed design to connect
it. He thought the country had been sufficiently agitated,
corrupted, and debased, by the influence of that contest; and
he wished to take this great engine out of the hands of power.
If he were a candidate for the presidency, he would wish to
leave it there. He wished to go further: he sought to remove the
immense amount of patronage connected with the management of
this domain--a patronage which had corrupted both the old and
the new States to an enormous extent. He sought to counteract
the centralism, which was the great danger of this government,
and thereby to preserve the liberties of the people much longer
than would otherwise be possible. As to what was to be received
for these lands, he cared nothing about it. He would have
consented at once to yield the whole, and withdraw altogether
the landlordship of the general government over them, had he
not believed that it would be most for the benefit of the new
States themselves that it should continue somewhat longer. These
were the views which had induced him to present the amendment.
He offered no gilded pill. He threw in no apple of discord.
He was no bidder for popularity. He prescribed to himself a
more humble aim, which was simply to do his duty. He sought to
counteract the corrupting tendency of the existing course of
things. He sought to weaken this government by divesting it of
at least a part of the immense patronage it wielded. He held
that every great landed estate required a local administration,
conducted by persons more intimately acquainted with local wants
and interests than the members of a central government could
possibly be. If any body asked him for a proof of the truth of
his positions, he might point them to the bill now before the
Senate. Such were the sentiments, shortly stated, which had
governed him on this occasion. He had done his duty, and he must
leave the result with God and with the new States."
Mr. Calhoun's proposition was then put to the vote, and almost
unanimously rejected, only six senators besides himself voting
for it; namely: Messrs. King of Georgia; Moore of Alabama; Morris
of Ohio; Robinson of Illinois; Sevier of Arkansas; and White of
Tennessee. And thus a third project of distribution (counting Mr.
Mercer's motion as one), at this session, had miscarried. But it was
not the end. Mr. Chilton Allen, representative from Kentucky, moved
a direct distribution of land to the old States, equal in amount
to the grants which had been made to the new States. Mr. Abijah
Mann, jr., of New York, strikingly exposed the injustice of this
proposition, in a few brief remarks, saying:
"It must be apparent, by this time, that this proposition was
neither more nor less than a new edition of the old and exploded
idea of distributing the proceeds of the sales of the public
lands, attempted to be concealed under rubbish and verbiage,
and gilded over by the patriotic idea of applying it to the
public education. Its paternity is suspicious, and its hope
fallacious and delusive. The preamble to this resolution is
illusory and deceptive, addressed to the cupidity of the old
States represented on this floor. It recites the grants made by
Congress to each of the new States of the public lands in the
aggregate, without specifying the motive or consideration upon
which they were made. Its argument is, that an equal quantity
should be granted to the old States, to make them respectively
equal sharers in the public lands. Now, sir (said Mr. M.),
nothing could be devised more disingenuous and deceptive. Let
us look at it briefly. The idea is, that the old States granted
these lands to the new for an implied consideration, and
resulting benefit to themselves; that it was a sort of Indian
gift, to be refunded with increase. Not so, sir, at all. If
Mr. M. understood the motives inducing those grants, they were
paternal on the part of the old States; proceeding upon that
generous and noble liberality which induces a wealthy father
to advance and provide for his children. This was the moving
consideration, though he (Mr. M.) was aware that the grants in
aid of the improvements of the new States and territories were
upon consideration of advancing the sale and improvement of the
remaining lands in those States held by the United States."
The proposition of Mr. Allen was disposed of by a motion to lie on
the table, which prevailed--one hundred and fourteen to eighty-one
votes; but the end of these propositions was not yet. Another
motion to divide surpluses was to be made, and was made in the
expiring days of the session, and by way of amendment to the regular
fortification bill. Mr. Bell, of Tennessee, moved, on the 25th
of February, that a further deposit of all the public monies in
the treasury on the first day of January, 1838, above the sum of
five millions of dollars, should be "deposited" with the States,
according to the terms of the "deposit" bill of the preceding
session; and which would have the effect of making a second
"deposit" after the completion of the first one. The argument for
it was the same which had been used in the first case; the argument
against it was the one previously used, with the addition of the
objectionable proceeding of springing such a proposition at the
end of the session, and as an amendment to a defence appropriation
bill, on its passage; to which it was utterly incongruous, and must
defeat; as, if it failed to sink the bill in one of the Houses,
it must certainly be rejected by the President, who, it was now
known, would not be cheated again with the word deposit. It was also
opposed as an act of supererogation, as nobody could tell whether
there would be any surplus a year hence; and further, it was opposed
as an act of usurpation and an encroachment upon the authority of
the ensuing Congress. A new Congress was to be elected, and to
assemble before that time; the present Congress would expire in
six days: and it was argued that it was neither right nor decent
to anticipate their successors, and do what they, fresh from the
people, might not do. Mr. Yell, of Arkansas, was the principal
speaker against it; and said:
"I voted, Mr. Speaker, against the amendment proposed by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bell), because I am of opinion
that this bill, if passed, and sanctioned by the President--and
I trust that it never will receive the countenance of that
distinguished man and illustrious statesman--will at once
establish a system demoralizing and corrupting in its
influences, and tend to the destruction of the sovereignty
of the States, and render them dependant suppliants on the
general government. This measure of distribution, since it has
been a hobby-horse for gentlemen to ride on, has presented an
anomalous spectacle! The time yet belongs to the history of this
Congress, when honorable gentlemen, from the South and West,
were daily found arraying themselves against every species of
unnecessary taxation, boldly avowing that they were opposed to
any and all tariff systems which would yield a revenue beyond
the actual wants and demands of the government. Such was their
language but a few weeks or months ago; and, in proclaiming it,
they struggled hard to excel each other in zeal and violence.
And now, sir, what is the spectacle we behold? A system of
distribution--another and a specious name for a system of
_bribery_ has been started; the hounds are in full cry; and the
same honorable and patriotic gentlemen now step forward, and,
at the watchword of 'put money in thy purse; aye, put money
in thy purse,' vote for the distribution or bribery measure;
the effect of which is to entail on this country a system of
taxation and oppression, which has had no parallel since the
days of the tea and ten-penny tax--two frightful measures of
discord, which roused enfeebled colonies to rebellion, and led
to the foundation of this mighty republic. But we are told, Mr.
Speaker, that this proposed distribution is only for momentary
duration; that it is necessary to relieve the Treasury of a
redundant income, and that it will speedily be discontinued!
Indeed, sir! What evidence have we of the fact? What evidence do
we require to disprove the assertion? This scheme was commenced
the last session; it has been introduced at this; and let me
tell you, Mr. Speaker, it never will be abandoned so long as the
high tariff party can wheedle the people with a siren lullaby,
and cheat them out of their rights, by dazzling the vision with
gold, and deluding the fancy by the attributes of sophistry.
Depend upon it, sir, if this baleful system of distribution be
not nipped in the bud, it will betray the people into submission
by a species of taxation which no nation on earth should
endure. Sir, continued Mr. Y., I enter my protest against a
system of bargain and corruption, which is to be executed by
parties of different political complexions, for the purpose of
dividing the _spoils_ which they have plundered from the people.
If the sales of the public lands are to be continued for the
benefit of the speculators who go to the West in multitudes for
the purpose of _legally stealing_ the lands and improvements of
the people of the new States, I hope my constituents may know
who it is that thus imposes upon them a system of _legalized
fraud and oppression_. If, sir, my constituents are to be
sacrificed by the maintenance of a system of persecution, got
up and carried on for the purpose of filling the pockets of
others to their ruin, I wish them to know who is the author of
the enormity. I had hoped, Mr. Speaker, and that hope has not
yet been abandoned, that if ever this branch of the government
is bent on the destruction of the rights of the people, and
a violation of the Constitution, there is yet one ordeal for
it to pass where it may be shorn of its baneful aspect. And,
Mr. Speaker, I trust in God that, in its passage through that
ordeal, it will find a _quietus_."
Mr. Bell's motion succeeded. The second "deposit" act, by a vote of
112 to 70, was engrafted on the appropriation bill for completing
and constructing fortifications; and, thus loaded, that bill went
to the Senate. Being referred to the Committee on Finance, that
committee directed their chairman, Mr. Wright of New-York, to move
to strike it out. The motion was resisted by Mr. Calhoun, Mr. Clay,
Mr. Webster, Mr. White of Tennessee, Mr. Ewing of Ohio, Crittenden,
Preston, Southard, and Clayton; and supported by Messrs. Wright,
Benton, Bedford Brown, Buchanan, Grundy, Niles of Connecticut,
Rives, Strange of North Carolina: and being put to the vote, the
motion was carried, and the "deposit" clause struck from the bill by
a vote of 26 to 19. The yeas and nays were:
"YEAS--Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Cuthbert, Ewing of
Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of
Georgia, Linn, Lyon, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page, Parker,
Rives, Ruggles, Sevier, Strange, Tallmadge, Walker, Wall,
Wright--26.
"NAYS--Messrs. Bayard, Calhoun, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis,
Ewing of Ohio, Hendricks, Kent, Knight, Moore, Prentiss,
Preston, Robbins, Southard, Spence, Swift, Tomlinson, Webster,
White--19."
Being returned to the House, a motion was made to disagree to the
Senate's amendment, and argued with great warmth on each side,
the opponents to the "deposit" reminding its friends of the loss
of a previous appropriation bill for fortifications; and warning
them that their perseverance must now have the same effect, and
operate a sacrifice of defence to the spirit of distribution: but
all in vain. The motion to disagree was carried--110 to 94. The
disputed clause then went through all the parliamentary forms
known to the occasion. The Senate "insisted" on its amendment: a
motion to "recede" was made and lost in the House: a motion to
"adhere" was made, and prevailed: then the Senate "adhered": then
a committee of "conference" was appointed, and they "disagreed."
This being reported to the Houses, the bill fell--the fortification
appropriations were lost: and in this direct issue between the
plunder of the country, and the defence of the country, defence
was beaten. Such was the deplorable progress which the spirit of
distribution had made.
CHAPTER CLVII.
MILITARY ACADEMY: ITS RIDING-HOUSE.
The annual appropriation bill for the support of this Academy
contained a clause for the purchase of forty horses, "for
instruction in light artillery and cavalry exercise;" and proposed
ten thousand dollars for the purpose. This purchase was opposed, and
the clause stricken out. The bill also contained a clause proposing
thirty thousand dollars, in addition to the amount theretofore
appropriated, for the erection of a building for "recitation
and military exercises," as the clause expressed itself. It was
understood to be for the riding-house in bad weather. Mr. McKay,
of North Carolina, moved to strike out the clause, upon the ground
that military men ought to be inured to hardship, not pampered in
effeminacy; and that, as war was carried on in the field, so young
officers should be learned to ride in the open air, and on rough
ground, and to be afraid of no weather. The clause was stricken
out, but restored upon re-consideration; in opposition to which Mr.
Smith, of Maine, was the principal speaker; and said:
"I beg leave to call the attention of the committee to the
paragraph of this bill proposed to be stricken out. It is an
appropriation of thirty thousand dollars, in addition to the
amount already appropriated, for the erection of a building
within which to exercise and drill the cadets at West Point.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Ingersoll] who reported
this bill, and who never engages himself in any subject without
making himself entire master of all its parts, will do the
committee the justice, I trust, to inform them, when he shall
next take the floor, what the amount heretofore appropriated for
this same building, in which to exercise the cadets, actually
has been; that, if we decide on the propriety of having such a
building, we may also know how much we have heretofore taken
from the public Treasury for its erection, and to what sum the
thirty thousand dollars now proposed will be an addition.
"The honorable gentleman from New-York [Mr. Cambreleng] says
this proposed building is to protect the cadets during the
inclemency of the winter season, when the snow is from two to
six feet deep; and has urged upon the committee the extreme
hardship of requiring the cadets to perform their exercises in
the open air in such an inclement and cold region as that where
West Point is situated. Sir, if the gentleman would extend his
inquiries somewhat further North or East, he would find that at
points where the winters are still more inclement than at West
Point, and where the snow lies for months in succession from
two to eight feet deep, a very large and useful and respectable
portion of the citizens not only incur the snows and storms of
winter by day without workshops or buildings to protect them,
but actually pursue the business of months amid such snows and
storms, without a roof, or board, or so much as a shingle to
cover and protect them by either day or night, and do not dream
of murmuring. But, forsooth, the young cadet at West Point, who
goes there to acquire an education for himself, who is clothed
and fed, and even paid for his time, by the government while
acquiring his education, cannot endure the atmosphere of West
Point, without a magnificent building to shield him during
the few hours in the week, while in the act of being drilled,
as part of his education! The government is called upon to
appropriate thirty thousand dollars, in addition to what has
already been appropriated for the purpose, to protect the young
cadet, who is preparing to be a soldier, against this temporary
and yet most salutary exposure, as I esteem it. Sir, is Congress
prepared thus to pamper the effeminacy of these young gentlemen,
at such an expense, too, upon the public Treasury? Is it not
enough to educate them for nothing, and to pay them for their
time while you are educating them, and that you provide for
their comfortable subsistence, comfortable lodgings, and all the
ordinary comforts, not to say numerous luxuries of life, without
attempting to keep them for ever within doors, to be raised like
children? I am opposed to it; and I think, whenever the people
of this nation shall be made acquainted with the fact, they too
will be opposed to it.
"The gentleman from New-York says the exposure of the cadets is
very great and that, among other duties, they are required to
perform camp duties for three months in the year. It is true,
sir, that the law of Congress imposes three months' camp duty
upon the cadet. But the same tender spirit of guardianship which
has suggested the expediency of housing the cadets from the
atmosphere while performing their drill duties and exercises
has in some way construed away one third of the law of Congress
upon this subject; and, instead of three months' camp duty, as
the law requires, the cadets are required, by the rules and
regulations of the institution, to camp out only two months
of the year; and for this purpose, sir, every species of camp
utensils and camp furniture that government money can purchase
is provided for them; and this same duty, thus pictured forth
here by the gentleman from New-York as a severe hardship, is in
fact so tempered to the cadets as to become a mere luxury--a
matter of absolute preference among the cadets. The gentleman
from New-York will find, by the rules and regulations of the
Academy, the months of July and August, or of August and
September, are selected for this camp duty: seasons of the
year, sir, when it is absolutely a luxury and privilege for
the cadets to leave their close quarters and confined rooms,
to perform duty out door, and to spend the nights in their
well-furnished camps. Sir, the hardships and exposures of the
cadets are nothing compared with those of the generality of our
fellow-citizens in the North, in their ordinary pursuits; and
yet we are called upon to add to their luxuries--two hundred and
fifty dollar horses to ride, splendid camp equipage to protect
them from the dews and damp air of summer, and magnificent
buildings to shield them in their winter exercises. I think it
is high time for Congress, and for the people of this nation,
to reflect seriously upon these matters, and to inquire with
somewhat of particularity into the character of this institution.
"But the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Ingersoll),
has volunteered to put the reputation of the West Point Academy
for morality in issue at this time, and sets it out in eloquent
description, as pre-eminently pure and irreproachable in this
respect.
"Sir, does not the honorable gentleman know that the history
of this institution, within a few years back only, bears quite
different testimony upon this subject? Does not the gentleman
know the fact--a fact well substantiated by the Register of
Debates in your library--that only a few years since the
government was forced into the necessity of purchasing up, at an
expense of ten thousand dollars, a neighboring tavern stand, as
the only means of saving the institution from being overwhelmed
and ruined by the gross immoralities of the cadets? Is not the
gentleman aware that the whole argument urged to force and
justify the government into this purchase was, that the moral
power of the Academy was unequal to the counter influences of
the neighboring tavern? And are we to be told, sir, that this
institution stands forth in its history pre-eminently pure,
and above comparison with the institutions that exist upon the
private enterprise and munificence, and thirst for knowledge,
that characterize our countrymen? I make these suggestions,
and allude to these facts, not voluntarily, and from a wish to
create a discussion upon either the merits or demerits of the
Academy. When I made the proposition to strike from this bill
the ten thousand dollars proposed to be appropriated for the
purchase of horses, I neither intended nor desired to enter into
a discussion of the institution. I have not now spoken, except
upon the impulse given by the remarks of the gentlemen from
New-York and Pennsylvania; and now, instead of going into the
facts that do exist in relation to the Academy, I can assure
gentlemen that I have but scarcely approached them. I have
been willing, and am now willing, to have these facts brought
to light at another time, and upon a proper occasion that will
occur hereafter, and leave the people of this nation to judge
of them dispassionately. A report upon the subject of this
institution will be made shortly, as the honorable gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Hawes) has assured the house. From that
report, all will be able to form an opinion as to the policy
of the institution in its present shape and under its present
discipline. That some grave objections exist to both its shape
and discipline, I think all will agree. But I wish not to
discuss either at this time. Let us know, however, and let the
country know, something about the expensive buildings now in
progress at West Point, before we conclude to add this further
appropriation of thirty thousand dollars to the expenses of the
institution; and, while I am up, I will call the attention of
the honorable gentleman who reported this bill to another item
in it, which embraces forage for horses among other matters, and
I wish him to specify to the committee what proportion of the
sum of over thirteen thousand dollars contained in this item, is
based upon the supposed supply of forage. We have stricken out
the appropriation for purchasing horses, and another part of the
bill provides forage for the officers' horses; hence a portion
of the item now adverted to should probably be stricken out."
The debate became spirited and discursive, grave and gay, and gave
rise to some ridiculous suggestions, as that if it was necessary
to protect these young officers from bad weather when exercising
on horseback it ought to be done in no greater degree than young
women are protected in like circumstances--parasols for the sun,
umbrellas for rain, and pelisses for cold: which it was insisted
would be a great economy. On the other hand it was insisted that
riding-houses were appurtenant to the military colleges of Europe,
and that fine riders were trained in these schools. The $30,000,
in addition to previous appropriations for the same purpose, was
granted; but has been found to be insufficient; and a late Board of
Visitors, following the lead of the Superintendent of the Academy,
and powerfully backed by the War Office, at Washington City, has
earnestly recommended a further additional appropriation of $20,000,
still further to improve the riding-house; on the ground that, "the
room now used for the purpose is extremely dangerous to the lives
and limbs of the cadets." This further accommodation is deemed
indispensable to the proper teaching of the art of "equitation:"
that is to say, to the art of riding on the back of a horse; and the
Visitors recommend this accommodation to Congress, in the following
pathetic terms: "The attention of the committee has been drawn to
the consideration of the expediency of erecting a new building for
cavalry exercise. We are aware that the subject has been before
Congress, upon the recommendation of former boards of Visitors, and
we cannot add to the force of the arguments made use of by them, in
favor of the measure. We would regret to be compelled to believe
that there is a greater indifference to the safety of human life and
limb in this country than in most others. It is enough for us to say
that, in the opinion of the Superintendent, the course of equitation
cannot be properly taught without it, 'and that the room now used
for the purpose is extremely dangerous to the lives and limbs of
the cadets.' In this opinion, we entirely concur. The appropriation
required for the erection of such a building will amount to some
$20,000. We can hardly excuse ourselves, if we neglect to bring
this subject, so far as we are able to do so, most emphatically
to the notice of those who have the power, and, we doubt not, the
disposition also, to remove the evil."
CHAPTER CLVIII.
SALT TAX: MR. BENTON'S FOURTH SPEECH AGAINST IT.
The amount which this tax brings into the treasury is about 600,000
dollars, and that upon an article costing about 650,000 dollars;
and one-half of the tax received goes to the fishing bounties and
allowances founded upon it. So that what upon the record is a tax
of about 100 per centum, is in the reality a tax of 200 per centum;
and that upon an article of prime necessity and universal use, while
we have articles of luxury and superfluity--wines, silks--either
free of tax, or nominally taxed at some ten or twenty per centum.
The bare statement of the case is revolting and mortifying; but
it is only by looking into the detail of the tax--its amount upon
different varieties of salt--its effect upon the trade and sale of
the article--upon its importation and use--and the consequences
upon the agriculture of the country, for want of adequate supplies
of salt--that the weight of the tax, and the disastrous effects of
its imposition, can be ascertained. To enable the Senate to judge
of these effects and consequences, and to render my remarks more
intelligible, I will read a table of the importation of salt for
the year 1835--the last that has been made up--and which is known
to be a fair index to the annual importations for many years past.
With the number of bushels, and the name of the country from which
the importations come, will be given the value of each parcel at the
place it was obtained, and the original cost per bushel.
Statement of the quantity of Salt imported into the United
States during the year 1835, with the value and cost thereof,
per bushel, at the place from which it was imported:
No. of Cost
Countries. bushels. p. bus.
Sweden and Norway, 8,556 $572 6 3-4
Swedish West Indies, 6,856 708 10 1-4
Danish West Indies, 2,351 386 16
Dutch West Indies, 141,566 12,967 9
England, 2,613,077 412,507 16 1-2
Ireland, 51,954 12,276
Gibraltar, 17,832 1,385 7 3-4
Malta, 1,500 118 7 3-4
British West Indies, 959,786 98,497 10
British Am. Colonies, 138,593 30,374
France on Mediterranean, 32,648 2,155 6 2-3
Spain on Atlantic, 360,140 16,760 4 3-4
Spain on Mediterran., 101,000 5,443 5 1-3
Portugal, 780,000 55,087 7
Cape de Verd Islands, 8,134 751 9 1-10
Italy, 36,742 1,580 4 1-3
Sicily, 5,786 156 2 2-3
Trieste, 7,888 255 3 7-8
Turkey, 9,377 984 10 1-10
Colombia, 17,162 1,227
Brazil, 250 68
Argentine Republic, 402 41
Africa, 5,733 615 10 2-3
--------- -------- ------
5,735,364 655,000
Mr. B. would remark that salt, being brought in ballast, the
greatest quantity came from England, where we had the largest
trade; and that its importation, with a tax upon it, being merely
incidental to trade, this greatest quantity came from the place
where it cost most, and was of far inferior kind. The salt from
England was nearly one half of the whole quantity imported; its cost
was about sixteen cents a bushel; and its quality was so inferior
that neither in the United States, nor in Great Britain, could it
be used for curing provisions, fish, butter, or any thing that
required long keeping, or exposure to southern heats. This was the
salt commonly called Liverpool. It was made by artificial heat,
and never was, and never can be made pure, as the mere agitation
of the boiling prevents the separation of the _bittern_, and other
foreign and poisonous ingredients with which all salt water, and
even mineral salt, is more or less impregnated. The other half of
the imported salt costs far less than the English salt, and is
infinitely superior to it; so far superior that the English salt
will not even serve for a substitute in the important business of
curing fish, and flesh, for long keeping, or southern exposure. This
salt was made by the action of the sun in the latitudes approaching,
and under the tropics. We begin to obtain it in the West Indies, and
in large quantity on Turk's Island; and get it from all the islands
and coasts, under the sun's track, from the Gulf of Mexico to the
Black Sea. The Cape de Verd Islands, the Atlantic and Mediterranean
coasts of Spain and Portugal, the Mediterranean coast of France,
the two coasts of Italy, the islands in the Mediterranean, the
coasts of the Adriatic, the Archipelago, up to the Black Sea, all
produce it and send it to us. The table which has been read shows
that the original cost of this salt--the purest and strongest in
the world--is about nine or ten cents a bushel in the Gulf of
Mexico; five, six and seven cents on the coasts of France, Spain
and Portugal; three and four cents in Italy and the Adriatic; and
less than three cents in Sicily. Yet all this salt bears one uniform
duty; it was all twenty cents a bushel, and is now near ten cents
a bushel; so that while the tax on the English salt is a little
upwards of fifty per cent. on the value, the same tax on all the
other salt is from one hundred to two hundred, and three hundred
and near four hundred per cent. The sun-made salt is chiefly used
in the Great West, in curing provisions; the Liverpool is chiefly
used on the Atlantic coasts; and thus the people in different
sections of the Union pay different degrees of tax upon the same
articles, and that which costs least is taxed most. A tax ranging
to some hundred per cent. is in itself an enormous tax; and thus
the duty collected by the federal government from all the consumers
of the sun-made salt, is in itself excessive; amounting, in many
instances, to double, treble, or even quadruple the original cost of
the article. This is an enormity of taxation which strikes the mind
at the first blush; but, it is only the beginning of the enormity,
the extent of which is only discoverable in tracing its effects
to all their diversified and injurious consequences. In the first
place, it checks and prevents the importation of the salt. Coming as
ballast, and not as an article of commerce on which profit is to be
made, the shipper cannot bring it except he is supplied with money
to pay the duty, or surrenders it into the hands of salt dealers,
on landing, to go his security for the payment of the duty. Thus,
the importation of the article is itself checked; and this check
operates with the greatest force in all cases where the original
price of the salt was least; and, therefore, where it operates most
injuriously to the country. In all such cases the tax operates as a
prohibition to use salt as ballast, and checks its importation from
all the places of its production nearest the sun's track, from the
Gulf of Mexico to Constantinople. In the next place, the imposition
of the tax throws the salt into the hands of an intermediate set
of dealers in the seaports, who either advance the duty, or go
security for it, and who thus become possessed of nearly all the
salt which is imported. A few persons employed in this business
engross the salt, and fix the price for all in the market; and fix
it higher or lower, not according to the cost of the article, but
according to the necessities of the country, and the quantity on
hand, and the season of the year. The prices at which they fix it
are known to all purchasers, and may be seen in all prices-current.
It is generally, in the case of alum salt, four, five, ten, or
fifteen times as much as it cost. It is generally forty, or fifty,
or sixty cents a bushel, and nearly the same price for all sorts,
without any reference to the original cost, whether it cost three
cents, or five cents, or ten cents, or fifteen cents a bushel.
About one uniform price is put on the whole, and the purchaser
has to submit to the imposition. This results from the effect of
the tax, throwing the article, which is nothing but ballast, into
the hands of salt dealers. The importer does not bring more money
than the salt is worth, to pay the duty; he does not come prepared
to pay a heavy duty on his ballast; he has to depend upon raising
the money for paying the duty after he arrives in the United
States; and this throws him into the hands of the salt dealer, and
subjects the country purchaser to all the fair charges attending
this change of hands, and this establishment of an intermediate
dealer, who must have his profits; and also to all the additional
exactions which he may choose to make. This should not be. There
should be no costs, nor charges, nor intermediate profits, on such
an article as salt. It comes as ballast; as ballast it should be
handed out--should be handed from the ship to the steamboat--should
escape port charges, and intermediate profits--and this would be the
case, if the duty was abolished. Thus the charges, costs, profits,
and exactions, in consequence of the tax, are greater than the tax
itself! But this is not all--a further injury, resulting from the
tax, is yet to be inflicted upon the consumer. It is well known
that the measured bushel of alum salt, and all sun-made salt is
alum salt--it is well known that a bushel of this salt weighs about
eighty-four pounds; yet the custom-house bushel goes by weight,
and not by measure, and fifty-six pounds is there the bushel. Thus
the consumer, in consequence of having the salt sent through the
custom-house, is shifted from the measured to the weighed bushel,
and loses twenty-eight pounds by the operation! but this is not
his whole loss; the intermediate salt dealer deducts six pounds
more, and gives fifty pounds for the bushel; and thus this taxed
and custom-housed article, after paying some hundred per cent. to
the government and several hundred per cent. more to the regraters,
is worked into a loss of thirty-four pounds on every bushel! All
these losses and impositions would vanish, if salt was freed from
the necessity of passing the custom-houses; and to do that, it must
be freed _in toto_ from taxation. The slightest duty would operate
nearly the whole mischief, for it would throw the article into
the hands of regraters, and would substitute the weighed for the
measured bushel.
Such are the direct injuries of the salt tax; a tax enormous in
itself, disproportionate in its application to the same article in
different parts of the Union, and bearing hardest upon that kind
which is cheapest, best, and most indispensable. The levy to the
government is enormous, $650,000 per annum upon an article only
worth about $600,000; but what the government receives is a trifle,
compared to what is exacted by the regrater,--what is lost in the
difference between the weighed and the measured bushel,--and the
loss which the farmer sustains for want of adequate supplies of salt
for his stock, and their food. Assuming the government tax to be ten
cents a bushel, the average cost of alum salt to be seven cents,
and the regrater's price to be fifty cents, and it is clear that he
receives upwards of three times as much as the government does; and
that the tribute to those regraters is near two millions of dollars
per annum. Assuming again that thirty-four pounds in the bushel
are lost to the consumer in the substitution of the weighed for
the measured bushel, and here is another loss amounting to nearly
three-eighths of the value of the salt; that is to say, to about
$250,000 on an importation of $650,000 worth.
These detailed views of the operation and effects of the salt duty,
continued Mr. B., place the burdens of that tax in the most odious
and revolting light; but the picture is not yet complete; two other
features are to be introduced into it, each of which, separately,
and still more, both put together, go far to double its enormity,
and to carry the iniquity of such a tax up to the very verge of
criminality and sinfulness. The first of these features is, in
the loss which the farmers sustain for want of adequate supplies
of salt for their stock; and the second, from the fact that the
duty is a one-sided tax, being imposed only on some sections of
the Union, and not at all upon another section of the Union. A few
details will verify these additional features. First, as to the loss
which the country sustains for want of adequate supplies of salt.
Every practical man knows that every description of stock requires
salt--hogs, horses, cattle, sheep; and that all the prepared food
of cattle requires it also--hay, fodder, clover, shucks, &c. In
England it is ascertained, by experience, that sheep require,
each, half a pound a week, which is twenty-eight pounds, or half a
custom-house bushel, per annum; cows require a bushel and a half per
annum; young cattle a bushel; draught horses, and draught cattle, a
bushel; colts, and young cattle, from three pecks to a bushel each,
per annum; and it was computed in England, before the abolition of
the salt-tax there, that the stock of the English farmers, for want
of adequate supplies of salt, was injured to an annual amount far
beyond the product of the tax.
Dr. Young, before a committee of the British House of Commons,
and upon oath, testified to his belief that the use of salt free
of tax would benefit the agricultural interest, in the increased
value of their stock alone, to the annual amount of three millions
sterling, near fifteen millions of dollars. Such was the injury of
the salt-tax in England to the agricultural interest in the single
article of stock. What the injury might be to the agricultural
interest in the United States on the same article, on account of
the stinted use of salt occasioned by the tax, might be vaguely
conceived from general observation and a few established facts.
In the first place, it was known to every body that stock in our
country was stinted for salt; that neither hogs, horses, cattle,
or sheep, received any thing near the quantity found by experience
to be necessary in England; and, as for their food, that little or
no salt was put upon it in the United States; while in England,
ten or fifteen pounds of salt to the ton of hay, clover, &c. was
used in curing it. Taking a single branch of the stock of the
United States, that of sheep, and more decided evidence of the
deplorable deficiency of salt cannot be produced. The sheep in
the United States were computed by the wool-growers, in 1832, in
their petitions to Congress, at twenty millions; this number, at
half a bushel each, would require about ten millions of bushels;
now the whole supply of salt in the United States, both home-made
and imported, barely exceeds ten millions; so that, if the sheep
received an adequate supply, there would not remain a pound for any
other purpose! Of course, the sheep did not receive an adequate
supply, nor perhaps the fourth part of what was necessary; and so
of all other stock. To give an opinion of the total loss to the
agricultural interest in the United States for want of the free use
of this article, would require the minute, comprehensive, sagacious,
and peculiar turn of mind of Dr. Young; but it may be sufficient for
the argument, and for all practical purposes, to assume that our
loss, in proportion to the number of our stock, is greater than that
of the English farmers, and amounts to fifteen or twenty times the
value of the tax itself!
CHAPTER CLIX.
EXPUNGING RESOLUTION--PREPARATION FOR DECISION.
It was now the last session of the last term of the presidency
of General Jackson, and the work of the American Senate doing
justice to itself by undoing the wrong which it had done to itself
in its condemnation of the President, was at hand. The appeal to
the people had produced its full effect; and, in less time than
had been expected. Confident from the beginning in the verdict of
the people, the author of the movement had not counted upon its
delivery until several years--probably until after the retirement
of General Jackson, and until the subsidence of the passions
which usually pursue a public man while he remains on the stage
of action. Contrary to all expectation, the public mind was made
up in less than three years, and before the termination of that
second administration which was half run when the sentence of
condemnation was passed. At the commencement of this session,
1836-'37, the public voice had come in, and in an imperative form.
A majority of the States had acted decisively on the subject--some
superseding their senators at the end of their terms who had given
the obnoxious vote, and replacing them by those who would expunge
it; others sending legislative instructions to their senators, which
carried along with them, in the democratic States, the obligation
of obedience or resignation; and of which it was known there were
enough to obey to accomplish the desired expurgation. Great was
the number superseded, or forced to resign. The great leaders, Mr.
Clay, Mr. Webster, Mr. Calhoun, easily maintained themselves in
their respective States; but the mortality fell heavily upon their
followers, and left them in a helpless minority. The time had come
for action; and on the second day after the meeting of the Senate,
Mr. Benton gave notice of his intention to bring in at an early
period the unwelcome resolution, and to press it to a decision.
Heretofore he had introduced it without any view to action, but
merely for an occasion for a speech, to go to the people; but the
opposition, exulting in their strength, would of themselves call it
up, against the wishes of the mover, to receive the rejection which
they were able to give it. Now these dispositions were reversed; the
mover was for decision--they for staving it off. On the 26th day of
December--the third anniversary of the day on which Mr. Clay had
moved the condemnatory resolution--Mr. Benton laid upon the table
the resolve to expunge it--followed by his third and last speech on
the subject. The following is the resolution; the speech constitutes
the next chapter:
_Resolution to expunge from the Journal the Resolution of the
Senate of March 28, 1834, in relation to President Jackson and
the Removal of the Deposits._
"Whereas, on the 26th day of December, in the year 1833, the
following resolve was moved in the Senate:
"'_Resolved_, That, by dismissing the late Secretary of the
Treasury, because he would not, contrary to his own sense of
duty, remove the money of the United States in deposit with
the Bank of the United States and its branches, in conformity
with the President's opinion, and by appointing his successor
to effect such removal, which has been done, the President
has assumed the exercise of a power over the Treasury of the
United States, not granted him by the Constitution and laws, and
dangerous to the liberties of the people.'
"Which proposed resolve was altered and changed by the mover
thereof, on the 28th day of March, in the year 1834, so as to
read as follows:
"'_Resolved_, That, in taking upon himself the responsibility of
removing the deposit of the public money from the Bank of the
United States, the President of the United States has assumed
the exercise of a power over the Treasury of the United States
not granted to him by the constitution and laws, and dangerous
to the liberties of the people.'
"Which resolve, so changed and modified by the mover thereof, on
the same day and year last mentioned, was further altered, so as
to read in these words:
"'_Resolved_, That the President, in the late executive
proceedings in relation to the revenue has assumed upon himself
authority and power not conferred by the constitution and laws,
but in derogation of both:'
"In which last mentioned form the said resolve, on the same day
and year last mentioned, was adopted by the Senate, and became
the act and judgment of that body, and, as such, now remains
upon the journal thereof:
"And whereas the said resolve was not warranted by the
constitution, and was irregularly and illegally adopted by the
Senate, in violation of the rights of defence which belong to
every citizen, and in subversion of the fundamental principles
of law and justice; _because_ President Jackson was thereby
adjudged and pronounced to be guilty of an impeachable offence,
and a stigma placed upon him as a violator of his oath of
office, and of the laws and constitution which he was sworn to
preserve, protect, and defend, _without_ going through the forms
of an impeachment, and without allowing to him the benefits of a
trial, or the means of defence:
"And whereas the said resolve, in all its various shapes and
forms, was unfounded and erroneous in point of fact, and
therefore unjust and unrighteous, as well as irregular and
unauthorized by the constitution; _because_ the said President
Jackson neither in the act of dismissing Mr. Duane, nor in the
appointment of Mr. Taney, as specified in the first form of
the resolve; nor in taking upon himself the responsibility of
removing the deposits, as specified in the second form of the
same resolve; nor in any act which was then, or can now, be
specified under the vague and ambiguous terms of the general
denunciation contained in the third and last form of the
resolve, did do or commit any act in violation or in derogation
of the laws and constitution; or dangerous to the liberties of
the people:
"And whereas the said resolve, as adopted, was uncertain and
ambiguous, containing nothing but a loose and floating charge
for derogating from the laws and constitution, and assuming
ungranted power and authority in the late executive proceedings
in relation to the public revenue; _without_ specifying what
part of the executive proceedings, or what part of the public
revenue was intended to be referred to; or what parts of the
laws and constitution were supposed to have been infringed;
or in what part of the Union, or at what period of his
administration, these late proceedings were supposed to have
taken place; _thereby_ putting each senator at liberty to vote
in favor of the resolve upon a separate and secret reason of
his own, and leaving the ground of the Senate's judgment to be
guessed at by the public, and to be differently and diversely
interpreted by individual senators, according to the private and
particular understanding of each: _contrary_ to all the ends of
justice, and to all the forms of legal or judicial proceeding;
to the great prejudice of the accused, who could not know
against what to defend himself; and to the loss of senatorial
responsibility, by shielding senators from public accountability
for making up a judgment upon grounds which the public cannot
know, and which, if known, might prove to be insufficient in
law, or unfounded in fact:
"And whereas the specification contained in the first and
second forms of the resolve having been objected to in debate,
and shown to be insufficient to sustain the charges they were
adduced to support, and it being well believed that no majority
could be obtained to vote for the said specifications, and the
same having been actually withdrawn by the mover in the face of
the whole Senate, in consequence of such objection and belief,
and before any vote taken thereupon; the said specifications
could not afterwards be admitted by any rule of parliamentary
practice, or by any principle of legal implication, secret
intendment, or mental reservation, to remain and continue a part
of the written and public resolve from which they were thus
withdrawn; and, if they could be so admitted, they would not be
sufficient to sustain the charges thereto contained:
"And whereas the Senate being the constitutional tribunal
for the trial of the President, when charged by the House
of Representatives with offences against the laws and the
constitution, the adoption of the said resolve, before any
impeachment preferred by the House, was a breach of the
privileges of the House; not warranted by the constitution;
a subversion of justice; a prejudication of a question which
might legally come before the Senate; and a disqualification of
that body to perform its constitutional duty with fairness and
impartiality, if the President should thereafter be regularly
impeached by the House of Representatives for the same offence:
"And whereas the temperate, respectful, and argumentative
defence and protest of the President against the aforesaid
proceeding of the Senate was rejected and repulsed by that
body, and was voted to be a breach of its privileges, and was
not permitted to be entered on its journal or printed among
its documents; while all memorials, petitions, resolves,
and remonstrances against the President, however violent or
unfounded, and calculated to inflame the people against him,
were duly and honorably received, encomiastically commented upon
in speeches, read at the table, ordered to be printed with the
long list of names attached, referred to the Finance Committee
for consideration, filed away among the public archives, and now
constitute a part of the public documents of the Senate, to be
handed down to the latest posterity:
"And whereas the said resolve was introduced, debated, and
adopted, at a time and under circumstances which had the effect
of co-operating with the Bank of the United States in the
parricidal attempt which that institution was then making to
produce a panic and pressure in the country; to destroy the
confidence of the people in President Jackson; to paralyze his
administration; to govern the elections; to bankrupt the State
banks; ruin their currency; fill the whole Union with terror
and distress; and thereby to extort from the sufferings and the
alarms of the people, the restoration of the deposits and the
renewal of its charter:
"And whereas the said resolve is of evil example and dangerous
precedent, and should never have been received, debated, or
adopted by the Senate, or admitted to entry upon its journal:
Wherefore,
"_Resolved_, That the said resolve be expunged from the journal;
and, for that purpose, that the Secretary of the Senate, at
such time as the Senate may appoint, shall bring the manuscript
journal of the session 1833 '34 into the Senate, and, in the
presence of the Senate, draw black lines round the said resolve,
and write across the face thereof, in strong letters, the
following words: 'Expunged by order of the Senate, this -- day
of ----, in the year of our Lord 1837.'"
CHAPTER CLX.
EXPUNGING RESOLUTION.--MR. BENTON'S THIRD SPEECH.
Mr. President: It is now near three years since the resolve was
adopted by the Senate, which it is my present motion to expunge
from the journal. At the moment that this resolve was adopted,
I gave notice of my intention to move to expunge it; and then
expressed my confident belief that the motion would eventually
prevail. That expression of confidence was not an ebullition of
vanity, or a presumptuous calculation, intended to accelerate the
event it affected to foretell. It was not a vain boast, or an idle
assumption, but was the result of a deep conviction of the injustice
done President Jackson, and a thorough reliance upon the justice of
the American people. I felt that the President had been wronged;
and my heart told me that this wrong would be redressed! The event
proves that I was not mistaken. The question of expunging this
resolution has been carried to the people, and their decision has
been had upon it. They decide in favor of the expurgation; and their
decision has been both made and manifested, and communicated to us
in a great variety of ways. A great number of States have expressly
instructed their senators to vote for this expurgation. A very great
majority of the States have elected senators and representatives
to Congress, upon the express ground of favoring this expurgation.
The Bank of the United States, which took the initiative in the
accusation against the President, and furnished the material, and
worked the machinery which was used against him, and which was then
so powerful on this floor, has become more and more odious to the
public mind, and musters now but a slender phalanx of friends in the
two Houses of Congress. The late Presidential election furnishes
additional evidence of public sentiment. The candidate who was the
friend of President Jackson, the supporter of his administration,
and the avowed advocate for the expurgation, has received a large
majority of the suffrages of the whole Union, and that after an
express declaration of his sentiments on this precise point. The
evidence of the public will, exhibited in all these forms, is too
manifest to be mistaken, too explicit to require illustration, and
too imperative to be disregarded. Omitting details and specific
enumeration of proofs, I refer to our own files for the instructions
to expunge,--to the complexion of the two Houses for the temper of
the people,--to the denationalized condition of the Bank of the
United States for the fate of the imperious accuser,--and to the
issue of the Presidential election for the answer of the Union.
All these are pregnant proofs of the public will, and the last
pre-eminently so: because, both the question of the expurgation,
and the form of the process, was directly put in issue upon it. A
representative of the people from the State of Kentucky formally
interrogated a prominent candidate for the Presidency on these
points, and required from him a public answer for the information
of the public mind. The answer was given, and published, and read
by all the voters before the election; and I deem it right to refer
to that answer in this place, not only as evidence of the points
put in issue, but also for the purpose of doing more ample justice
to President Jackson by incorporating into the legislative history
of this case, the high and honorable testimony in his favor of the
eminent citizen, Mr. Van Buren, who has just been exalted to the
lofty honors of the American Presidency:
"Your last question seeks to know 'my' opinion as to the
constitutional power of the Senate or House of Representatives
to expunge or obliterate from the journals the proceedings of a
previous session.
"You will, I am sure, be satisfied upon further consideration,
that there are but few questions of a political character less
connected with the duties of the office of President of the
United States, or that might not with equal propriety be put by
an elector to a candidate for that station, than this. With the
journals of neither house of Congress can he properly have any
thing to do. But, as your question has doubtless been induced by
the pendency of Col. Benton's resolutions, to expunge from the
journals of the Senate certain other resolutions touching the
official conduct of President Jackson, I prefer to say, that I
regarded the passage of Col. Benton's preamble and resolutions
to be an act of justice to a faithful and greatly injured public
servant, not only constitutional in itself, but imperiously
demanded by a proper respect for the well known will of the
people."
I do not propose, sir, to draw violent, unwarranted, or strained
inferences. I do not assume to say that the question of this
expurgation was a leading, or a controlling point in the issue of
this election. I do not assume to say, or insinuate, that every
individual, and every voter, delivered his suffrage with reference
to this question. Doubtless there were many exceptions. Still, the
triumphant election of the candidate who had expressed himself
in the terms just quoted, and who was, besides, the personal and
political friend of President Jackson, and the avowed approver of
his administration, must be admitted to a place among the proofs in
this case, and ranked among the high concurring evidences of the
public sentiment in favor of the motion which I make.
Assuming, then, that we have ascertained the will of the people
on this great question, the inquiry presents itself, how far the
expression of that will ought to be conclusive of our action here?
I hold that it ought to be binding and obligatory upon us! and
that, not only upon the principles of representative government,
which requires obedience to the known will of the people, but also
in conformity to the principles upon which the proceeding against
President Jackson was conducted when the sentence against him was
adopted. Then every thing was done with especial reference to the
will of the people! Their impulsion was assumed to be the sole
motive to action; and to them the ultimate verdict was expressly
referred. The whole machinery of alarm and pressure--every engine of
political and moneyed power--was put in motion, and worked for many
months, to excite the people against the President; and to stir up
meetings, memorials, petitions, travelling committees, and distress
deputations against him; and each symptom of popular discontent was
hailed as an evidence of public will, and quoted here as proof that
the people demanded the condemnation of the President. Not only
legislative assemblies, and memorials from large assemblies, were
then produced here as evidence of public opinion, but the petitions
of boys under age, the remonstrances of a few signers, and the
results of the most inconsiderable elections, were ostentatiously
paraded and magnified, as the evidence of the sovereign will of our
constituents. Thus, sir, the public voice was every thing while
that voice, partially obtained through political and pecuniary
machinations, was adverse to the President. Then the popular will
was the shrine at which all worshipped. Now, when that will is
regularly, soberly, repeatedly, and almost universally expressed
through the ballot boxes, at the various elections, and turns out
to be in favor of the President, certainly no one can disregard it,
nor otherwise look at it than as the solemn verdict of the competent
and ultimate tribunal upon an issue fairly made up, fully argued,
and duly submitted for decision. As such verdict, I receive it.
As the deliberate verdict of the sovereign people, I bow to it. I
am content. I do not mean to reopen the case, nor to recommence
the argument. I leave that work to others, if any others choose to
perform it. For myself, I am content; and, dispensing with further
argument, I shall call for judgment, and ask to have execution
done, upon that unhappy journal, which the verdict of millions of
freemen finds guilty of bearing on its face an untrue, illegal,
and unconstitutional sentence of condemnation against the approved
President of the Republic.
But, while declining to reopen the argument of this question, and
refusing to tread over again the ground already traversed, there is
another and a different task to perform; one which the approaching
termination of President Jackson's administration makes peculiarly
proper at this time, and which it is my privilege, and perhaps my
duty, to execute, as being the suitable conclusion to the arduous
contest in which we have been so long engaged; I allude to the
general tenor of his administration, and to its effect, for good
or for evil, upon the condition of his country. This is the proper
time for such a view to be taken. The political existence of this
great man now draws to a close. In little more than forty days he
ceases to be a public character. In a few brief weeks he ceases to
be an object of political hope to any, and should cease to be an
object of political hate, or envy, to all. Whatever of motive the
servile and timeserving might have found in his exalted station for
raising the altar of adulation, and burning the incense of praise
before him, that motive can no longer exist. The dispenser of the
patronage of an empire--the chief of this great confederacy of
States--is soon to be a private individual, stripped of all power
to reward, or to punish. His own thoughts, as he has shown us in
the concluding paragraph of that message which is to be the last
of its kind that we shall ever receive from him, are directed to
that beloved retirement from which he was drawn by the voice of
millions of freemen, and to which he now looks for that interval of
repose which age and infirmities require. Under these circumstances,
he ceases to be a subject for the ebullition of the passions,
and passes into a character for the contemplation of history.
Historically, then, shall I view him; and limiting this view to his
civil administration. I demand, where is there a chief magistrate
of whom so much evil has been predicted, and from whom so much good
has come? Never has any man entered upon the chief magistracy of
a country under such appalling predictions of ruin and woe! never
has any one been so pursued with direful prognostications! never
has any one been so beset and impeded by a powerful combination
of political and moneyed confederates! never has any one in any
country where the administration of justice has risen above the
knife or the bowstring, been so lawlessly and shamelessly tried and
condemned by rivals and enemies, without hearing, without defence,
without the forms of law or justice! History has been ransacked to
find examples of tyrants sufficiently odious to illustrate him by
comparison. Language has been tortured to find epithets sufficiently
strong to paint him in description. Imagination has been exhausted
in her efforts to deck him with revolting and inhuman attributes.
Tyrant, despot, usurper; destroyer of the liberties of his country;
rash, ignorant, imbecile; endangering the public peace with all
foreign nations; destroying domestic prosperity at home; ruining all
industry, all commerce, all manufactures; annihilating confidence
between man and man; delivering up the streets of populous cities
to grass and weeds, and the wharves of commercial towns to the
encumbrance of decaying vessels; depriving labor of all reward;
depriving industry of all employment; destroying the currency;
plunging an innocent and happy people from the summit of felicity to
the depths of misery, want, and despair. Such is the faint outline,
followed up by actual condemnation, of the appalling denunciations
daily uttered against this one MAN, from the moment he became an
object of political competition, down to the concluding moment of
his political existence.
"The sacred voice of inspiration has told us that there is a
time for all things. There certainly has been a time for every
evil that human nature admits of to be vaticinated of President
Jackson's administration; equally certain the time has now come for
all rational and well-disposed people to compare the predictions
with the facts, and to ask themselves if these calamitous
prognostications have been verified by events? Have we peace, or
war, with foreign nations? Certainly, we have peace with all the
world! peace with all its benign, and felicitous, and beneficent
influences! Are we respected, or despised abroad? Certainly the
American name never was more honored throughout the four quarters
of the globe, than in this very moment. Do we hear of indignity, or
outrage in any quarter? of merchants robbed in foreign ports? of
vessels searched on the high seas? of American citizens impressed
into foreign service? of the national flag insulted any where? On
the contrary, we see former wrongs repaired; no new ones inflicted.
France pays twenty-five millions of francs for spoliations committed
thirty years ago; Naples pays two millions one hundred thousand
ducats for wrongs of the same date; Denmark pays six hundred and
fifty thousand rix dollars for wrongs done a quarter of a century
ago; Spain engages to pay twelve millions of reals vellon for
injuries of fifteen years date; and Portugal, the last in the list
of former aggressors, admits her liability, and only waits the
adjustment of details to close her account by adequate indemnity.
So far from war, insult, contempt, and spoliation from abroad; this
denounced administration has been the season of peace and good
will, and the auspicious era of universal reparation. So far from
suffering injury at the hands of foreign powers, our merchants
have received indemnities for all former injuries. It has been the
day of accounting, of settlement, and of retribution. The total
list of arrearages, extending through four successive previous
administrations, has been closed and settled up. The wrongs done
to commerce for thirty years back, and under so many different
Presidents, and indemnities withheld from all, have been repaired
and paid over under the beneficent and glorious administration of
President Jackson. But one single instance of outrage has occurred,
and that at the extremities of the world, and by a piratical
horde, amenable to no law but the law of force. The Malays of
Sumatra committed a robbery and massacre upon an American vessel.
Wretches! they did not then know that JACKSON was President of the
United States! and that no distance, no time, no idle ceremonial
of treating with robbers and assassins, was to hold back the arm
of justice. Commodore Downes went out. His cannon and his bayonets
struck the outlaws in their den. They paid in terror and in blood
for the outrage which was committed; and the great lesson was taught
to these distant pirates--to our antipodes themselves--that not even
the entire diameter of this globe could protect them! and that the
name of American citizen, like that of Roman citizen in the great
days of the Republic and of the empire, was to be the inviolable
passport of all that wore it throughout the whole extent of the
habitable world.
"At home, the most gratifying picture presents itself to the view:
the public debt paid off; taxes reduced one half; the completion
of the public defences systematically commenced; the compact with
Georgia, uncomplied with since 1802, now carried into effect, and
her soil ready to be freed, as her jurisdiction has been delivered,
from the presence and encumbrance of an Indian population.
Mississippi and Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and North Carolina;
Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, and Arkansas; in a word, all the
States encumbered with an Indian population have been relieved from
that encumbrance; and the Indians themselves have been transferred
to new and permanent homes, every way better adapted to the
enjoyment of their existence, the preservation of their rights, and
the improvement of their condition.
"The currency is not ruined! On the contrary, seventy-five millions
of specie in the country is a spectacle never seen before, and is
the barrier of the people against the designs of any banks which
may attempt to suspend payments, and to force a dishonored paper
currency upon the community. These seventy-five millions are
the security of the people against the dangers of a depreciated
and inconvertible paper money. Gold, after a disappearance of
thirty years, is restored to our country. All Europe beholds with
admiration the success of our efforts in three years, to supply
ourselves with the currency which our constitution guarantees,
and which the example of France and Holland shows to be so easily
attainable, and of such incalculable value to industry, morals,
economy, and solid wealth. The success of these efforts is styled in
the best London papers, not merely a reformation, but a revolution
in the currency! a revolution by which our America is now regaining
from Europe the gold and silver which she has been sending to it for
thirty years past."
Domestic industry is not paralyzed; confidence is not destroyed;
factories are not stopped; workmen are not mendicants for bread
and employment; credit is not extinguished; prices have not sunk;
grass is not growing in the streets of populous cities; the
wharves are not lumbered with decaying vessels; columns of curses,
rising from the bosoms of a ruined and agonized people, are not
ascending to heaven against the destroyer of a nation's felicity
and prosperity. On the contrary, the reverse of all this is true!
and true to a degree that astonishes and bewilders the senses. I
know that all is not gold that glitters; that there is a difference
between a specious and a solid prosperity. I know that a part of
the present prosperity is apparent only--the effect of an increase
of fifty millions of paper money, forced into circulation by one
thousand banks; but, after making due allowance for this fictitious
and delusive excess, the real prosperity of the country is still
unprecedentedly and transcendently great. I know that every flow
must be followed by its ebb, that every expansion must be followed
by its contraction. I know that a revulsion of the paper system is
inevitable; but I know, also, that these seventy-five millions of
gold and silver is the bulwark of the country, and will enable every
honest bank to meet its liabilities, and every prudent citizen to
take care of himself.
Turning to some points in the civil administration of President
Jackson, and how much do we not find to admire! The great cause of
the constitution has been vindicated from an imputation of more than
forty years' duration. He has demonstrated, by the fact itself,
that a national bank is not 'necessary' to the fiscal operations
of the federal government; and in that demonstration he has upset
the argument of General Hamilton, and the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States, and all that ever has been said in favor
of the constitutionality of a national bank. All this argument and
decision rested on the single assumption of the 'necessity' of
that institution to the federal government. He has shown it is not
'necessary;' that the currency of the constitution, and especially
a gold currency, is all that the federal government wants, and that
she can get that whenever she pleases. In this single act, he has
vindicated the constitution from an unjust imputation, and knocked
from under the decision of the Supreme Court the assumed fact on
which it rested. He has prepared the way for the reversal of that
decision; and it is a question for lawyers to answer, whether the
case is not ripe for the application of that writ of most remedial
nature, as Lord Coke calls it, and which was invented, lest, in any
case, there should be an oppressive defect of justice! the venerable
writ of _audita querela defendentis_, to ascertain the truth of a
fact happening since the judgment; and upon the due finding of which
the judgment will be vacated. Let the lawyers bring their books, and
answer us, if there is not a case here presented for the application
of that ancient and most remedial writ?
From President Jackson, the country has first learned the true
theory and practical intent of the constitution, in giving to the
Executive a qualified negative on the legislative power of Congress.
Far from being an odious, dangerous, or kingly prerogative, this
power, as vested in the President, is nothing but a qualified copy
of the famous veto power vested in the tribunes of the people among
the Romans, and intended to suspend the passage of a law until the
people themselves should have time to consider it. The qualified
veto of the President destroys nothing; it only delays the passage
of a law, and refers it to the people for their consideration and
decision. It is the reference of a law, not to a committee of the
House, or of the whole House, but to the committee of the whole
Union. It is a recommitment of the bill to the people, for them
to examine and consider; and if, upon this examination, they are
content to pass it, it will pass at the next session. The delay
of a few months is the only effect of a veto, in a case where the
people shall ultimately approve a law; where they do not approve it,
the interposition of the veto is the barrier which saves them the
adoption of a law, the repeal of which might afterwards be almost
impossible. The qualified negative is, therefore, a beneficent
power, intended, as General Hamilton expressly declares in the
'Federalist,' to protect, first, the executive department from the
encroachments of the legislative department; and, secondly, to
preserve the people from hasty, dangerous, or criminal legislation
on the part of their representatives. This is the design and
intention of the veto power; and the fear expressed by General
Hamilton was, that Presidents, so far from exercising it too often,
would not exercise it as often as the safety of the people required;
that they might lack the moral courage to stake themselves in
opposition to a favorite measure of the majority of the two Houses
of Congress; and thus deprive the people, in many instances, of
their right to pass upon a bill before it becomes a final law. The
cases in which President Jackson has exercised the veto power has
shown the soundness of these observations. No ordinary President
would have staked himself against the Bank of the United States,
and the two Houses of Congress, in 1832. It required President
Jackson to confront that power--to stem that torrent--to stay the
progress of that charter, and to refer it to the people for their
decision. His moral courage was equal to the crisis. He arrested
the charter until it could go to the people, and they have arrested
it for ever. Had he not done so, the charter would have become law,
and its repeal almost impossible. The people of the whole Union
would now have been in the condition of the people of Pennsylvania,
bestrode by the monster, in daily conflict with him, and maintaining
a doubtful contest for supremacy between the government of a State
and the directory of a moneyed corporation.
To detail specific acts which adorn the administration of President
Jackson, and illustrate the intuitive sagacity of his intellect,
the firmness of his mind, his disregard of personal popularity,
and his entire devotion to the public good, would be inconsistent
with this rapid sketch, intended merely to present general views,
and not to detail single actions, howsoever worthy they may be
of a splendid page in the volume of history. But how can we pass
over the great measure of the removal of the public moneys from
the Bank of the United States, in the autumn of 1833? that wise,
heroic, and masterly measure of prevention, which has rescued an
empire from the fangs of a merciless, revengeful, greedy, insatiate,
implacable, moneyed power! It is a remark for which I am indebted
to the philosophic observation of my most esteemed colleague and
friend (pointing to Dr. Linn), that, while it requires far greater
talent to foresee an evil before it happens, and to arrest it by
precautionary measures, than it requires to apply an adequate remedy
to the same evil after it has happened, yet the applause bestowed
by the world is always greatest in the latter case. Of this, the
removal of the public moneys from the Bank of the United States is
an eminent instance. The veto of 1832, which arrested the charter
which Congress had granted, immediately received the applause and
approbation of a majority of the Union: the removal of the deposits,
which prevented the bank from forcing a recharter, was disapproved
by a large majority of the country, and even of his own friends; yet
the veto would have been unavailing, and the bank would inevitably
have been rechartered, if the deposits had not been removed. The
immense sums of public money since accumulated would have enabled
the bank, if she had retained the possession of it, to have coerced
a recharter. Nothing but the removal could have prevented her
from extorting a recharter from the sufferings and terrors of the
people. If it had not been for that measure, the previous veto would
have been unavailing; the bank would have been again installed
in power; and this entire federal government would have been held
as an appendage to that bank; and administered according to her
directions, and by her nominees. That great measure of prevention,
the removal of the deposits, though feebly and faintly supported by
friends at first, has expelled the bank from the field, and driven
her into abeyance under a State charter. She is not dead, but,
holding her capital and stockholders together under a State charter,
she has taken a position to watch events, and to profit by them. The
royal tiger has gone into the jungle; and, crouched on his belly,
he awaits the favorable moment for emerging from his covert, and
springing on the body of the unsuspicious traveller!
The Treasury order for excluding paper money from the land offices
is another wise measure, originating in enlightened forecast,
and preventing great mischiefs. The President foresaw the evils
of suffering a thousand streams of paper money, issuing from a
thousand different banks, to discharge themselves on the national
domain. He foresaw that if these currents were allowed to run their
course, that the public lands would be swept away, the Treasury
would be filled with irredeemable paper, a vast number of banks must
be broken by their folly, and the cry set up that nothing but a
national bank could regulate the currency. He stopped the course of
these streams of paper; and, in so doing, has saved the country from
a great calamity, and excited anew the machinations of those whose
schemes of gain and mischief have been disappointed; and who had
counted on a new edition of panic and pressure, and again saluting
Congress with the old story of confidence destroyed, currency
ruined, prosperity annihilated, and distress produced, by the
tyranny of one man. They began their lugubrious song; but ridicule
and contempt have proved too strong for money and insolence; and the
panic letter of the ex-president of the denationalized bank, after
limping about for a few days, has shrunk from the lash of public
scorn, and disappeared from the forum of public debate.
The difficulty with France: what an instance it presents of the
superior sagacity of President Jackson over all the commonplace
politicians who beset and impede his administration at home! That
difficulty, inflamed and aggravated by domestic faction, wore, at
one time, a portentous aspect; the skill, firmness, elevation of
purpose, and manly frankness of the President, avoided the danger,
accomplished the object, commanded the admiration of Europe, and
retained the friendship of France. He conducted the delicate affair
to a successful and mutually honorable issue. All is amicably
and happily terminated, leaving not a wound, nor even a scar,
behind--leaving the Frenchman and American on the ground on which
they have stood for fifty years, and should for ever stand; the
ground of friendship, respect, good will, and mutual wishes for the
honor, happiness, and prosperity, of each other.
But why this specification? So beneficent and so glorious has been
the administration of this President, that where to begin, and
where to end, in the enumeration of great measures, would be the
embarrassment of him who has his eulogy to make. He came into office
the first of generals; he goes out the first of statesmen. His
civil competitors have shared the fate of his military opponents;
and Washington city has been to the American politicians who have
assailed him, what New Orleans was to the British generals who
attacked his lines. Repulsed! driven back! discomfited! crushed!
has been the fate of all assailants, foreign and domestic, civil
and military. At home and abroad, the impress of his genius and of
his character is felt. He has impressed upon the age in which he
lives the stamp of his arms, of his diplomacy, and of his domestic
policy. In a word, so transcendent have been the merits of his
administration, that they have operated a miracle upon the minds
of his most inveterate opponents. He has expunged their objections
to military chieftains! He has shown them that they were mistaken;
that military men were not the dangerous rulers they had imagined,
but safe and prosperous conductors of the vessel of state. He has
changed their fear into love. With visible signs they admit their
error, and, instead of deprecating, they now invoke the reign of
chieftains. They labored hard to procure a military successor to the
present incumbent; and if their love goes on increasing at the same
rate, the republic may be put to the expense of periodical wars, to
breed a perpetual succession of these chieftains to rule over them
and their posterity for ever.
To drop this irony, which the inconsistency of mad opponents
has provoked, and to return to the plain delineations of
historical painting, the mind instinctively dwells on the vast and
unprecedented popularity of this President. Great is the influence,
great the power, greater than any man ever before possessed in our
America, which he has acquired over the public mind. And how has he
acquired it? Not by the arts of intrigue, or the juggling tricks
of diplomacy; not by undermining rivals, or sacrificing public
interests for the gratification of classes or individuals. But he
has acquired it, first, by the exercise of an intuitive sagacity
which, leaving all book learning at an immeasurable distance behind,
has always enabled him to adopt the right remedy, at the right time,
and to conquer soonest when the men of forms and office thought
him most near to ruin and despair. Next, by a moral courage which
knew no fear when the public good beckoned him to go on. Last,
and chiefest, he has acquired it by an open honesty of purpose,
which knew no concealments; by a straightforwardness of action,
which disdained the forms of office and the arts of intrigue; by
a disinterestedness of motive, which knew no selfish or sordid
calculation; a devotedness of patriotism, which staked every thing
personal on the issue of every measure which the public welfare
required him to adopt. By these qualities, and these means, he has
acquired his prodigious popularity, and his transcendent influence
over the public mind; and if there are any who envy that influence
and popularity, let them envy, also, and emulate, if they can, the
qualities and means by which they were acquired.
Great has been the opposition to President Jackson's administration;
greater, perhaps, than ever has been exhibited against any
government, short of actual insurrection and forcible resistance.
Revolution has been proclaimed! and every thing has been done that
could be expected to produce revolution. The country has been
alarmed, agitated, convulsed. From the Senate chamber to the village
bar-room, from one end of the continent to the other, denunciation,
agitation, excitement, has been the order of the day. For eight
years the President of this republic has stood upon a volcano,
vomiting fire and flames upon him, and threatening the country
itself with ruin and desolation, if the people did not expel the
usurper, despot, and tyrant, as he was called, from the high place
to which the suffrages of millions of freemen had elevated him.
Great is the confidence which he has always reposed in the
discernment and equity of the American people. I have been
accustomed to see him for many years, and under many discouraging
trials; but never saw him doubt, for an instant, the ultimate
support of the people. It was my privilege to see him often, and
during the most gloomy period of the panic conspiracy, when the
whole earth seemed to be in commotion against him, and when many
friends were faltering, and stout hearts were quailing, before the
raging storm which bank machination, and senatorial denunciation,
had conjured up to overwhelm him. I saw him in the darkest moments
of this gloomy period; and never did I see his confidence in the
ultimate support of his fellow-citizens forsake him for an instant.
He always said the people would stand by those who stand by them;
and nobly have they justified that confidence! That verdict, the
voice of millions, which now demands the expurgation of that
sentence, which the Senate and the bank then pronounced upon him,
is the magnificent response of the people's hearts to the implicit
confidence which he then reposed in them. But it was not in the
people only that he had confidence; there was another, and a far
higher Power, to which he constantly looked to save the country, and
its defenders, from every danger; and signal events prove that he
did not look to that high Power in vain.
Sir, I think it right, in approaching the termination of this great
question, to present this faint and rapid sketch of the brilliant,
beneficent, and glorious administration of President Jackson. It
is not for me to attempt to do it justice; it is not for ordinary
men to attempt its history. His military life, resplendent with
dazzling events, will demand the pen of a nervous writer; his
civil administration, replete with scenes which have called into
action so many and such various passions of the human heart, and
which has given to native sagacity so many victories over practised
politicians, will require the profound, luminous, and philosophical
conceptions of a Livy, a Plutarch, or a Sallust. This history is not
to be written in our day. The cotemporaries of such events are not
the hands to describe them. Time must first do its office--must
silence the passions, remove the actors, develope consequences,
and canonize all that is sacred to honor, patriotism, and glory.
In after ages the historic genius of our America shall produce the
writers which the subject demands--men far removed from the contests
of this day, who will know how to estimate this great epoch, and how
to acquire an immortality for their own names by painting, with a
master's hand, the immortal events of the patriot President's life.
And now, sir, I finish the task which, three years ago, I imposed
on myself. Solitary and alone, and amidst the jeers and taunts of
my opponents, I put this ball in motion. The people have taken it
up, and rolled it forward, and I am no longer any thing but a unit
in the vast mass which now propels it. In the name of that mass I
speak. I demand the execution of the edict of the people; I demand
the expurgation of that sentence which the voice of a few senators,
and the power of their confederate, the Bank of the United States,
has caused to be placed on the journal of the Senate; and which the
voice of millions of freemen has ordered to be expunged from it.
CHAPTER CLXI.
EXPUNGING RESOLUTION: MR. CLAY, MR. CALHOUN, MR. WEBSTER: LAST
SCENE: RESOLUTION PASSED, AND EXECUTED.
Saturday, the 14th of January, the democratic senators agreed to
have a meeting, and to take their final measures for passing the
expunging resolution. They knew they had the numbers; but they also
knew that they had adversaries to grapple with to whom might be
applied the proud motto of Louis the Fourteenth: "Not an unequal
match for numbers." They also knew that members of the party were in
the process of separating from it, and would require conciliating.
They met in the night at the then famous restaurant of Boulanger,
giving to the assemblage the air of a convivial entertainment. It
continued till midnight, and required all the moderation, tact and
skill of the prime movers to obtain and maintain the union upon
details, on the success of which the fate of the measure depended.
The men of conciliation were to be the efficient men of that night;
and all the winning resources of Wright, Allen of Ohio and Linn of
Missouri, were put into requisition. There were serious differences
upon the mode of expurgation, while agreed upon the thing; and
finally obliteration, the favorite of the mover, was given up;
and the mode of expurgation adopted which had been proposed in
the resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia; namely, to
inclose the obnoxious sentence in a square of black lines--an oblong
square: a compromise of opinions to which the mover agreed upon
condition of being allowed to compose the epitaph--"Expunged by the
order of the Senate." The agreement which was to lead to victory
was then adopted, each one severally pledging himself to it, that
there should be no adjournment of the Senate after the resolution
was called until it was passed; and that it should be called
immediately after the morning business the Monday ensuing. Expecting
a protracted session, extending through the day and night, and
knowing the difficulty of keeping men steady to their work and in
good humor, when tired and hungry, the mover of the proceeding took
care to provide, as far as possible, against such a state of things;
and gave orders that night to have an ample supply of cold hams,
turkeys, rounds of beef, pickles, wines and cups of hot coffee,
ready in a certain committee room near the Senate chamber by four
o'clock on the afternoon of Monday.
The motion to take up the subject was made at the appointed
time, and immediately a debate of long speeches, chiefly on the
other side, opened itself upon the question. It was evident that
consumption of time, delay and adjournment, was their plan. The
three great leaders did not join in the opening; but their place
was well supplied by many of their friends, able speakers--some
effective, some eloquent: Preston of South Carolina; Richard H.
Bayard and John M. Clayton of Delaware; Crittenden of Kentucky;
Southard of New Jersey; White of Tennessee; Ewing of Ohio. They
were only the half in number, but strong in zeal and ability,
that commenced the contest three years before, reinforced by Mr.
White of Tennessee. As the darkness of approaching night came on,
and the great chandelier was lit up, splendidly illuminating the
chamber, then crowded with the members of the House, and the
lobbies and galleries filled to their utmost capacity by visitors
and spectators, the scene became grand and impressive. A few
spoke on the side of the resolution--chiefly Rives, Buchanan,
Niles--and with an air of ease and satisfaction that bespoke a quiet
determination, and a consciousness of victory. The committee room
had been resorted to in parties of four and six at a time, always
leaving enough on watch: and not resorted to by one side alone.
The opposition were invited to a full participation--an invitation
of which those who were able to maintain their good temper readily
availed themselves; but the greater part were not in a humor to eat
any thing--especially at such a feast. The night was wearing away:
the expungers were in full force--masters of the chamber--happy--and
visibly determined to remain. It became evident to the great
opposition leaders that the inevitable hour had come: that the
damnable deed was to be done that night: and that the dignity of
silence was no longer to them a tenable position. The battle was
going against them, and they must go into it, without being able
to re-establish it. In the beginning, they had not considered the
expunging movement a serious proceeding: as it advanced they still
expected it to miscarry on some point: now the reality of the
thing stood before them, confronting their presence, and refusing
to "down" at any command. They broke silence, and gave vent to
language which bespoke the agony of their feelings, and betrayed the
revulsion of stomach with which they approached the odious subject.
Mr. Calhoun said:
"No one, not blinded by party zeal, can possibly be insensible
that the measure proposed is a violation of the constitution.
The constitution requires the Senate to keep a journal; this
resolution goes to expunge the journal. If you may expunge a
part, you may expunge the whole; and if it is expunged, how is
it kept? The constitution says the journal shall be kept; this
resolution says it shall be destroyed. It does the very thing
which the constitution declares shall not be done. That is the
argument, the whole argument. There is none other. Talk of
precedents? and precedents drawn from a foreign country? They
don't apply. No, sir. This is to be done, not in consequence
of argument, but in spite of argument. I understand the case.
I know perfectly well the gentlemen have no liberty to vote
otherwise. They are coerced by an exterior power. They try,
indeed, to comfort their conscience by saying that it is the
will of the people, and the voice of the people. It is no such
thing. We all know how these legislative returns have been
obtained. It is by dictation from the White House. The President
himself, with that vast mass of patronage which he wields, and
the thousand expectations he is able to hold up, has obtained
these votes of the State Legislatures; and this, forsooth, is
said to be the voice of the people. The voice of the people!
Sir, can we forget the scene which was exhibited in this chamber
when that expunging resolution was first introduced here? Have
we forgotten the universal giving way of conscience, so that the
senator from Missouri was left alone? I see before me senators
who could not swallow that resolution; and has its nature
changed since then? Is it any more constitutional now than it
was then? Not at all. But executive power has interposed. Talk
to me of the voice of the people? No, sir. It is the combination
of patronage and power to coerce this body into a gross and
palpable violation of the constitution. Some individuals, I
perceive, think to escape through the particular form in which
this act is to be perpetrated. They tell us that the resolution
on your records is not to be expunged, but is only to be
endorsed 'Expunged.' Really, sir, I do not know how to argue
against such contemptible sophistry. The occasion is too solemn
for an argument of this sort. You are going to violate the
constitution, and you get rid of the infamy by a falsehood. You
yourselves say that the resolution is expunged by your order.
Yet you say it is not expunged. You put your act in express
words. You record it, and then turn round and deny it.
"But why do I waste my breath? I know it is all utterly vain.
The day is gone; night approaches, and night is suitable to
the dark deed we meditate. There is a sort of destiny in this
thing. The act must be performed; and it is an act which will
tell on the political history of this country for ever. Other
preceding violations of the constitution (and they have been
many and great) filled my bosom with indignation, but this fills
it only with grief. Others were done in the heat of party.
Power was, as it were, compelled to support itself by seizing
upon new instruments of influence and patronage; and there were
ambitious and able men to direct the process. Such was the
removal of the deposits, which the President seized upon by a
new and unprecedented act of arbitrary power; an act which gave
him ample means of rewarding friends and punishing enemies.
Something may, perhaps, be pardoned to him in this matter, on
the old apology of tyrants--the plea of necessity. But here
there can be no such apology. Here no necessity can so much as
be pretended. This act originates in pure, unmixed, personal
idolatry. It is the melancholy evidence of a broken spirit,
ready to bow at the feet of power. The former act was such a one
as might have been perpetrated in the days of Pompey or Cæsar;
but an act like this could never have been consummated by a
Roman Senate until the times of Caligula and Nero."
Mr. Calhoun was right in his taunt about the universal giving way
when the resolution was first introduced--the solitude in which the
mover was then left--and in which solitude he would have been left
to the end, had it not been for his courage in reinstating the word
expunge, and appealing to the people.
Mr. Clay commenced with showing that he had never believed in the
reality of the proceeding until now; that he had considered the
resolution as a thing to be taken up for a speech, and laid down
when the speech was delivered; and that the last laying down, at the
previous session, was the end of the matter. He said:
"Considering that he was the mover of the resolution of March,
1834, and the consequent relation in which he stood to the
majority of the Senate by whose vote it was adopted, he had
felt it to be his duty to say something on this expunging
resolution; and he had always intended to do so when he should
be persuaded that there existed a settled purpose of pressing it
to a final decision. But it had been so taken up and put down at
the last session--taken up one day, when a speech was prepared
for delivery, and put down when it was pronounced--that he had
really doubted whether there existed any serious intention of
ever putting it to the vote. At the very close of the last
session, it will be recollected that the resolution came
up, and in several quarters of the Senate a disposition was
manifested to come to a definitive decision. On that occasion
he had offered to waive his right to address the Senate, and
silently to vote upon the resolution; but it was again laid upon
the table; and laid there for ever, as the country supposed,
and as he believed. It is, however, now revived; and, sundry
changes having taken place in the members of this body, it would
seem that the present design is to bring the resolution to an
absolute conclusion."
Then, after an argument against the expurgation, which, of
necessity, was obliged to be a recapitulation of the argument in
favor of the original condemnation of the President, he went on
to give vent to his feelings in expressions not less bitter and
denunciatory of the President and his friends than those used by Mr.
Calhoun, saying:
"But if the matter of expunction be contrary to the truth of the
case, reproachful for its base subserviency, derogatory from
the just and necessary powers of the Senate, and repugnant
to the constitution of the United States, the manner in which
it is proposed to accomplish this dark deed is also highly
exceptionable. The expunging resolution, which is to blot out or
enshroud the four or five lines in which the resolution of 1834
stands recorded, or rather the recitals by which it is preceded,
are spun out into a thread of enormous length. It runs, whereas,
and whereas, and whereas, and whereas, and whereas, &c., into
a formidable array of nine several whereases. One who should
have the courage to begin to read them, unaware of what was to
be their termination, would think that at the end of such a
tremendous display he must find the very devil."
And then coming to the conclusion, he concentrated his wrath and
grief in an apostrophizing peroration, which lacked nothing but
verisimilitude to have been grand and affecting. Thus:
"But why should I detain the Senate, or needlessly waste my
breath in fruitless exertions. The decree has gone forth. It
is one of urgency, too. The deed is to be done--that foul deed
which, like the blood-stained hands of the guilty Macbeth,
all ocean's waters will never wash out. Proceed, then, with
the noble work which lies before you, and, like other skilful
executioners, do it quickly. And when you have perpetrated it,
go home to the people, and tell them what glorious honors you
have achieved for our common country. Tell them that you have
extinguished one of the brightest and purest lights that ever
burnt at the altar of civil liberty. Tell them that you have
silenced one of the noblest batteries that ever thundered in
defence of the constitution, and bravely spiked the cannon.
Tell them that, henceforward, no matter what daring or
outrageous act any President may perform, you have for ever
hermetically sealed the mouth of the Senate. Tell them that he
may fearlessly assume what powers he pleases, snatch from its
lawful custody the public purse, command a military detachment
to enter the halls of the capitol, overawe Congress, trample
down the constitution, and raze every bulwark of freedom; but
that the Senate must stand mute, in silent submission, and not
dare to raise its opposing voice. That it must wait until a
House of Representatives, humbled and subdued like itself, and
a majority of it composed of the partisans of the President,
shall prefer articles of impeachment. Tell them, finally, that
you have restored the glorious doctrines of passive obedience
and non-resistance. And, if the people do not pour out their
indignation and imprecations, I have yet to learn the character
of American freemen."
Mr. Webster spoke last, and after a pause in the debate which
seemed to indicate its conclusion; and only rose, and that slowly,
as the question was about to be put. Having no personal griefs in
relation to General Jackson like Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Clay, and with
a temperament less ardent, he delivered himself with comparative
moderation, confining himself to a brief protest against the act;
and concluding, in measured and considered language, with expressing
his grief and mortification at what he was to behold; thus:
"We have seen, with deep and sincere pain, the legislatures of
respectable States instructing the senators of those States
to vote for and support this violation of the journal of the
Senate; and this pain is infinitely increased by our full
belief, and entire conviction, that most, if not all these
proceedings of States had their origin in promptings from
Washington; that they have been urgently requested and insisted
on, as being necessary to the accomplishment of the intended
purpose; and that it is nothing else but the influence and power
of the executive branch of this government which has brought
the legislatures of so many of the free States of this Union
to quit the sphere of their ordinary duties, for the purpose
of co-operating to accomplish a measure, in our judgment,
so unconstitutional, so derogatory to the character of the
Senate, and marked with so broad an impression of compliance
with power. But this resolution is to pass. We expect it. That
cause, which has been powerful enough to influence so many State
legislatures, will show itself powerful enough, especially with
such aids, to secure the passage of the resolution here. We
make up our minds to behold the spectacle which is to ensue.
We collect ourselves to look on, in silence, while a scene is
exhibited which if we did not regard it as a ruthless violation
of a sacred instrument, would appear to us to be little elevated
above the character of a contemptible farce. This scene we shall
behold; and hundreds of American citizens, as many as may crowd
into these lobbies and galleries, will behold it also: with what
feelings I do not undertake to say."
Midnight was now approaching. The dense masses which filled every
inch of room in the lobbies and the galleries, remained immovable.
No one went out: no one could get in. The floor of the Senate was
crammed with privileged persons, and it seemed that all Congress
was there. Expectation, and determination to see the conclusion,
was depicted upon every countenance. It was evident there was to
be no adjournment until the vote should be taken--until the deed
was done; and this aspect of invincible determination, had its
effect upon the ranks of the opposition. They began to falter
under a useless persistence, for they alone now did the speaking;
and while Mr. Webster was yet reciting his protest, two senators
from the opposite side, who had been best able to maintain their
equanimity, came round to the author of this View, and said "This
question has degenerated into a trial of nerves and muscles. It
has become a question of physical endurance; and we see no use in
wearing ourselves out to keep off for a few hours longer what has
to come before we separate. We see that you are able and determined
to carry your measure: so call the vote as soon as you please. We
shall say no more." Mr. Webster concluded. No one rose. There was a
pause, a dead silence, and an intense feeling. Presently the silence
was invaded by the single word "question"--the parliamentary call
for a vote--rising from the seats of different senators. One blank
in the resolve remained to be filled--the date of its adoption. It
was done. The acting president of the Senate, Mr. King, of Alabama,
then directed the roll to be called. The yeas and nays had been
previously ordered, and proceeded to be called by the secretary of
the Senate, Mr. Asbury Dickens. Forty-three senators were present,
answering: five absent. The yeas were:
"Messrs. Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Dana, Ewing of Illinois,
Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, King of Alabama, Linn, Morris,
Nicholas, Niles, Page, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Sevier,
Strange, Tallmadge, Tipton, Walker, Wall, Wright.
"NAYS.--Messrs. Bayard, Black, Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden,
Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Hendricks, Kent, Knight, Moore, Prentiss,
Preston, Robbins, Southard, Swift, Tomlinson, Webster, White."
The passage of the resolution was announced from the chair. Mr.
Benton rose, and said that nothing now remained but to execute
the order of the Senate; which he moved be done forthwith. It was
ordered accordingly. The Secretary thereupon produced the original
manuscript journal of the Senate, and opening at the page which
contained the condemnatory sentence of March 28th, 1834, proceeded
in open Senate to draw a square of broad black lines around the
sentence, and to write across its face in strong letters these
words: "Expunged by order of the Senate, this 16th day of March,
1837." Up to this moment the crowd in the great circular gallery,
looking down upon the Senate, though sullen and menacing in their
looks, had made no manifestation of feeling; and it was doubtless
not the intention of Mr. Webster to excite that manifestation when
he referred to their numbers, and expressed his ignorance of the
feeling with which they would see the deed done which he so much
deprecated. Doubtless no one intended to excite that crowd, mainly
composed, as of usual since the bank question began, of friends of
that institution; but its appearance became such that Senator Linn,
colleague of Senator Benton, Mr. George W. Jones, since senator
from Iowa, and others sent out and brought in arms; other friends
gathered about him; among them Mrs. Benton, who, remembering what
had happened to General Jackson, and knowing that, after him, her
husband was most obnoxious to the bank party, had her anxiety
sufficiently excited to wish to be near him in this concluding scene
of a seven years' contest with that great moneyed power. Things were
in this state when the Secretary of the Senate began to perform the
expunging process on the manuscript journal. Instantly a storm of
hisses, groans, and vociferations arose from the left wing of the
circular gallery, over the head of Senator Benton. The presiding
officer promptly gave the order, which the rules prescribe in such
cases, to clear the gallery. Mr. Benton opposed the order, saying:
"I hope the galleries will not be cleared, as many innocent
persons will be excluded, who have been guilty of no violation
of order. Let the ruffians who have made the disturbance
alone be punished: let them be apprehended. I hope the
sergeant-at-arms will be directed to enter the gallery, and
seize the ruffians, ascertaining who they are in the best way
he can. Let him apprehend them and bring them to the bar of
the Senate. Let him seize the bank ruffians. I hope that they
will not now be suffered to insult the Senate, as they did when
it was under the power of the Bank of the United States, when
ruffians, with arms upon them, insulted us with impunity. Let
them be taken and brought to the bar of the Senate. Here is one
just above me, that may easily be identified--the bank ruffians!"
Mr. Benton knew that he was the object of this outrage, and
that the way to treat these subaltern wretches was to defy and
seize them, and have them dragged as criminals to the bar of the
Senate. They were congregated immediately over his head, and had
evidently collected into that place. His motion was agreed to. The
order to clear the galleries was revoked; the order to seize the
disturbers was given, and immediately executed by the energetic
sergeant-at-arms, Mr. John Shackford, and his assistants. The
ringleader was seized, and brought to the bar. This sudden example
intimidated the rest; and the expunging process was performed in
quiet. The whole scene was impressive; but no part of it so much so
as to see the great leaders who, for seven long years had warred
upon General Jackson, and a thousand times pronounced him ruined,
each rising in his place, with pain and reluctance, to confess
themselves vanquished--to admit his power, and their weakness--and
to exhale their griefs in unavailing reproaches, and impotent
deprecations. It was a tribute to his invincibility which cast into
the shade all the eulogiums of his friends. The gratification of
General Jackson was extreme. He gave a grand dinner to the expungers
(as they were called) and their wives; and being too weak to sit at
the table, he only met the company, placed the "head-expunger" in
his chair, and withdrew to his sick chamber. That expurgation! it
was the "crowning mercy" of his civil, as New Orleans had been of
his military, life!
CHAPTER CLXII.
THE SUPREME COURT--JUDGES AND OFFICERS.
The death of Chief Justice Marshall had vacated that high office,
and Roger B. Taney, Esq., was nominated to fill it. He still
encountered opposition in the Senate; but only enough to show
how much that opposition had declined since the time when he
was rejected as Secretary of the Treasury. The vote against his
confirmation was reduced to fifteen; namely: Messrs. Black of
Mississippi; Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden; Ewing of Ohio; Leigh of
Virginia; Mangum; Naudain of Delaware; Porter of Louisiana; Preston;
Robbins of Rhode Island; Southard, Tomlinson, Webster, White of
Tennessee.
Among the Justices of the Supreme Court, these changes took place
from the commencement of this View to the end of General Jackson's
administration: Smith Thompson, Esq., of New York, in 1823, in place
of Brockholst Livingston, Esq., deceased; Robert Trimble, Esq., of
Kentucky, in 1826, in place of Thomas Todd, deceased; John McLean,
Esq., of Ohio, in 1829, in place of Robert Trimble, deceased;
Henry Baldwin, Esq., of Pennsylvania, in 1830, in place of Bushrod
Washington, deceased; James M. Wayne, Esq., of Georgia, in 1835,
in place of William Johnson, deceased; Philip P. Barbour, Esq., of
Virginia, in 1836, in place of Gabriel Duval, resigned.
In the same time, William Griffith, Esq. of New Jersey, was
appointed Clerk, in 1826, in place of Elias B. Caldwell, deceased;
and William Thomas Carroll, Esq., of the District of Columbia, was
appointed, in 1827, in place William Griffith, deceased. Of the
reporters of the decisions of the Supreme Court, Richard Peters,
jr., Esq., of Pennsylvania, was appointed, in 1828, in place of
Henry Wheaton; and Benjamin C. Howard, Esq., of Maryland, was
appointed, in 1843, to succeed Mr. Peters, deceased.
The Marshals of the District, during the same period, were: Henry
Ashton, of the District of Columbia, appointed, in 1831, in place of
Tench Ringgold; Alexander Hunter, of the same District, in place of
Henry Ashton; Robert Wallace, in 1848 in place of Alexander Hunter,
deceased; Richard Wallach, in 1849, in place of Robert Wallace; and
Jonah D. Hoover, in 1853, in place of Richard Wallach.
CHAPTER CLXIII.
FAREWELL ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT JACKSON--EXTRACT.
Following the example of Washington, General Jackson issued a
Farewell Address to the people of the United States, at his
retiring from the presidency; and, like that of Washington, it
was principally devoted to the danger of disunion, and to the
preservation of harmony and good feeling between the different
sections of the country. General Washington only had to contemplate
the danger of disunion, as a possibility, and as an event of future
contingency; General Jackson had to confront it as a present,
actual, subsisting danger; and said:
"We behold systematic efforts publicly made to sow the seeds of
discord between different parts of the United States, and to
place party divisions directly upon geographical distinctions;
to excite the South against the North, and the North against the
South, and to force into the controversy the most delicate and
exciting topics--topics upon which it is impossible that a large
portion of the Union can ever speak without strong emotion.
Appeals, too, are constantly made to sectional interests, in
order to influence the election of the Chief Magistrate, as if
it were desired that he should favor a particular quarter of the
country, instead of fulfilling the duties of his station with
impartial justice to all; and the possible dissolution of the
Union has at length become an ordinary and familiar subject of
discussion. Has the warning voice of Washington been forgotten?
or have designs already been formed to sever the Union? Let it
not be supposed that I impute to all of those who have taken
an active part in these unwise and unprofitable discussions, a
want of patriotism or of public virtue. The honorable feelings
of State pride, and local attachments, find a place in the
bosoms of the most enlightened and pure. But while such men are
conscious of their own integrity and honesty of purpose, they
ought never to forget that the citizens of other States are
their political brethren; and that, however mistaken they may be
in their views, the great body of them are equally honest and
upright with themselves. Mutual suspicions and reproaches may in
time create mutual hostility; and artful and designing men will
always be found, who are ready to foment these fatal divisions,
and to inflame the natural jealousies of different sections of
the country! The history of the world is full of such examples,
and especially the history of republics.
"What have you to gain by division and dissension? Delude not
yourselves with the belief, that a breach, once made, may be
afterwards repaired. If the Union is once severed, the line of
separation will grow wider and wider; and the controversies
which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation,
will then be tried in fields of battle, and determined by the
sword. Neither should you deceive yourselves with the hope,
that the first line of separation would be the permanent one,
and that nothing but harmony and concord would be found in the
new associations formed upon the dissolution of this Union.
Local interests would still be found there, and unchastened
ambition. And if the recollection of common dangers, in which
the people of these United States stood side by side against
the common foe--the memory of victories won by their united
valor; the prosperity and happiness they have enjoyed under the
present constitution; the proud name they bear as citizens of
this great republic--if all these recollections and proofs of
common interest are not strong enough to bind us together as one
people, what tie will hold united the new divisions of empire,
when these bonds have been broken and this Union dissevered? The
first line of separation would not last for a single generation;
new fragments would be torn off; new leaders would spring up;
and this great and glorious republic would soon be broken into
a multitude of petty States, without commerce, without credit;
jealous of one another; armed for mutual aggressions; loaded
with taxes to pay armies and leaders; seeking aid against each
other from foreign powers; insulted and trampled upon by the
nations of Europe; until, harassed with conflicts, and humbled
and debased in spirit, they would be ready to submit to the
absolute dominion of any military adventurer, and to surrender
their liberty for the sake of repose. It is impossible to
look on the consequences that would inevitably follow the
destruction of this government, and not feel indignant when we
hear cold calculations about the value of the Union, and have
so constantly before us a line of conduct so well calculated to
weaken its ties."
Nothing but the deepest conviction of an actual danger could have
induced General Jackson, in this solemn manner, and with such
pointed reference and obvious application, to have given this
warning to his countrymen, at that last moment, when he was quitting
office, and returning to his home to die. He was, indeed, firmly
impressed with a sense of that danger--as much so as Mr. Madison
was--and with the same "pain" of feeling, and presentiment of great
calamities to our country. What has since taken place has shown
that their apprehensions were not groundless--that the danger was
deep-seated, and wide-spread; and the end not yet.
CHAPTER CLXIV.
CONCLUSION OF GENERAL JACKSON'S ADMINISTRATION.
The enemies of popular representative government may suppose that
they find something in this work to justify the reproach of faction
and violence which they lavish upon such forms of government; but
it will be by committing the mistake of overlooking the broad
features of a picture to find a blemish in the detail--disregarding
a statesman's life to find a misstep; and shutting their eyes
upon the action of the people. The mistakes and errors of public
men are fairly shown in this work; and that might seem to justify
the reproach: but the action of the people is immediately seen
to come in, to correct every error, and to show the capacity of
the people for wise and virtuous government. It would be tedious
to enumerate the instances of this conservative supervision, so
continually exemplified in the course of this history; but some
eminent cases stand out too prominently to be overlooked. The
recharter of the Bank of the United States was a favorite measure
with politicians; the people rejected it; and the wisdom of their
conduct is now universally admitted. The distribution of land
and money was a favorite measure with politicians; the people
condemned it and no one of those engaged in these distributions
ever attained the presidency. President Jackson, in his last
annual message to Congress, and in direct reference to this
conservative action of the people, declared "that all that had
occurred during his administration was calculated to inspire him
with increased confidence in the stability of our institutions."
I make the same declaration, founded upon the same view of the
conduct of the people--upon the observation of their conduct in
trying circumstances; and their uniform discernment to see, and
virtue and patriotism to do, whatever the honor and interest of the
country required. The work is full of consolation and encouragement
to popular government; and in that point of view it may be safely
referred to by the friends of that form of government. I have
written veraciously and of acts, not of motives. I have shown a
persevering attack upon President Jackson on the part of three
eminent public men during his whole administration; but have made
no attribution of motives. But another historian has not been so
forbearing--one to whose testimony there can be no objection, either
on account of bias, judgment, or information; and who, writing
under the responsibility of history, has indicated a motive in two
of the assailants. Mr. Adams, in his history of the administration
of Mr. Monroe, gives an account of the attempt in the two Houses
of Congress in 1818, to censure General Jackson for his conduct
in the Seminole war, and says: "Efforts were made in Congress to
procure a vote censuring the conduct of General Jackson, whose fast
increasing popularity had, in all probability, already excited
the envy of politicians. Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun in particular
favored this movement; but the President himself, and Mr. Adams,
the Secretary of State, who had charge of the Spanish negotiation,
warmly espoused the cause of the American commander." This fear of
a rising popularity was not without reason. There were proposals to
bring General Jackson forward for the presidency in 1816, and in
1820; to which he would not listen, on account of his friendship to
Mr. Monroe. A refusal to enter the canvass at those periods, and
for that reason, naturally threw him into it in 1824, when he would
come into competition with those two gentlemen. Their opposition
to him, therefore, dates back to the first term of Mr. Monroe's
administration; that of Mr. Clay openly and responsibly; that of Mr.
Calhoun secretly and deceptiously, as shown in the "Exposition."
They were both of the same political party school with General
Jackson; and it was probably his rising to the head of that party
which threw them both out of it. Mr. Webster's opposition arose from
his political relations, as belonging to the opposite school; and
was always more moderate, and better guarded by decorum. He even
appeared, sometimes, as the justifier and supporter of President
Jackson's measures; as in the well-known instance of South Carolina
nullification. Mr. Clay's efforts were limited to the overthrow of
President Jackson; Mr. Calhoun's extended to the overthrow of the
Union, and to the establishment of a southern confederacy of the
slave States. The subsequent volume will have to pursue this subject.
This chapter ends the view of the administration of President
Jackson, promised to him in his lifetime, constituting an entire
work in itself, and covering one of the most eventful periods of
American history--as trying to the virtue and intelligence of the
American people as was the war of the revolution to their courage
and patriotism.
CHAPTER CLXV.
RETIRING AND DEATH OF GENERAL JACKSON--ADMINISTRATION OF MARTIN VAN
BUREN.
The second and last term of General Jackson's presidency expired on
the 3d of March, 1837. The next day, at twelve, he appeared with
his successor, Mr. Van Buren, on the elevated and spacious eastern
portico of the capitol, as one of the citizens who came to witness
the inauguration of the new President, and no way distinguished
from them, except by his place on the left hand of the President
elect. The day was beautiful--clear sky, balmy vernal sun, tranquil
atmosphere;--and the assemblage immense. On foot, in the large
area in front of the steps, orderly without troops, and closely
wedged together, their faces turned to the portico--presenting
to the beholders from all the eastern windows the appearance of
a field paved with human faces. This vast crowd remained riveted
to their places, and profoundly silent, until the ceremony of
inauguration was over. It was the stillness and silence of reverence
and affection; and there was no room for mistake as to whom this
mute and impressive homage was rendered. For once, the rising was
eclipsed by the setting sun. Though disrobed of power, and retiring
to the shades of private life, it was evident that the great
ex-President was the absorbing object of this intense regard. At
the moment he began to descend the broad steps of the portico to
take his seat in the open carriage which was to bear him away, the
deep repressed feeling of the dense mass brook forth, acclamations
and cheers bursting from the heart and filling the air--such as
power never commanded, nor man in power received. It was the
affection, gratitude, and admiration of the living age, saluting
for the last time a great man. It was the acclaim of posterity,
breaking from the bosoms of contemporaries. It was the anticipation
of futurity--unpurchasable homage to the hero-patriot who, all
his life, and in all circumstances of his life, in peace and in
war, and glorious in each, had been the friend of his country,
devoted to her, regardless of self. Uncovered, and bowing, with
a look of unaffected humility and thankfulness, he acknowledged
in mute signs his deep sensibility to this affecting overflow of
popular feeling. I was looking down from a side window, and felt an
emotion which had never passed through me before. I had seen the
inauguration of many presidents, and their going away, and their
days of state, vested with power, and surrounded by the splendors
of the first magistracy of a great republic. But they all appeared
to be as pageants, empty and soulless, brief to the view, unreal
to the touch, and soon to vanish. But here there seemed to be a
reality--a real scene--a man and the people--he, laying down power
and withdrawing through the portals of everlasting fame;--they,
sounding in his ears the everlasting plaudits of unborn generations.
Two days after, I saw the patriot ex-President in the car which
bore him off to his desired seclusion. I saw him depart with that
look of quiet enjoyment which bespoke the inward satisfaction of
the soul at exchanging the cares of office for the repose of home.
History, poetry, oratory, marble and brass, will hand down the
military exploits of Jackson: this work will commemorate the events
of his civil administration, not less glorious than his military
achievements, great as they were; and this brief notice of his last
appearance at the American capital is intended to preserve some
faint memory of a scene, the grandeur of which was so impressive to
the beholder, and the solace of which must have been so grateful to
the heart of the departing patriot.
Eight years afterwards he died at the Hermitage, in the full
possession of all his faculties, and strong to the last in the
ruling passion of his soul--love of country. Public history will
do justice to his public life; but a further notice is wanted of
him--a notice of the domestic man--of the man at home, with his
wife, his friends, his neighbors, his slaves; and this I feel some
qualification for giving, from my long and varied acquaintance
with him. First, his intimate and early friend--then a rude
rupture--afterwards friendship and intimacy for twenty years, and
until his death: in all forty years of personal observation, in the
double relation of friend and foe, and in all the walks of life,
public and private, civil and military.
The first time that I saw General Jackson was at Nashville,
Tennessee, in 1799--he on the bench, a judge of the then Superior
Court, and I a youth of seventeen, back in the crowd. He was then a
remarkable man, and had his ascendant over all who approached him,
not the effect of his high judicial station, nor of the senatorial
rank which he had held and resigned; nor of military exploits, for
he had not then been to war; but the effect of personal qualities;
cordial and graceful manners, hospitable temper, elevation of mind,
undaunted spirit, generosity, and perfect integrity. In charging
the jury in the impending case, he committed a slight solecism in
language which grated on my ear, and lodged on my memory, without
derogating in the least from the respect which he inspired; and
without awakening the slightest suspicion that I was ever to be
engaged in smoothing his diction. The first time I spoke with him
was some years after, at a (then) frontier town in Tennessee, when
he was returning from a Southern visit, which brought him through
the towns and camps of some of the Indian tribes. In pulling off
his overcoat, I perceived on the white lining of the turning down
sleeve, a dark speck, which had life and motion. I brushed it off,
and put the heel of my shoe upon it--little thinking that I was ever
to brush away from him game of a very different kind. He smiled;
and we began a conversation, in which he very quickly revealed a
leading trait of his character,--that of encouraging young men in
their laudable pursuits. Getting my name and parentage, and learning
my intended profession, he manifested a regard for me, said he
had received hospitality at my father's house in North Carolina,
gave me kind invitations to visit him; and expressed a belief that
I would do well at the bar--generous words which had the effect
of promoting what they undertook to foretell. Soon after, he had
further opportunity to show his generous feelings. I was employed
in a criminal case of great magnitude, where the oldest and ablest
counsel appeared--Haywood, Grundy, Whiteside,--and the trial of
which General Jackson attended through concern for the fate of a
friend. As junior counsel I had to precede my elders, and did my
best; and, it being on the side of his feelings, he found my effort
to be better than it was. He complimented me greatly, and from that
time our intimacy began.
I soon after became his aid, he being a Major General in the
Tennessee militia--made so by a majority of one vote. How much often
depends upon one vote!--New Orleans, the Creek campaign, and all
their consequences, date from that one vote!--and after that, I
was habitually at his house; and, as an inmate, had opportunities
to know his domestic life, and at the period when it was least
understood and most misrepresented. He had resigned his place on the
bench of the Superior Court, as he had previously resigned his place
in the Senate of the United States, and lived on a superb estate
of some thousand acres, twelve miles from Nashville, then hardly
known by its subsequent famous name of the Hermitage--name chosen
for its perfect accord with his feelings; for he had then actually
withdrawn from the stage of public life, and from a state of feeling
well known to belong to great talent when finding no theatre for
its congenial employment. He was a careful farmer, overlooking
every thing himself, seeing that the fields and fences were in good
order, the stock well attended, and the slaves comfortably provided
for. His house was the seat of hospitality, the resort of friends
and acquaintances, and of all strangers visiting the State--and the
more agreeable to all from the perfect conformity of Mrs. Jackson's
character to his own. But he needed some excitement beyond that
which a farming life can afford, and found it, for some years, in
the animating sports of the turf. He loved fine horses--racers of
speed and bottom--owned several, and contested the four mile heats
with the best that could be bred, or brought to the State, and for
large sums. That is the nearest to gaming that I ever knew him
to come. Cards and the cockpit have been imputed to him, but most
erroneously. I never saw him engaged in either. Duels were usual
in that time, and he had his share of them, with their unpleasant
concomitants; but they passed away with all their animosities, and
he has often been seen zealously pressing the advancement of those
against whom he had but lately been arrayed in deadly hostility.
His temper was placable as well as irascible, and his
reconciliations were cordial and sincere. Of that, my own case was
a signal instance. After a deadly feud, I became his confidential
adviser; was offered the highest marks of his favor, and received
from his dying bed a message of friendship, dictated when life was
departing, and when he would have to pause for breath. There was
a deep-seated vein of piety in him, unaffectedly showing itself
in his reverence for divine worship, respect for the ministers of
the gospel, their hospitable reception in his house, and constant
encouragement of all the pious tendencies of Mrs. Jackson. And when
they both afterwards became members of a church, it was the natural
and regular result of their early and cherished feelings. He was
gentle in his house, and alive to the tenderest emotions; and of
this, I can give an instance, greatly in contrast with his supposed
character, and worth more than a long discourse in showing what that
character really was. I arrived at his house one wet chilly evening,
in February, and came upon him in the twilight, sitting alone before
the fire, a lamb and a child between his knees. He started a little,
called a servant to remove the two innocents to another room, and
explained to me how it was. The child had cried because the lamb was
out in the cold, and begged him to bring it in--which he had done
to please the child, his adopted son, then not two years old. The
ferocious man does not do that! and though Jackson had his passions
and his violence, they were for men and enemies--those who stood
up against him--and not for women and children, or the weak and
helpless: for all whom his feelings were those of protection and
support. His hospitality was active as well as cordial, embracing
the worthy in every walk of life, and seeking out deserving
objects to receive it, no matter how obscure. Of this, I learned a
characteristic instance in relation to the son of the famous Daniel
Boone. The young man had come to Nashville on his father's business,
to be detained some weeks, and had his lodgings at a small tavern,
towards the lower part of the town. General Jackson heard of it;
sought him out; found him; took him home to remain as long as his
business detained him in the country, saying, "Your father's dog
should not stay in a tavern, where I have a house." This was heart!
and I had it from the young man himself, long after, when he was a
State Senator of the General Assembly of Missouri, and, as such,
nominated me for the United States Senate, at my first election, in
1820: an act of hereditary friendship, as our fathers had been early
friends.
Abhorrence of debt, public and private, dislike of banks, and love
of hard money--love of justice and love of country, were ruling
passions with Jackson; and of these he gave constant evidence in
all the situations of his life. Of private debts he contracted none
of his own, and made any sacrifices to get out of those incurred
for others. Of this he gave a signal instance, not long before
the war of 1812--selling the improved part of his estate, with
the best buildings of the country upon it, to pay a debt incurred
in a mercantile adventure to assist a young relative; and going
into log-houses in the forest to begin a new home and farm. He was
living in these rude tenements when he vanquished the British at New
Orleans; and, probably, a view of their conqueror's domicile would
have astonished the British officers as much as their defeat had
done. He was attached to his friends, and to his country, and never
believed any report to the discredit of either, until compelled by
proof. He would not believe in the first reports of the surrender
of General Hull, and became sad and oppressed when forced to
believe it. He never gave up a friend in a doubtful case, or from
policy, or calculation. He was a firm believer in the goodness of a
superintending Providence, and in the eventual right judgment and
justice of the people. I have seen him at the most desperate part of
his fortunes, and never saw him waver in the belief that all would
come right in the end. In the time of Cromwell he would have been a
puritan.
The character of his mind was that of judgment, with a rapid and
almost intuitive perception, followed by an instant and decisive
action. It was that which made him a General, and a President for
the time in which he served. He had vigorous thoughts, but not the
faculty of arranging them in a regular composition, either written
or spoken; and in formal papers he usually gave his draft to an
aid, a friend, or a secretary, to be written over--often to the
loss of vigor. But the thoughts were his own vigorously expressed;
and without effort, writing with a rapid pen, and never blotting
or altering; but, as Carlyle says of Cromwell, hitting the nail
upon the head as he went. I have a great deal of his writing now,
some on public affairs and covering several sheets of paper; and
no erasures or interlineations anywhere. His conversation was like
his writing, a vigorous flowing current, apparently without the
trouble of thinking, and always impressive. His conclusions were
rapid, and immovable, when he was under strong convictions; though
often yielding, on minor points, to his friends. And no man yielded
quicker when he was convinced; perfectly illustrating the difference
between firmness and obstinacy. Of all the Presidents who have done
me the honor to listen to my opinions, there was no one to whom I
spoke with more confidence when I felt myself strongly to be in the
right.
He had a load to carry all his life; resulting from a temper which
refused compromises and bargaining, and went for a clean victory
or a clean defeat, in every case. Hence, every step he took was a
contest: and, it may be added, every contest was a victory. I have
already said that he was elected a Major General in Tennessee--an
election on which so much afterwards depended--by one vote. His
appointment in the United States regular army was a conquest
from the administration, which had twice refused to appoint him
a Brigadier, and once disbanded him as a volunteer general, and
only yielded to his militia victories. His election as President
was a victory over politicians--as was every leading event of his
administration.
I have said that his appointment in the regular army was a victory
over the administration, and it belongs to the inside view of
history, and to the illustration of government mistakes, and the
elucidation of individual merit surmounting obstacles, to tell how
it was. Twice passed by to give preference to two others in the
West (General Harrison and General Winchester), once disbanded, and
omitted in all the lists of military nominations, how did he get
at last to be appointed Major General? It was thus. Congress had
passed an act authorizing the President to accept organized corps
of volunteers. I proposed to General Jackson to raise a corps under
that act, and hold it ready for service. He did so; and with this
corps and some militia, he defeated the Creek Indians, and gained
the reputation which forced his appointment in the regular army.
I drew up the address which he made to his division at the time,
and when I carried it to him in the evening, I found the child and
the lamb between his knees. He had not thought of this resource,
but caught at it instantly, adopted the address, with two slight
alterations, and published it to his division. I raised a regiment
myself, and made the speeches at the general musters, which helped
to raise two others, assisted by a small band of friends--all
feeling confident that if we could conquer the difficulty--master
the first step--and get him upon the theatre of action, he would
do the rest himself. This is the way he got into the regular army,
not only unselected by the wisdom of government, but rejected by
it--a stone rejected by the master builders--and worked in by an
unseen hand, to become the corner stone of the temple. The aged men
of Tennessee will remember all this, and it is time that history
should learn it. But to return to the private life and personal
characteristics of this extraordinary man.
There was an innate, unvarying, self-acting delicacy in his
intercourse with the female sex, including all womankind; and
on that point my personal observation (and my opportunities for
observation were both large and various), enables me to join in
the declaration of the belief expressed by his earliest friend and
most intimate associate, the late Judge Overton, of Tennessee. The
Roman general won an immortality of honor by one act of continence;
what praise is due to Jackson, whose whole life was continent? I
repeat: if he had been born in the time of Cromwell, he would have
been a puritan. Nothing could exceed his kindness and affection to
Mrs. Jackson, always increasing in proportion as his elevation,
and culminating fortunes, drew cruel attacks upon her. I knew her
well, and that a more exemplary woman in all the relations of
life, wife, friend, neighbor, relative, mistress of slaves--never
lived, and never presented a more quiet, cheerful and admirable
management of her household. She had not education, but she had a
heart, and a good one; and that was always leading her to do kind
things in the kindest manner. She had the General's own warm heart,
frank manners and hospitable temper; and no two persons could have
been better suited to each other, lived more happily together, or
made a house more attractive to visitors. She had the faculty--a
rare one--of retaining names and titles in a throng of visitors,
addressing each one appropriately, and dispensing hospitality to all
with a cordiality which enhanced its value. No bashful youth, or
plain old man, whose modesty sat them down at the lower end of the
table, could escape her cordial attention, any more than the titled
gentlemen on her right and left. Young persons were her delight, and
she always had her house filled with them--clever young women and
clever young men--all calling her affectionately, "Aunt Rachel."
I was young then, and was one of that number. I owe it to early
recollections, and to cherished convictions--in this last notice
of the Hermitage--to bear this faithful testimony to the memory of
its long mistress--the loved and honored wife of a great man. Her
greatest eulogy is in the affection which he bore her living, and in
the sorrow with which he mourned her dead. She died at the moment
of the General's first election to the Presidency; and every one
that had a just petition to present, or charitable request to make,
lost in her death, the surest channel to the ear and to the heart
of the President. His regard for her survived, and lived in the
persons of her nearest relatives. A nephew of hers was his adopted
son and heir, taking his own name, and now the respectable master
of the Hermitage. Another nephew, Andrew Jackson Donelson, Esq.,
was his private secretary when President. The Presidential mansion
was presided over during his term by her niece, the most amiable
Mrs. Donelson; and all his conduct bespoke affectionate and lasting
remembrance of one he had held so dear.
END OF VOLUME I.
INDEX TO VOL. I.
A
_A. B. Plot_, The.--
Charges against Wm. H. Crawford, 35;
the A. B. papers, a series of articles which appeared in the
newspapers, 35;
expectation of the accuser that matter would lie over until after
the Presidential election, 35;
immediate action, 35;
committee appointed, 35;
answer of Crawford, 35;
its character, 35;
who written by, 35;
proceeding in the case, 35;
testimony of Edwards, 36;
his proceedings, 36;
report of committee, 36.
ADAMS, JOHN, decease of, 87;
sketch of his character, 87.
ADAMS, JOHN QUINCY, Secretary of State, 7;
his diary relative to the unanimity of the cabinet on the Missouri
question, 8;
connection with the treaty of 1818, 15;
on internal improvements, 22;
candidate for the Presidency in 1824, 44;
commencement of his administration, 54;
his inaugural address, 54;
grounds of opposition, 54;
the majority of the Senate opposed, 55;
strong minority of the House opposed, 55;
position of the two Houses with regard to the President, 91;
contest for Speaker, 92;
organization of the committees, 92;
contents of the President's message, 92;
its notice of the Panama Congress, 92;
the finances, 93;
uselessness of retaining a balance in the treasury, 93;
members of the two Houses, 93;
array of business talent, 94;
three classes of men: men of speech and judgment, men of judgment
and no speech, men of speech and no judgment, 94;
on the Committee of Bank Investigation, 241;
his position on the slavery question, 686.
_Affairs, how changed by the War of 1812, and their subsequent
aspect._--War of 1812, 1;
necessity and importance, 1;
changes it produced in American policy, 1;
state of the finances and currency under which it struggled, 1;
its termination with respect to its causes, 1;
gold ceased to be a currency, 1;
silver banished, 1;
local banks, 1;
suspension of specie payments, 1;
Treasury notes resorted to, 1;
depreciation, 1;
their use, 1;
the Government, paralyzed by the state of the finances,
forced to seek peace, 1;
impressment the cause of the declaration of the war, 1;
first time in modern history that a war terminated by a treaty
without a stipulation as to its cause, 1;
treaty of 1807, why rejected by the President, 1;
its importance, 1;
the war showed the British Government that the people of the
United States would fight on the point of impressment,
2;
no impressment since, 2;
causes of the success of the war, in spite of the empty
treasury, 2;
exemption held by right and by might, 2;
the financial lesson taught by the war, 2;
the lesson when availed of, 2;
its effects, 2.
The second Bank grew out of the war, 2;
currency of the constitution not thought of, 2;
national bank regarded as the only remedy, 2;
its constitutionality, 2;
the word "_necessary_," 2;
Hamilton's grounds for a bank, 2;
difficulties of the finances during the second war ascribed to
the want of a bank, 3;
concessions of its old opponents, 3;
many subsequently convinced the constitutional currency had not
had a fair trial, 3;
national bank shown to be unnecessary by the Mexican war, 3;
constitutional question decided, 3.
Protection of American industry as a substantive object grew out
of the war, 3;
incidental protection always acknowledged and granted, 3;
domestic manufactures wanted, during the non-importation period
of the embargo and hostilities, 3;
want of articles of defence felt during the war, 3;
protection for the sake of protection carried in 1816, 3;
course of legislation reversed, 3.
Question of internal improvements developed by the war, 3;
want of facilities for transportation felt in military
operations, 3;
the power claimed as an incident to the greatest powers, 3;
found in the word "necessary," 3;
complicated the national legislation from 1820 to 1850, 3;
the question does not extend to territories, 4;
no political rights under the constitution, 4;
rivers and harbors--internal improvement of based on the
commercial and revenue clause, 4;
the restriction contended for, 4.
Boundaries between the treaty-making power and the legislative
departments a subject of examination, 4;
the broad proposition, 4;
the qualification, 4;
a vital one, 4;
which department to judge of encroachments by the other? 4;
discussions in Congress, between 1815 and 1820, on this
point, 4.
The doctrine of secession was born of the war of 1812, 4;
the design imputed to the Hartford Convention, 4;
its existence raised the question, 4;
the right then repudiated by the democracy, 4;
language respecting it then south of the Potomac, 4;
the question thus far compromised, not settled, 5.
Slavery agitation took its rise about 1819, 5;
manner in which it was then quieted, 5;
the compromise a clear gain to the anti-slavery side, 5;
a southern measure, 5;
its features, 5.
Debt created by the war, 5;
amount of the public debt at its close, 5;
the problem to be solved was whether a public debt could be paid
in time of peace, 5.
Public distress becomes a prominent feature of subsequent
years, 5;
expansion and collapse of the bank, 5;
gloom of 1819 and 1820, 5;
commercial proceedings, 5;
legislative proceedings, 5;
distress the cry--relief the demand, 6;
good results of the war, 6.
_Amendment of the Constitution._--
Mistakes of European writers on our system of Government, 37;
Thiers and De Tocqueville, 37;
the electors but an instrument to obey the will of the
people, 37;
electors useless, 37;
amendment proposed, 37;
views of the convention which framed the constitution, 37;
Benton's remarks on a direct vote of the people for
President, 37;
"evil of the want of uniformity in the choice of Presidential
electors endangers the rights of the people, 37;
the district system, 38;
origin of the general ticket system 10 States, 38;
objection to a direct vote of the people considered, 38;
whence it is taken, 39;
admit its truth, what then? 39;
better officers elected, 39;
ancient history, 39;
triumph of popular elections, 39;
other objections to intermediate electors, 40;
time and experience condemn the continuance of the electoral
system, 40;
even if the plan of the constitution had not failed, it is
better to get rid of the electors, 40;
historical examples, 41."
An attempt to give the election of President and Vice-President
to the direct vote of the people, 78;
various propositions offered, 78;
committee appointed to report, 78;
plan reported by the committee, 78;
its prominent features, 79;
abolition of the electors and direct vote of the people--a
second election between the two highest--uniformity in
the mode of election, 79;
advantages of the plan, 79.
_Exclusion of Members of Congress from Civil Office
appointments._--
Inquiry into the expediency of amending the Constitution so as
to exclude members from appointment to civil office
moved, 82;
motion only applied to the term for which they were elected, 82;
committee report that the exclusion should extend to the
Presidential term during which the member was elected, 83;
proceedings of the convention that framed the constitution, 83;
other conventions, 83;
extracts from the proceedings of Federal Convention, 83;
early jealousy on this point, 83;
provisions for the independence of the two Houses, 83;
instance of the observance of these provisions, 84;
instance of the contrary, 84;
the Constitutional limitation a small restraint, 84;
views of the "Federalist," 84;
what has been the working of the Government? 85;
the effects of legislation, 85;
other evils resulting from the appointment of members to
office, 85;
the independence of the departments ceases between the
Executive and Legislative, 86;
examples of early Presidents, 86.
ANDERSON, RICHARD C., Jun., Representative from Kentucky, 7;
nominated minister to Panama, 66.
_Appropriation for Defences and Fortification Bill._--
Preparation recommended in the message, 554;
referred and reported on, 554;
resolved unanimously that the treaty with France be maintained and
its execution insisted on, 554;
and that preparations ought to be made to meet any emergency, 554;
appropriation of three millions inserted in the Fortification
bill, 554;
rejected in the Senate, 554;
House insist, 554;
Senate adhere, 554;
remarks of Mr. King, of Alabama, 554;
this motion never resorted to until more gentle means have
failed, 554;
are gentlemen prepared to take upon themselves such a fearful
responsibility as the rejection of this bill? 554;
in what does it violate the constitution 555;
appropriations under Washington's administration, 555;
adherence carried, 555;
conference asked by the House, 555;
committees disagree, 555;
question as to the hour of the termination of the session, 555;
remark of Mr. Cambreleng, 556;
responsibility put on the Senate, 556.
ARCHER, WILLIAM S., Representative from Virginia, 7;
on reference of the bank memorial to a select committee, 234.
_Arkansas Territory, cession of a part of to the Cherokees_--
Reasons for making her a first-class State, 107;
a treaty negotiated altering the western boundary, 107;
can a law of Congress be abolished by an Indian treaty? 107;
is it expedient to weaken the future State? 107;
supremacy of the treaty-making power considered, 107;
power in Congress to dispose of territory, 108;
the treaty ratified, 108; a southern measure, 108;
twelve thousand square miles taken off of slave territory, 108;
object to assist in inducing the removal of the Cherokees, 108;
what became of the white inhabitants, 109;
bought by the government, 109.
_Arkansas and Michigan, admission of._--
Application for an enabling act, 627;
Congress refuse to pass it, 627;
people hold conventions on their own authority and form
constitutions, 627;
message communicating the constitution of Michigan, 627;
referred, also a memorial entitled from the "Legislature of
Michigan," 627;
objection to its title, 628;
bill reported, 628;
objections, 628;
remarks of Mr. Buchanan, 628;
bill passed and sent to the House, 628;
the practice of admitting a free and slave State together, 629.
Application of Arkansas taken up, 629;
remarks of Mr. Swift against the admission, on the ground of
slavery, 629;
do. of Mr. Buchanan in favor of her admission, 629;
Prentiss opposes the admission on the ground of the
revolutionary manner in which the State had held her
convention, 630;
remarks of Mr. Morris, 630;
bill passed and sent to the House, 631.
Moved in the House to postpone the Michigan to take up the
Arkansas bill, 631;
remarks of Mr. Thomas, 631;
the point of jealousy between some Southern and Northern
members revealed, 631;
remarks on the motion to refer both bills and combine them in
one, 631;
Lewis's remarks on giving the Arkansas bill the priority of
decision, 632;
further debate, 633;
bills referred to the Committee of the Whole, 634;
points of the debate--
First, the formation of constitutions without the previous
assent of Congress;
Second, the right of aliens to vote before naturalization;
Third, the right of Arkansas to be admitted with slavery by
virtue of the rights of a State--of the treaty of
Louisiana and of the Missouri Compromise, 634, 635, 636;
an account of the session of twenty-four hours, 636;
bill put to vote, 637;
struggle to bring the bills to a vote not to pass them, 637;
causes, 637;
one special one, 637.
ASTOR, JOHN JACOB.--His colony at Astoria, 13, 109.
AUSTIN, MOSES, founder of the Texas Colony, 674.
B
BALDWIN, HENRY, Representative from Pennsylvania, 7;
coadjutor with Clay on the Missouri question, 10;
appointed Justice of the Supreme Court, 120.
_Bank of the United States._--
When charter of first expired, 1;
origin of the second, 2;
its course in 1819, 5.
Constitutionality and expediency called in question in, General
Jackson's first message, 158;
suggestion of one founded on the credit and revenues of the
Government, 158;
a gold currency and an independent treasury suggested to General
Jackson, and approved at once, 158;
cause of a resort to the deposit system, 158;
the idea of a government fiscal agent stigmatized, 158;
reports of committees, 158;
war of the bank commenced, 158;
its alliance with the opposition, 158;
its power, 158;
statement of its president, 159;
its power to ruin and destroy local banks, 159.
Ceaseless activity in behalf of the bank, since the President's
message in 1829, 187;
little done on the other side, 187;
current all setting one way, 187;
failure of attempts to counteract it, 187;
permission asked to introduce a resolution against the
re-charter, 187;
speech on the occasion, showing that the institution had too
much power over the people and the government--over
business and politics; and disposed to exercise it against
freedom and equality, 187;
proposal to revive the currency of the constitution, 187;
"willing to see the currency of the government left to the hard
money intended by the constitution," 187;
every species of paper left to the State governments, 187;
experience of France and England, 187;
a hard money party against a paper party, 187;
justification for bringing forward the question of renewal, 188;
the reports on previous resolutions offered at the close of each
session and all in favor of renewal, 188;
then followed the message of President Jackson, 188;
its reference, 188;
report, etc., 188;
the conduct of the bank and its friends second ground for
justification, 188;
these proceedings, 189;
an example drawn from the British Parliament, 189;
remarks of Sir Henry Parnell, 189;
do. of Mr. Hume, 189;
do. of Mr. Edward Ellice, 189;
do. of Sir William Pulteney, 190;
it is said the debate will injure the stockholders, depreciate
the value of their property, and that it is wrong to sport
with vested rights, 190;
the stockholders know the facts and such assertions absurd, 190;
the institution has forfeited its charter and may be shut up any
hour, 190;
the case of the Bank vs. Owens, 190;
parliamentary rule requiring members to withdraw who have an
interest in the subject of discussion, 191.
The bank is an institution too great and powerful to be tolerated
in a government of free and equal laws, 191;
on renewal, its direct power must speedily become boundless and
uncontrollable, 191;
authorized to own and issue ninety millions, 191;
its indirect power, 191;
to whom is all this power granted? 191;
by whom is it to be exercised? 191;
it will become the absolute monopolist of American money, 191;
what happened in Great Britain in 1795, 192;
letter of the bank directors to Pitt, 192;
condition of Great Britain at that time, 192;
it subdued the minister to the purposes of the bank, 192;
for twenty years the bank was the dominant power in
England, 192;
cannot the Bank of the United States act in the same way? 192.
Its tendencies are dangerous and pernicious to the government and
the people, 192;
the heads of each mischief, 192, 193.
The exclusive privileges and anti-republican monopoly which it
gives the stockholders, 193;
the exclusive legal privileges it gives, 193;
twelve enumerated, 194;
their effect and bearing, 194;
compensation made by the Bank of England for undrawn balances,
194;
amount of undrawn balances, 194;
injury suffered by the people on account of the uncompensated
masses of public money in the hands of the bank, 195;
to discredit and disparage the notes of all other banks by
excluding them from the collection of the revenue, 196;
the power to hold real estate, receive rents, &c., 197;
effect of this vast capacity to acquire and legal power to
retain real estate, 197;
the power to deal in pawns, merchandise, and bills of
exchange, 198;
to establish branches in the different States without their
consent and in defiance of their resistance, 199;
exemption of the stockholders from individual liability, 199;
to have the United States for a partner, 200;
extract from the speech of Pulteney, 200;
amount of stock owned by foreigners, 201;
exemptions from due course of law for violations of its
charter, 201;
these privileges secured by a pledge of the public faith to
charter no other bank, 202;
the government from which we have made this copy has condemned
the original, 202;
correspondence between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the
Bank directors, 203;
how was this Babylon prostrated? 204;
effect of the speech, 204;
how it was received, 204;
leave refused, 205.
Statement that the bank has failed in furnishing a uniform
currency, 220;
it vicious and illegal currency, 220;
origin of the practice, 220;
leave to bring in a resolution declaring it illegal asked
for, 220;
reasons, 220;
"the resolution expresses its own object, 221;
the currency arraigned, 221;
the points of incompatibility between this currency and the
requisites of the charter, 221;
fourteen points stated, 221;
the currency fails at every test, 221;
these orders cannot serve as currency because they are subject
to the law of endorsed paper, 222;
being once paid they are done with, 222;
operations of the bank in 1817, 222;
origin of the branch bank orders, 223;
this currency ought to be suppressed, 223;
the fact of illegality sufficient to require it, 223;
pernicious consequences result from it, 223;
the branch bank orders are not payable in the States in which
they are issued, 223;
practice of the Bank of Ireland, 224;
leave refused, 224.
Message of the President in 1829-30, 224;
its remarks relative to the bank, 224;
the position of the constitutional question, 224;
the democracy opposed not only the bank but the latitudinarian
construction which would authorize it, 225;
it was the turning point between a strong and splendid
government on one side and a plain economical government
on the other, limited by a written constitution, 225;
the construction was the main point, 225;
effect of the message on the democracy of the country, 225;
the contest at hand, 225;
violent attacks upon the President, 226;
remark of M. Tocqueville on President Jackson and the bank, 226;
every word an error, 226;
examined, 226;
application for a renewal of the charter when and why made, 226;
action of friends of Jackson and the bank, 227;
memorial for renewal presented, 227;
course of events, 227;
error of De Tocqueville exposed, 228;
another extract, 228;
its errors exposed, 229;
consequences of refusing the re-charter, 229.
_Re-charter._--Convention of the National Republicans to
nominate a President, 232;
the nominations, 232;
addresses of the convention, 232;
remarks relative to the-bank, 232;
"its beneficial character, 232;
no pretext of any adequate motive is assigned for the
President's denunciation, 233;
are the people ready to destroy one of their most valuable
institutions to gratify the caprice of the
President? 233."
The Bank question presented as an issue of the election by its
friends, 233;
two classes of friends, 233;
one friends of the President, the other against him, 233;
how the consent of the former was obtained, 233;
memorial for re-charter presented, 233;
referred to a select committee in the Senate, 233;
referred to the Committee of Ways and Means in the House, 233;
reason of the difference, 233;
motion to refer to a select committee, 234;
remarks, 234;
this measure entirely disconnected from the Baltimore
convention, 234;
"a select committee the proper one, 234;
the course in such cases, 234;
the question should not be taken up at this session, 234;
the stockholders left the application discretionary with the
directors, 235;
it will divide the whole country, 235;
the bank has been charged with using its funds and those of the
people in operating upon and controlling public
opinion, 235;
this of sufficient consequence to demand an accurate
inquiry, 235;
charged with violating its charter, 235;
other charges, 235;
memorial referred to Committee of Ways and Means, 235.
_Investigation ordered._--
Course necessary to be pursued by the opposition, 235;
to prepare the people to sustain the veto, 235;
policy of the bank leaders, 236;
reasons for taking up the investigation in the House, 236;
motion for inquiry made, 236;
manner in which the motion was treated, 236;
resistance to investigation, 236;
"a re-charter is asked, yet the friends of the bank shrink from
inquiry, 236;
the inference which might be drawn from this resistance, 237;
what is the ground of opposition? 237;
how the memorial was treated in the other House, 237;
result of the examination in 1819, 237;
three years after it went into existence, it was on the verge of
bankruptcy, 237;"
right of either House to make the inquiry, 237;
the misconduct of the bank in numerous instances, 237;
list of accusations against the bank, 238;
the friends of the bank obliged to declare in favor of
examination, 238;
modes of investigation proposed, 239;
restrictions proposed to the inquiry, 239;
remarks upon the manner in which the proposed inquiry has been
treated by the House, 239;
remarks on modes adopted by the bank for extorting usury, 240;
another mode makes the loan take the form of a domestic bill
from the beginning, 240;
effect of the debate on the bank with the country, 240;
speakers against the bank, 240;
advocates of the bank, 241;
the Committee of Investigation, 241;
its composition, 241;
three reports, 241;
their character, 241.
_The three per cent. debt._--
This a portion of the revolutionary debt standing at
sixty-four, 242;
money in the bank to pay it, 242;
the money retained to sustain the bank and the debt not paid
until it rose to par, 242;
remarks on the course of the bank, 242;
the loss to the people, 243.
_Bill for re-charter reported._--
Remarks relative to previous charters, 243;
former course of Webster, 243;
his defence of his present position, 243;
"the years that have passed, 248;
the effects of experience, 243;
action of Calhoun in procuring the present charter, 244;
the vote of Webster against it, 244;
his views, 244;
evils of a disordered currency, 244;
the small note currency cause of the small amount of specie in
the country, 244;"
the grant of exclusive privileges and the bonus required
opposed, 245;
remarks upon them, 245;
the present application of the bank opposed, 245;
"some years before the charter expires, 245;
now late in the session, 245;
not time to do justice to the subject, 245;
other subjects of more immediate and pressing interest must be
thrown aside, 245;
an unfinished investigation presents another reason for delaying
the final action of Congress on this subject, 245;
the people have no opportunity to make up their minds on the
information now printed, 246;
this question belongs to the Congress elected within the next
census, 246;
looks like usurpation on the part of this Congress, 246;
different representation in the next Congress, 246;
a charter should be granted with as little invasion of the
rights of posterity as possible, 246;
this question must effect the presidential election if not
decide it, 246;
take a lesson from the monarchical parliament of England, 247."
A motion declaratory of the right of the States to admit or deny
the establishment of branches of the mother bank within
their limits, offered, 247;
remarks, 247;
"if this amendment is struck out it is tantamount to a
legislative declaration that no such rights existed, 247;
decision of the Supreme Court on the right of the States to tax
the branches, 247;
this is the supremacy of the bank and the degradation of the
States, 247;
the argument that these branches are necessary to enable the
Federal Government to carry on its fiscal operations and
therefore ought to be independent of State legislation, is
answered by the determination of Congress itself, 247;
every thing is left to the bank itself except the branch at this
place, 247;
the establishment of branches is a mere question of profit and
loss to the bank, 247;
point of the question, 247;
motion rejected.
Motion to strike out the exclusive privileges and to make the
stockholders liable, 248;
"example of the Scottish banks, 248;
the excellence of their plan, 248,
clauses granting exclusive privileges, 248;
the establishment of any other bank by the United States
prohibited during the existence of the charter, 248;
this is contrary to the genius of our Government, 249;
the restriction upon future Congresses is at war with every
principle of constitutional right and legislative
equality, 249;
is this Congress to impose restrictions upon the power of their
successors? 249;
in nine months this Congress is defunct, 249;
the renewed charter will not take effect till three years after
the full representation of the next Congress in
power, 249."
All amendments proposed by the opponents of the bank voted
down, 250;
the interest of members of the Senate as stockholders, 250;
bill passed in the Senate and House, 250.
_The Veto._--
"If this government sells exclusive privileges, it should at
least exact for them as much as they are worth in the
market, 251;
the present value of the monopoly is seventeen millions, and the
act proposes to sell it for three, 251;
how can the present stockholders have any claim to the special
favor of the Government? 251;
this act does not permit competition in the purchase of this
monopoly, 251;
not just to set others aside and grant this privilege to the few
who have been fortunate enough to secure the stock, 251;
"the force of precedents for constitutionality argued
against, 252;
decision of the Supreme Court, 252;
examined 252;
remarks, 252;
"precedence is a dangerous source of authority, and should not
be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional
power except where the acquiescence of the people and the
States is well settled, 253;
precedents are really against the bank, 253;
if the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of
this act, it ought not to control the coordinate
authorities of this Government, 253;
in the case relied on, the Supreme Court have not decided that
all the features of this corporation are compatible with
the constitution, 253;
the misconduct of the institution, both in conducting its
business and in resisting investigation, 253;
suspicions are entertained and charges made of gross violations
of the charter, 253;
the recommendation of a majority of the committee, 253;
additional reason for less haste and more caution, 253."
The great speeches from the advocates of the bank now made to
repel the effects of the veto, 254;
a transfer of the question to the political arena, 254;
to the presidential election, 254;
frightful distress predicted, and a change of the chief
magistrate the only means of averting the calamity, 254;
remarks of Webster on this point, 254;
remarks of White upon the bank taking the lead of a political
party, 254;
the distress pictured by Clayton, 254;
the winding up of the bank, with regard to time, 255;
case of the previous bank, 255;
menace of distress from the bank if denied a renewal, entirety
gratuitous, 255;
vehement declamation against the veto, 255;
remarks of Clay on the veto power, 255;
reply of Benton, 255;
objects of the vetoes of the French king, 256;
"the fable of the cat and the eagle, 256;
why debate the bank question, now it is vetoed, and not debate
it before? 257;
the bank is finished, why debate it now? 257;
the bank is in the field, fearful and tremendous combatant in
the presidential election, 257;
the Great West is selected as the theatre of her
operations, 257;
ruin is to be the punishment of the West, if she votes for
Jackson, 257;
the bank debt has been created for electioneering purposes, 258;
this point examined, 258;
the establishment of several new branches and the promise of
more, 259;
the alleged necessity for the prompt and vigorous collection of
this debt, if the charter is not renewed, 259;
the opinion of the Senator from Kentucky, about the legality of
this trust, 259;
once in every ten years the capital of this debt is paid in
interest, 259;
the ruinous drain of capital in hard money from the West, 259;
the old banks of Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, defended from
the aspersions cast on them, 260;
manner in which the charter was pushed through, pending an
investigation, 260;
the foreign stockholders of the bank, 260;
the bank a monopoly, 261;
English authority for calling the Bank of England a monopoly,
and the British bank in America is copied from it, 261;
the President's idea of his oath, 261;
his independence in construing the constitution, 262;
the drain upon the resources of the West, made by the bank, 262;
address to the Jackson bank men, 262;
address to the West, 262;
the dangerous power of the bank and the present audacity of her
conduct, 263."
"Dissatisfaction expressed that the speeches of some Senators fill
the galleries, and those of others empty them, 263;
charged with a want of courtesy to the President, 263;
charges of the Senator from Missouri, once against the
President, 263.
"No adjourned question of veracity between the Senator from
Missouri and the President, 264;
the prediction charged upon the Senator from Missouri, 264;"
further debate, 264;
direful picture of distress drawn, 265.
_Delay in paying the three per cents._--
Message recommended that the United States stock should be sold,
and that a committee be appointed to investigate its
condition, 287;
referred to a special committee of friends of the bank, 287;
objected that the committee should not proceed until the report
of the agent of the Secretary of the Treasury was
made, 287;
its depreciation of the stock, 287;
this objection fallacious, 287;
the loss of the bank, by depreciation, stated at half a
million, 288;
nothing before the House to make an inquiry into the condition
of the bank desirable, 288;
eventual ability to discharge all its obligations, is not of
itself sufficient to entitle the bank to the confidence
of the Government, 288;
what was the Executive complaint against the bank? 288;
that it had interfered with the payment of the public debt, 288;
effect of the charges upon the feelings of the corporators, 288;
the report of the agent, 288;
the exhibit contrasted with its actual state, 288;
a large surplus presented for the stockholders, 289;
the report a mere compendium of the bank returns, 289;
proceedings of the bank with regard to the three per cents, 289;
investigation referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, 289;
report, 289;
public deposits reported entirely safe, 289;
resolution to continue the deposits in the bank offered, 289;
debate, 289;
the bank exceeded its legitimate authority in relation to the
three per cents, 290;
had the bank promptly paid the public money deposited in its
vaults when called for, 290;
proceedings of the bank, 290;
resolution carried, 291;
loss by the manner the three per cents were paid, 291.
_Sale of Stock in the._--
Sale of United States stock in all corporate companies
recommended by the President, 294;
partnership of government with corporations condemned, 294;
bill introduced, 294;
moved to reject it, 294;
debate, 294;
indication at this persecution of a national institution, 294;
indignities to which members were subjected who presumed to take
any step concerning the bank which militated against that
corporation, 295;
a plain business proceeding, 295;
an isolated proposition, 295;
the bill summarily rejected, 295;
fifty members borrowers of the bank, 296;
the same thing had happened once before, 296;
proposed in 1827 to sell the stock solely on the ground of
public advantage, 296;
remarks on this proposition at the time, 296;
reflections, 296.
_Removal of the Deposits._--
Order for removal issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, 373;
the President's own message, 374;
reports of directors to the President, 374;
extracts from them, 374, 375;
resolutions adopted by the board, 376;
further outrages of the bank, 376;
the exchange committee of the banks, 376;
paper read by President Jackson to his Cabinet, 376;
extracts, 377, 378;
impression produced by the removal, 379.
_Proceedings of the Bank on the removal of the Deposits._--
The reference of the President's paper to a committee, 379;
report, 379;
extracts, 379;
its temper, 379;
gives the lead to proceedings in Congress, 380;
the violations of law and the constitution referred to, 380;
amount of the charges against the President by the bank, 381.
_Report of the Secretary of the Treasury relative to removal of
the Deposits._--
Reasons for the cessation of deposits in the bank, 381;
the duty of the Secretary, 381;
no prospects of a renewal of the charter, 382;
other reasons, 383;
the board of directors, 383;
authority of the Secretary to remove the deposits, 384;
the deposit banks, 385;
difficulty of obtaining the deposit banks, 385;
power of the Bank of the United States, 385.
_In the Senate._--
Report considered, 393;
proposed, that the Senate act upon it at once without the
intervention of a committee, 393;
the House the proper place to investigate the charges made in
that report, 393;
resolution offered, 393;
referred, 394;
report, 394;
remarks on the despotism of the committee, 394;
reply, 394;
report drawn by the counsel for the bank, 394;
inefficiency of the resolution, 395;
no action proposed, 395;
resolution adopted, 395.
Resolution subsequently proposed again with another requiring the
return of the deposits to the bank, 396;
remarks, 396;
impropriety of the resolutions so near the close of the
session, 396;
other considerations, 397;
resolutions adopted, 397;
sent to the House and not taken up, 397.
_In the House._--
Report of the Secretary, memorial of the bank, and of the
government directors referred, 398;
report, 398;
adopted, 398.
_Government Directors, their Nomination and Rejection._--
Opposition manifested to four of the five nominated, 385;
resolution of inquiry into their fitness, &c., offered and
rejected, 385;
four rejected, 386;
no complaint against them except from the bank, 386;
rejected for the report made to the President, 386;
re-nominated, 386;
message, 386;
extracts, 387, 388;
question raised as to which was the nominating power for bank
directors, the President and Senate or the Bank and
Senate, 388;
determination to try this question, 389;
message referred to a committee, 389;
report against the re-nominations, 389;
the absolute right of the Senate to reject, 389;
their privilege to give no reasons, 389;
the general policy of making re-nominations, 389;
extracts, 389;
memorial of the rejected directors, 389;
extracts, 390;
their rights and duties as government directors, 390;
opinion of Alexander Hamilton relative to government
directors, 391;
opinion of Alexander J. Dallas, 391;
reasons why the motion to strike out government directors was
resisted when the charter was under consideration, 391;
they are the guardians of the public interest, and to secure a
just and honorable administration of the affairs of the
bank, 391;
the nominations again rejected, 392;
reasons kept secret, 392;
motion made to publish the proceedings, 392;
lost, 392;
remarks on the Report of the Committee of Investigation relative
to the Exchange Committee, 392.
_Call on the President for a copy of the paper read to his
Cabinet._--
Request to be informed if it was genuine, 399;
and if so to furnish a copy, 399;
Senate not the branch of the Legislature to call for this
document, 399;
uses to which the paper might be put, 399;
it cannot be rightfully called for, 399;
resolution passed, 400;
answer of the President, 400;
denied the right to call, &c., 400.
_Attempted Investigation._--
Select Committee appointed in the House to investigate the
affairs of the United States Bank, 458;
objects to be ascertained, 459;
authority given to the committee, 459;
right of the House to make the investigation, 459;
proceedings of the bank to defeat investigation, 459;
report of committee, 459;
extracts, 460;
treatment of their call for certain books, 461;
action under subpoenas, 461;
a warrant recommended for the apprehension of the president and
directors, 461;
the committee of 1819, 462.
_Investigation by the Senate._--
Since much ground lost in public opinion by resisting the
investigation of the House to retrieve the bank, an
investigation commences in the Senate, 470;
committee moved, 470;
view of this act of the Senate, 471;
the members of the committee defenders of the bank, 471;
the only semblance of precedent, 471;
called the "Whitewashing Committee," 471.
_Downfall of the Bank._--
Copy of resolutions of its stockholders, 471;
extracts from Philadelphia papers, 472;
report of the Finance Committee, 481;
its friendly reception, 481;
its contents, 481;
its declarations contradicted by Senator Benton, 482;
extracts, 482;
imputations upon the President, Vice-President, and Senator
Benton, 482;
committee departed from the business with which they were
charged, 483;
the charge of hostility to the bank on the part of the
President, 483;
defends the Secretary of the Treasury against the imputations
of the report, 484;
misconduct of the bank shown from recent facts, 484;
the abduction of a million and a half from New Orleans, 485;
the report _ex-parte_, 486;
reply in defence of the report, 486;
extracts, 486.
_See Jackson's Administration._
_Banks in the District, recharter of._--
Speech of Senator Benton, 658;
"the charters wrong, 658;
no bank of circulation ought to be authorized in this
district, 659;
none to furnish other currency than large notes should be
chartered anywhere, 659;
ameliorations in charters proposed to be granted in order to
render them less dangerous to the community, 659;
liability of the stockholders, 659;
bank stock to be subject to taxation like other property, 659;
to issue no notes less than twenty dollars, 659;
the charters to be repealable at the will of Congress, 659;
evil of small notes classed under three heads, 660;
the banishment of gold and silver counterfeiting and throwing
other burdens of losses upon the poorer classes, 660;
the basis of circulation throughout the country should be hard
money, 662;
the true idea of banks seemed to be lost in the country, 663;
the faculty of issuing paper money renders banks dangerous, 663;
progress of banking business is alarming and deplorable in the
United States, 663;
the burdens which the banks impose on the people, 664;"
recharter carried, 665.
BARBOUR, JAMES, Senator from Virginia, 7;
governor, 7;
votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8;
on the Virginia resolutions, 35;
Secretary at War, 55;
negotiates treaty with the Cherokees, 107.
BARBOUR, PHILIP P., Representative from Virginia, 7;
on selling the stock of the United States in the bank, 296;
his character, 296.
BARRY, WILLIAM T., Postmaster General, 120;
appointed Minister to Spain, 181.
BAYARD, JAMES, Commissioner at Ghent, 91.
BENTON, THOMAS H., instigator of the clause prohibiting legislative
interference with slavery in the constitution of Missouri, 8;
his first experience in standing "solitary and alone," 16;
views relative to the settlement of Oregon, 13;
first suggests sending ministers to Oriental nations, 14;
denounces the treaty of 1818, 15, 17;
moves amendment to the constitution, 37;
visit to Jefferson, 43;
offers a bill to occupy Columbia river, 50;
remarks on the treaty with the Creeks, 61;
on the duty on indigo, 97;
on the sale of the public lands, 103, 130;
on slavery, 136;
on the peroration of Webster, 142;
on the regulation of commerce, 151;
the repeal of the alum salt tax, 155;
on the Bank of the United States, 187;
his silence relative to the nomination of Van Buren as Minister to
England, 218;
letter to Van Buren, 218;
on the illegal currency of the Bank of the United States, 220;
on government expenses, 231;
against the exclusive privileges of the bank, 245;
reply to Clay on the veto power, 255, 256;
on the compromise tariff bill, 319;
on home valuation, 324;
on Missouri resolutions, 360;
on report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 393;
on the removal of the deposits, 406;
gives notice of the expunging resolution, 428;
on a gold currency, 436;
on public distress, 462;
on the Report of the Senate Committee to investigate the affairs
of the bank, 482;
relative to the expunging resolutions of Alabama, 524;
on the Branch Mints, 551;
on distribution of the proceeds of the public lands, 560;
on the memorial to abolish slavery in the District of
Columbia, 577;
on French affairs, 591;
on abolition petitions, 617;
on the Expunging resolution, 645;
on distribution of the land proceeds, 649, 652;
on rechartering the district banks, 658;
on Texas Independence, 670;
on the specie circular, 677;
on revision of the specie circular, 695, 701;
on the salt tax, 714;
on the Expunging resolution, 719.
BERRIEN, JOHN M., remarks on the treaty with the Creeks, 62;
attorney-general, 120;
resigns his seat in the cabinet, 181.
BIBB, GEORGE M., on home valuation, 324;
on the French spoliation bill, 487.
_Birthday_ of Jefferson and the doctrine of nullification, 148.
BLAIR, FRANCIS P., how led to establish the Globe newspaper, 130.
BLOOMFIELD, JOSEPH, Representative from New Jersey, votes for the
admission of Missouri, 9.
BOULDIN, JAMES W., on the admission of Arkansas, 631.
BRANCH, JOHN, Secretary of the Navy, 120;
resigns his seat in the cabinet, 181.
_Branch Mints at New Orleans and in the Southern gold regions._--
Bill reported, 550;
opposed by Mr. Clay, 550;
unwise and injudicious to establish these branches, 550;
indefinite postponement moved, 550;
no evil in the nullification of mints, 550;
the present one sufficient, 551;
the measure would be auxiliary to the restoration of the metallic
currency, 551;
remarks of Mr. Benton, 551;
"constitutional right to establish these mints, 551;
an act of justice to the South and West, 551;
give the mint five or six branches and nobody would want the bank
paper, 552;
the idea of expense on such an object scouted, 552;
for the greater part of the gold currency is in the vaults of the
bank, 552;
what loss has the Western people now sustained for want of
gold? 552;
in favor of measures that will put down small paper and put up
gold and silver, 552;"
postponement lost, 553;
other motions made and lost, 553;
bill passed, 553.
_British West India Trade, recovery of._--Account of this
trade, 124;
six negotiations carried on between the United States and Great
Britain on this subject, 124;
limited concessions only obtained, 125;
a primary object with Washington, 125;
his letter of instructions to Gouverneur Morris, 125;
a prominent point in our first negotiation in 1794, 125;
attempts of 1822 and 1823, 125;
remarks on the negotiation of 1822, 125;
effect of the word "elsewhere," 126;
attempts of Mr. Adams' administration to negotiate, 126;
effects of his failure, 126;
Gallatin's interview with Mr. Huskisson, 126;
despatch, 126;
facts communicated to Congress by President Adams, 127;
the case presented hopeless, 127;
the loss of this trade an injury to the country, 127;
the position of General Jackson, 127;
minister sent to London, 127;
reasons given for a renewed application, 128;
point of right waived, 128;
the trade recovered, 128;
the trade under the act of Parliament, 128;
the grounds of success, 128.
BROWN, BEDFORD, for Van Buren as Minister to England, 216;
on the branch mints, 551;
on abolition petitions, 612.
BROWN, JAMES, Senator from Louisiana, 7;
votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8.
BUCHANAN, JAMES, presents memorial of the Society of Friends, 576;
on French affairs, 590;
in favor of the admission of Arkansas, 630;
on distribution of the land proceeds, 708.
BURKE, EDMUND, on the sale of the crown lands, 102.
BURR, COL. AARON, _decease of_.--Brilliant prospects ending in
shame, 681;
in the expedition with Arnold, 681;
the opinion of Washington, 681;
position at the close of the presidential election of 1800, 681;
his character as regarded by his compeers, 682;
his talents, 682;
the fate of Hamilton, 682.
BURTON, HUTCHINS G., Representative from North Carolina, 7;
governor, 7.
BUSH, HENRY, Representative from Ohio, 7.
BUTLER, BENJAMIN F., nominated Secretary of the Treasury, 470.
BUTLER, THOMAS, Representative from Louisiana, 7.
C
CALHOUN, JOHN C., Secretary at War, 7;
on internal improvement, 22;
candidate for the Vice-Presidency in 1824, 45;
rupture with Jackson, 167;
his friendship for Jackson, 218;
on the compromise tariff bill, 315;
on home valuation, 324;
offers nullification resolutions, 334;
on the principles of nullification, 335;
on distribution of proceeds of land sales, 364, 651, 709;
on the removal of the deposits, 411;
on the plan of relief, 484;
on the expunging resolutions of Alabama, 526, 527;
on the branch mints, 553;
on the combination of the slave States, 585;
on French affairs, 591;
on abolition petitions, 611, 614, 619;
on the independence of Texas, 667;
on the Expunging resolution, 728.
CAMBRELENG, C. C., on the Committee of Bank Investigation, 241;
on the fortification bill, 556.
CAMPBELL, JOHN W., Representative from Ohio, 7.
CANNON, NEWTON, Representative from Tennessee, 7;
governor, 7.
CARROLL, CHARLES, _decease of_; last of the signers of the
Declaration of Independence, 476;
fate of other signers felicitous, 477;
his career, 477;
not present on the day of signing, 477;
signed afterwards, 477;
incident, 477.
CARSON, KIT, application for a commission in the army, 183.
CASS, LEWIS, Secretary at War, 181.
CHAMBERS, E. F., against Van Buren as Minister to England, 215.
CHANDLER, JOHN, Senator from Maine, 9;
votes for the admission of Missouri, 9.
_Chesapeake Canal_ discussed, 22.
CLARKE, GEN., treaties with the Indians, 29.
CLAY, HENRY, Representative from Kentucky, 7;
efforts for the declaration of war in 1812, 6;
moves a joint committee of both Houses on the admission of
Missouri, 9;
often complimented as the author of the Compromise of 1820, 10;
selects the members of the joint committee in the House, 10;
his coadjutors, 10; movement against the treaty of 1818, 17;
on internal improvement, 22;
address to Lafayette, 30;
on public distress, 32;
lays before the House the note of Vivian Edwards, 34;
appoints committee on charges against Crawford, 35;
candidate for the Presidency in 1824, 44;
letter to Benton relative to declaring his intention previously to
vote for Adams, 48;
Secretary of State, 55;
Commissioner at Ghent, 91;
against Van Buren as Minister to England, 215;
nominated for the Presidency, 232;
remarks on the veto power, 255, 256;
on the origin of the protective policy, 267;
report relative to the public lands, 275;
candidate for the Presidency, 282;
on the Compromise Tariff bill, 313;
on Kendall cotton, 319;
on distribution of proceeds of land sales, 363;
on report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 393;
on the removal of the deposits, 402;
on the expunging resolutions of Alabama, 525, 527;
on the bill to suppress incendiary publications, 586;
on distribution of land proceeds, 707;
on the Expunging resolution, 729.
CLAY, MRS., her appearance on the evening previous to the duel
between Clay and Randolph, 74.
CLAYTON, J. M., against Van Buren as Minister to England, 215;
on the coming distress of the people, 254;
on home valuation, 324-326;
on French affairs, 594;
moves a committee of investigation on the Bank affairs, 236;
on the committee to investigate the affairs of the U. S.
Bank, 241.
COBB, THOMAS W., Representative from Georgia, 7.
COOKE, JOHN, Representative from Tennessee, 7.
COLES, EDWARD, publishes correction of errors relative to the
passage of the ordinance of 1787.
_Columbia River, occupation of_, bill to authorize the President to
take possession and occupy the country offered, 50;
object of the British, 50;
the British pretensions examined under their own exhibition of
title, 50, 51, 52, 53;
title as claimed by the United States, 54.
_Combination against General Jackson._--_See Bank of the United
States._
_Commerce, regulation of._--The power which is given to Congress by
the constitution, 149;
not yet been executed in the sense intended by the
constitution, 149;
views of Mr. Jefferson, of Madison, Hamilton, &c., 149;
remarks, 149;
the principle of the regulation was to be that of
reciprocity, 150;
mode of acting, 150;
object to carry out these views on the extinction of the public
debt, 150;
bill to revive the policy of the Madison resolutions, 150;
Madison's remarks, 150;
"the commerce of the United States not on that respectable footing
to which its nature and importance entitled it, 150;
situation of things previous to the adoption of the
constitution, 150;
effects to be produced by the resolutions proposed, 150;
advantageous position this country is entitled to stand in, 150;
our country may make her enemies feel the extent of her
power, 150;"
"bill proposed, 151;
to provide for the abolition of duties, 151;
the title of the bill, 151;
the bill, 152;
the first section, 152;
contains the principle of
abolishing duties by the joint act of the Legislative and
Executive departments, 152;
the idea of equivalents, 152;
in what way may the restriction on our commerce be best removed,
regulated, or counteracted? 152;
two methods, 152;
friendly arrangements, 152;
the plan proposed, 152;
benefits resulting from an abolition of duties, 153;
do not our agriculture and manufactures require better markets
abroad than they possess at this time? 153;
the merits of the plan, 153;
its success, 153;
advantages arising from a payment of the public debt, 153;
the treaties should be for limited terms, 154;"
remarks, 154.
_Committee_ on the charges against W. H. Crawford, 35;
on amendments to the constitution, 78;
on the reduction of Executive patronage, 80;
on the application of the bank for a renewal of its charter, 233;
House, to whom was referred the memorial of the bank, 235;
of investigation into the affairs of the U. S. Bank, 241;
to investigate the affairs of the bank, 458, 470;
on incendiary publications, 580;
on abolition petitions, 621.
_Congress_, 22d, its members, 208;
their talent, 208;
commencement of 24th, 568;
when does the term of its session expire? 598, 599.
COOK, DANIEL P., Representative from Illinois, 7.
CRAWFORD, WILLIAM H., Secretary of the Treasury, 7;
devises a measure of relief for the public land debtors, 12;
on internal improvement, 22;
charges against, 35;
candidate for the Presidency in 1824, 44;
declines the Secretaryship of the Treasury tendered by Adams, 55;
letter to Mr. Forsyth, 182.
CRITTENDEN, JOHN J., on the recision of the specie circular, 698.
CROOKS, RAMSEY, founder of the colony at Astoria, 13.
CROWELL, JOHN, Representative from Alabama, 7.
_Cumberland Road_ discussed, 22.
CUSHING, CALEB, on the admission of Arkansas, 632.
D
DALLAS, GEORGE M., presents memorial for a renewal of the bank
charter, 227;
remarks, 227;
on the operation of the Tariff, 270;
on home valuation, 324.
DANE, NATHAN, claimed as the author of the ordinance of 1787, 133.
DANIEL, on the Virginia resolutions, 351.
DAVIS, JOHN, on the compromise tariff bill, 310.
_Debt_, public, amount of at the close of the second war, 5.
_Deposit Bank bill_, to regulate the custody of the public
money, 553;
bill once defeated in the Senate, 553;
sent up again and passed, 553.
DICKENS ASBURY, writes the answer of Crawford to charges against
him, 35.
_Distribution of the Revenue._--
These propositions first opposed and afterwards favored by Mr.
Calhoun with the salvo of an amendment to the constitution, 556;
committee of inquiry appointed, 556;
basis upon which the committee was proposed, 557;
first meeting and a sub-committee appointed, 557;
the report an ingenious and plausible attack upon the
administration, &c., 557;
debate on the report, 557;
expenses doubled from extraordinary objects, not belonging to
the Government, temporary in their nature and
transient, 557;
the distribution of the surplus and the amendment of the
constitution, 557;
distribution the only practical depletion of the Treasury and
remedy for the corruptions which an exuberant Treasury
engendered, 557;
no minority report made, 557;
custody of the public moneys not illegal, 557;
opponents of the Administration defeated the Deposit Regulation
bill, 557;
the report, 557;
"what is to be done with the surplus? 557;
existence of our institutions and the liberty of the country may
depend on the success of this investigation, 558;
danger from excess of patronage arising from excess of revenue
must be temporary, 558;
the Government in a state of passage from an excess of revenue
to a limited revenue, 558;
objects of investment, 558;
objections to distribution, 558;
effects of distribution, 558;
reasons for suggesting this proposal, 559."
Reply of Senator Benton, 559;
"proposition in the report to amend the constitution for eight
years to enable Congress to make the distribution, 560;
eclipses all other propositions, 560;
predictions from the same source of a deficiency of the
revenue, 560;
anecdote, 560;
the Treasury was to be bankrupt and the currency ruined, 560;
the amendment of the constitution, 561;
this scheme an old acquaintance on this floor, 561;
the statement of a surplus examined, 561;
report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 562;
it is said there is no way to reduce the revenue before the end
of 1842 without violating the compromise, 563;
sources from which a large reduction could be made, 563;
it is said there is no possibility of finding an article of
general utility on which the surpluses could be
expended, 564;
several useful, necessary, and exigeant measures, 564;
defenceless state of the country, 564;
fortifying the coasts, 564;
message of President Monroe in 1822, 565;
extracts, 566;
remarks upon the extracts, 566, 567;"
no vote ever taken on the amendment to the constitution, 567;
deficiency in the Treasury, 567;
distribution afterward took place without the amendment, 567.
Extract from the National Gazette attributed to Nicholas
Biddle, 649;
distribution nearly become a party measure, 649;
the plans proposed, 649;
remarks of Senator Benton, 649;
introduces an antagonistic bill, devoting the surplus money to
the public defences, 649;
making an issue between the plunder of the country and the
defence of the country, 649;
every surplus dollar required for the defences, 650;
bill passed Senate, 651;
sent to the House, 651;
course adopted to secure votes in the House, 651.
Scheme of deposit with the States, 651;
objections, 651;
vote on the passage of the bill, 652;
objections urged against the bill, 652;
attempt to debauch the people, 653;
consequences must be deplorable and destructive to the Federal
Government, 654;
the progress of the distribution spirit, 654;
the measure goes to sap the foundations of the Federal
Government, 655;
is it wise to throw away this money? 656;
nothing but evil in this fatal scheme, 657;
bill passes the House, 657;
feelings of the President on approving of the act, 657.
Moved that a bill be brought in to release the States from all
obligations ever to return the dividends under the deposit
act, 707;
motion condemned at the outset, 707;
laid on the table, 707;
Clay's movement to revive the land distribution bill, 707;
his remarks, 707;
a substitute reported, 708;
kindred schemes, 708;
Calhoun's proposition, 708;
debate, 708;
Calhoun in reply, 709;
proposition rejected, 710;
Allen's proposition, 710;
laid on the table, 710;
deposit clause attached to the appropriation bill, 711;
struck out in the Senate, 711;
lost, 712.
_Delaware._--Her position in relation to slavery, 10.
DE TOCQUEVILLE, errors of, 159;
errors respecting the House of Representatives, 205;
errors respecting Bank of the United States, 226, 228.
_Duel between Clay and Randolph._--
Interview between Randolph and Benton, 70;
Randolph declares he shall not fire at Clay, 70;
circumstances of the delivery of the challenge, 70;
reasons for refusing to fire at Clay, 70;
meaning of "two pledges" referred to by Mr. Randolph, 71;
conduct of Randolph, 71;
characteristics, 71;
Randolph's letter of acceptance, 71;
protest of Randolph, an explanation, 71;
further communications, 72;
remarks on Randolph's speech in the Senate, 72;
attempt of the seconds to delay the meeting, 72;
the report of Randolph's remarks made to Clay, 73;
inquiry between the seconds as to the cause of the quarrel, 73;
further views on the speech, 73;
"Puritan and blackleg," 73;
place of the duel, 73;
interview between Benton and Clay, 74;
subsequent interview between Benton and Randolph, 74;
Randolph arranging his worldly affairs, 74;
Randolph at the bank, 74;
the pieces of gold, 75;
manner in which the word was to be given, 75;
the preparations on the ground, 75;
an accidental discharge of a pistol, 75;
Randolph's remark, 75;
after the first fire Benton interposes, 76;
Clay's answer, 76;
Randolph's feelings and remarks, 76;
the second fire of Clay, 77;
Randolph fires in the air, 77;
reconciliation and gratification of the parties, 77;
the gold seals of Hamilton, Tatnall, and Benton, 77.
DUNCANSON, J. M., interview with Gen. Duff Green, 128.
DUVAL, Judge of Supreme Court, 8.
E
EARLE, ELIAS, Representative from South Carolina, 7;
Governor, 7.
EATON, JOHN H., Secretary at War, 120;
resigns his seat in the Cabinet, 181;
appointed Governor of Florida, 181;
Minister to Spain, 181.
EDWARDS, WELDON N., Representative from North Carolina, 7;
votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8.
EDWARDS, NINIAN, note of, 34;
brought back from his mission to Mexico, by the
Sergeant-at-Arms, 35.
_Election of 1832._--
The candidates, 282;
a question of systems and measures tried in the persons of those
who stood out boldly in their representation, 282;
the defeat of Clay, 282;
the success of Jackson, 282;
the point and lesson of the Vice-Presidential election, 282;
the vote, 282;
Anti-masonic excitement, 282;
its result, 283.
ELLIOTT, JOHN, votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8;
remarks on the removal of the Indians, 27.
ELLMAKER, AMOS, candidate for the Presidency, 282.
EUSTIS, WILLIAM, Representative from Massachusetts, 7;
of revolutionary memory, 7.
EWING, THOMAS, against VAN BUREN as Minister to England, 215;
on the specie circular, 694.
_Expenses of Government._--
Expenses from 1820 to 1831, 230;
comparison with the present day, 230;
remarks, 230;
"it is said that since 1820 the expenses have nearly doubled, 230;
excepting four years the expenses have not increased, 230;
cause of reduced expenditures in certain years," 230;
error in the basis of calculation, 231;
"two great and broad facts in view, 231;
expenditures for different years, 231;
object to show a great increase in a short time," 232;
important to know the correct expenses, 232.
_Expunging resolution_, notice of by Senator Benton, 428.
_Do. of Alabama._--
Resolutions of the General Assembly of Alabama, entreating their
Senators to use their best endeavors to cause to be
expunged from the Journal of the Senate the resolve
condemnatory of President Jackson for the removal of the
deposits, 524;
several States had already given instructions, 524;
inquiry of Mr. Clay relative to the intention of the Senator
from Alabama relative to the resolutions, 524;
reply of Mr. Benton, 524;
the notice given by him at the time of passing the condemnatory
resolution, 524;
reasons for giving the notice, 524;
answer to the inquiry of Mr. Clay, 525.
Remarks of Mr. King, 525;
"surprised at the question," 525;
bound to obey instructions, 525;
if the gentleman from Missouri declined, he should at the proper
time bring forward an expunging resolution, 525;
further remarks, 525;
Mr. Clay's remarks, 525;
"no motion accompanies these resolutions, 525;
the inquiry a natural one, 525;
a hope that the resolutions would be withdrawn, 526;
if, after consulting precedents, the Senator from Alabama should
deem proper to offer them, they would be entitled to
consideration, 526;
until then, his duty to resist such an unconstitutional
procedure as the reception of these resolutions," 526.
"Decline to accede to this proposition, 526;
object to carry out his instructions, 526;
at a proper time a distinct proposition would be presented on
this subject," 526.
Moved to lay the resolutions on the table, by Mr. Calhoun, 526;
object to give the Senator an opportunity to prepare a
rescinding resolution, 526;
curious to see how such a proceeding would be reconciled with
the independent existence of the Senate, 526;
how is it proposed to repeal a journal? 526;
the only course left is to declare that the principle upon which
the Senate acted is not correct, 526;
what is the principle to be overthrown but that "we have a right
to express our opinions," 526;
then it comes to this, that the Senate had no right to express
its opinion in relation to the executive, 526;
"the king can do no wrong," 526;
this is the very question in which the expunging our legislative
freedom and independence is to be agitated, 527;
a question or the utmost magnitude, 527;
none of deeper or more radical importance, 527.
The question on receiving the resolutions, 527;
the case of Georgia legislative proceedings, 527;
the case of Wilkes, in the British House of Commons, 527;
no doubt of the power of the Senate to repeal, 527;
have we not it in our power to retrace our steps when we have
done wrong, or to correct our journal, which asserts what
is not true? 527;
the democratic party of the country had declared the facts of
the journal to be false, 527;
the party to which Mr. Calhoun belongs, 527;
resolution laid on the table, 528;
reception and printing refused to a resolution of a sovereign
State, 528.
_Expunging Resolution of Senator Benton_, 528;
extremely distasteful to a majority of the Senate, 528;
characterized as an indictment which the Senate itself was
required to try, and to degrade itself in its own
condemnation, 528;
remarks, 528;
this bitterness aggravated by the course which the public mind
was taking, 528;
resolutions of several States had arrived, instructing their
Senators to vote for the expurgation, 529;
speech of Senator Benton on the motion, 529;
time of presenting the criminal resolution, 529;
length of its discussion, 529;
date of its passage, 529;
an announcement of a series of motions for its expurgation, 529;
this step considered for four months, 529;
was expurgation the proper mode, 529;
the criminating resolution combined all the characteristics of a
case which required erasure and obliteration, 529;
a case of the exercise of power without authority and without
jurisdiction, 529;
other modes of annulling the resolution not proper in this
case, 529;
they would imply rightful jurisdiction, a lawful authority, a
legal action, though an erroneous judgment, 529;
it is objected that the Senate have no right to expunge any
thing from its journal, 529;
it is said we have no right to destroy a part of the
journal, 529;
to expunge, it is said, is to destroy, 529;
not so, 529;
it is incorporated in the expunging resolution, and lives as
long as that lives, 529;
the case of the Middlesex election, 529;
the resolution to expel John Wilkes expunged from the journals
of the House of Commons, 529;
words of the resolution, 530;
annually introduced from 1769 to 1782, and passed, 530;
the history of the case not lost, 530;
the resolution adopted in the Senate of Massachusetts during the
late war, adverse to the celebration of our national
victories, 530;
expunged ten years afterward, 530;
the Senate tried President Jackson a year ago, now it is itself
nominally on trial before itself, but in reality before
America, Europe and posterity, 530;
the proceedings of this day will not be limited to the present
age; they will go down to posterity, 530;
the first President who has received the condemnation of the
Senate for the violation of the laws and constitution
which he is sworn to observe, 530;
the argument of public opinion in the case of the Middlesex
election, 530;
extract from Wilkes' speech, 530;
do. from Fox's speech, 531;
an English Whig of the old school acknowledges the right of the
people to instruct their representatives, 531;
acknowledges the duty of Parliament to obey the voice of the
people, 531;
the voice of the people of the United States has been heard on
this subject, 531;
the resolution should be expunged because it is illegal and
unjust, 531;
illegal because it contains a criminal charge, 531;
the first step taken in the House on an impeachment, 531;
the British Parliament practise an impeachment to which our
constitution is conformable, 532;
the injustice of the resolution shown, 532;
this point examined, 522;
the resolution vague and indefinite, 532;
the law should be specified and the clause of the constitution
violated, 532;
Giles' accusation against General Hamilton, 532;
different forms in which the resolution was presented, 533;
reasons of such extraordinary metamorphoses, 533;
opportunity for any Senator to speak who would undertake to
specify any act in which the President had violated the
constitution, 533;
the resolution was unwarranted by the constitution and laws, 533;
subversion of the rights of defence which belong to an accused
and impeachable officer, 533;
of evil example, 534;
speech of Mr. Macon on the vote of approbation, 534;
the resolution passed at a time and under circumstances to
involve the political rights and pecuniary interests of
the people of the United States in serious injury and
peculiar danger, 534;
this condemnation of the President indissolubly connected with
the cause of the bank, 534;
instructions sent to the branch banks contemporaneously with the
progress of the debate on the criminating resolution, 535;
extracts, 535;
six positions taken, 536;
no new measures to destroy the Bank, 537;
the President harbored no hostile and revengeful designs against
the bank, 538;
not true that there was any necessity for the curtailment
ordered in January, 539;
no excuse or apology for doubting the rates of exchange,
breaking up the exchange business in the West, and
concentrating the collection of exchange on the four
great commercial cities, 540;
the curtailments of these exchange regulations were political
and revolutionary, and connect themselves with the
contemporaneous proceedings of the Senate for the
condemnation of the President, 540;
the case of the Western branches, 542;
evidence drawn from the bank itself, 543;
extracts from Mr. Biddle's letters, 543, 544;
article in the National Gazette, 545;
the distress of the country occasioned by the bank of the United
States and the Senate of the United States, 546;
history of the reduction of the deposits, 546;
in 1819 the bank was unconnected with politics, 546;
further proof that the Senate and the bank, and the Senate more
than the bank, produced the distress during last
winter, 547;
two instances of the bank creating wanton pressure, 547;
the resolution which it is proposed to expunge," 549.
The expunging resolution laid on the table, 549;
called up on the last, 549;
motion to strike out the word "expunge" and insert "rescind,
reverse, and make null and void," 549;
the friends of the expunging resolution astonished, 549;
an expurgation of the journal would be its obliteration, 549;
inconsistent with the constitutional injunction "to keep a
journal," 549;
the mover of the expunging resolution yields, 550;
carried, 550;
exultation of Mr. Webster that the word "expunge" was
expunged, 550;
remarks, 550;
the original expunging resolution renewed, 550.
Remarks of Senator Benton, 645;
"the condemnation of the President co-operative with the
conspiracy of the bank to effect the most wicked scheme
of mischief exhibited in modern times, 646;
President Jackson has done more for the human race than the
whole tribe of politicians put together, 646;
his services to the country, 647;
no parallel to Jackson crushing the bank except in the Roman
Consul crushing Catiline, 647;
further remarks, 648."
Less than three years were sufficient to express public sentiment
in favor of reversal, 717;
notice of the intention to bring up the resolution, 718;
the resolution, 718;
remarks of Senator Benton, 719;
"the change in public sentiment, 720;
ascertained, 720;
how far should the expression of this will be conclusive of our
action, 720;
the terror of Jackson's administration and its effect for good
or evil on the country," 721, 722, 723, 724, 725.
Meeting of democratic Senators, 727;
final measures taken, 727;
debate on the motion to take up the subject, 727;
the speakers, 727, 728;
feelings of the opposition, 728;
expressions of Calhoun, 728;
feeling and expressions of Clay, 729;
Webster's protest against the act, 730;
resolution passed, 730;
the expunging done in open Senate, 730;
excitement in the galleries, 731;
dinner given by President Jackson, 731.
F
FARNHAM, RUSSELL, founder of Colony at Astoria, 18.
_Finances._--Distress of the Government in 1820, 11;
economy forced upon it, 11;
army reduced from 10,000 to 6,000 men, 11;
naval appropriation reduced one half, 11;
twenty-one millions more than double the amount required for the
actual expenses of the government, 11;
how expended, 11;
mistake to suppose an amount necessary to be left in the Treasury
as a reserve, 11.
_Florida, Treaty and Cession of Texas._--
Treaty of 1818, giving up Texas and acquiring Florida, 15;
its denunciation, 15;
action of Monroe's Cabinet, 15;
treaty approved by the country, 15;
points of the treaty, 15;
letter of Monroe to General Jackson, 15;
repugnance of the Northeast to see the aggrandizement of the Union
on the South and West, 16;
extent of this feeling, 16;
views of Jefferson and Jackson on the cession of Texas, 16;
Spain fails to ratify, 16;
negotiations revived, 16;
treaty ratified, 17;
movement against the treaty, 17;
change in the relations of Spain and Mexico, 17;
treaty with Mexico, 17;
three times ratified by the Senate, 17;
how the territory was got back, 17;
extinguished slave territory nearly, 17;
Indian treaties, 18;
largest territorial abolition of slavery ever effected, 18;
how received at the South, 18;
the inside view, 18.
FLOYD, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 7;
moves a proposition for the settlement of Columbia river, 13;
his character, 13.
FOOT, SAMUEL A., resolution of inquiry relative to public
lands, 130;
against Van Buren as Minister to England, 215.
FORSYTH, JOHN, on the donation to the Greeks, 63;
for Van Buren as Minister to England, 216;
on the Compromise tariff bill, 315;
Secretary of State, 477.
FRELINGHUYSEN, THEODORE, against Van Buren as Minister to
England, 215.
_French and Spanish Land Claims, settlement of._--
State of titles in Louisiana on its transfer to the United
States, 219;
the treaty protected every thing that was property, 279;
the question was to apply it to the land titles, 279;
boards of commissions established, 279;
their operation, 279;
defects, 279;
the act of 1832, 280;
its first section, 280;
its successful operation, 280.
_French Indemnity._--
Special communication from the President, 588;
French fleet approaching the coast, 588;
implying a design to overawe the government or to be ready for
expected hostilities, 588;
remarks of the message on the subject of an apology, 588;
a private attempt to obtain a dictated apology, 588;
an attempt made to get this refused apology placed on the
archives of the government, 588;
statement of the message, 589;
the interdiction of our ports to the entry of French vessels
and French products recommended, 589;
nature of the treaty that had been formed, 589;
stipulated for reduction of duties on wines by our government
and the payment of indemnity by France, 589;
advantages to France, 590;
reasons of such delay on the part of France, 590;
extract relative to the French armament, 590.
Calhoun charges upon the President a design to have war with
France, 591;
Benton asserts that the conduct of the Senate at its last
session had given to the French question its present
hostile aspect, 591;
remarks, 591;
conduct of France insulting to us, 591;
an example from French history, 591;
a party in the French Chambers working to separate the President
from the people of the United States, and to make him
responsible for the hostile attitude of the two
countries, 592;
comments on the approach of the French fleet, 593;
the present state of affairs charged upon the conduct of the
Senate, 593;
defence of Senators, 594;
the Senate charged with the loss of the defence bills at the
last session, 595;
defence of the Senate by Webster, 596;
further discussion on the time when the second session of
Congress expires, 598, 599;
American arming declared to be war on our side, 600;
denied, 600.
_British Mediation._--
Message informing the Senate that Great Britain had offered her
friendly mediation between the United States and
France, 600;
suspension of retaliatory measures recommended, 600;
all points in the controversy involving the honor of the United
States excepted, 600;
motives of the offer, 600, 601;
reflections upon this subject, 601.
_French Spoliation Claim._--
Ground of examined, 91;
assumptions on which their payment by the United States
rested, 487;
liability of the United States to become paymasters themselves,
in cases where failing, by war or negotiation, to obtain
redress they make a treaty settlement surrendering or
abandoning the claims, 487;
this point examined, 487;
governments not bound to push such interests to the extremity of
a war, 487;
ought not to go back thirty-four years and call in question the
judgment of Washington's administration, 488;
another instance of abandonment, 488;
speech of Mr. Webster, 488;
grounds of the claims, 489;
speech of Mr. Wright, 489;
relations between France and the United States prior to the
disturbances, 489;
stipulations of treaties, 490, 491;
origin of the claims which formed the subject of the bill, 491;
reference to acts of Congress to prove that war existed between
the United States and France, 493;
the treaty of 1800, 495;
what object in the negotiation of 1800, 496;
liability of the United States, 496;
further remarks, 497, 498;
propositions established, 500;
the advocates of the bill concede that two positions must be
established on their part to sustain it, 500, 501,
502, 503.
Speech of Mr. Webster, 505;
"essentially a judicial question, 505;
oldness of the claims, 505;
said most of them have been bought up, 505;
report of the Secretary of State presenting a general view of
the history and character of these claims, 506;
before the interference of our government with them they
constituted just demands against France, 507;
grounds upon which the claims are vested by the claimants, 507;
points admitted, 508;
propositions to be established, 508;
were these subsisting claims against France at the time of the
treaty? 508;
these claims released and relinquished by the amendment of the
treaty and its ratifications, 511;
these claims surrendered or released by the government on
national considerations, 511;
further remarks," 512, 513, 514.
Speech of Mr. Benton, 514;
"the whole stress of the question lies in a few simple
facts, 514;
assumed grounds on which the claims rest, 515;
on what grounds is it maintained that the United States received
a valuable consideration for these claims? 515;
the case as between France and us relative to these claims, 515;
our obligation under the guarantee of France, 515;
the justice and validity of the claims themselves, 516;
how can the American people be pressed to pay these claims when
it would be unreasonable to press France herself to pay
them? 516;
it is said the United States have received full consideration
from France for these claims, 517;
exertions made by the United States on behalf of these
claims, 518;
what were the losses which led to these claims? 519;
one of the most revolting features of this bill is its relation
to the insurers, 519;
what sum of money will this bill abstract from the
treasury?" 520;
bill passed the Senate, 521;
lost in the House, 521;
claim agencies and assignments should be broken up, 521;
assignees and agents constitute a profession, 521.
G
GAILLARD, JOHN, Senator from South Carolina, 7;
President of the Senate, 7;
votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8;
decease of, 77;
nearly thirty years in the Senate, 77;
nine times elected president of the Senate, 77;
his character as presiding officer, 77.
GALLATIN, ALBERT, candidate for the Vice Presidency in 1824, 45;
commissioner at Ghent, 71;
negotiates for joint occupation of Oregon, 109;
interview with Huskisson, 126.
GILES, WM. B., _decease of_, his peculiar talent, 683;
the Charles Fox of the House, 683;
his character, 683.
GILMER, GEORGE, Representative from Georgia, 7;
Governor, 7;
action relative to the Cherokees, 165.
_Globe Newspaper, the establishment of._--
An interview, 129;
scheme to set aside Gen. Jackson and run Mr. Calhoun for the next
President, 129;
propositions, 129;
communicated to General Jackson, 129;
the Telegraph newspaper, 129;
Francis P. Blair, 129;
how brought to the notice of General Jackson, 129;
establishes the _Globe newspaper_, 130;
stand taken by, 182.
_Gold currency_, remarks of Mr. Benton upon a, 436;
bills to equalize the value of gold and silver and legalizing the
tender of foreign coins in either, brought forward, 469;
the relative value of the two metals, 469;
experience of Mexico and South America, 469;
16 to 1, 469;
bill passed, 469;
its good effects, 469, 470.
_Government_, the, its personal aspect in 1820, 7.
GRANNY WHITE, the case of, 105.
GRUNDY, FELIX, offers anti-nullification resolutions, 34.
H
HALL, THOMAS H., Representative from North Carolina, 7.
HAMAR, THOMAS L., on the admission of Arkansas, 634.
HAMILTON, General, argument for a national bank drawn from the
Indian War, 2.
HAMILTON, JAMES A., acts as Secretary of State, 119.
HARDIN, BENJAMIN, Representative from Kentucky, 7.
_Hartford convention._--Design of secession imputed to, 4.
HAYNE, ROBERT Y., on revision of the tariff, 99;
on the duty on indigo, 99;
on sales of the public lands, 132;
debate with Webster, 138, 140;
in reply to Webster, 140;
against Van Buren as Minister to England, 215;
on southern resistance to the tariff, 274.
HENDRICKS, WILLIAM, Representative from Indiana, 7.
HILL, ISAAC, on abolition petitions, 614.
HOLMES, JOHN, Senator from Maine, 7;
votes for the admission of Missouri, 9;
against Van Buren as Minister to England, 215.
HORSEY, OUTERBRIDGE, votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8.
_House of Representatives._--
Errors of De Tocqueville, 205;
reputation of the work in Europe, 205;
immense superiority attributed to the Senate arising from the
different manner of election, 205;
statement of De Tocqueville, 205;
its tenor to disparage democracy--to attack the principle of
popular elections, 205;
advantage of extending instead of restricting the privilege of the
direct vote, 206;
further remarks on his statement, 206;
every man of eminence has owed his first elevation to popular
elections, 206;
experience of England, Scotland, Ireland and Rome, of the success
of a direct vote, 206;
popular election the safest and wisest mode of election, 206;
the difference then between the two Houses has vanished, 206;
causes to account for an occasional difference, 206;
statesmen not improvised, 207;
time often required to carry measures, 207;
instance parliamentary reform, 207;
other great British measures, 207;
short service the evil of the House, 207;
instances of Adams and Randolph retaken up by the people when
dropped from the Senate, 207;
this error disparages the controlling branch of our
Government, 207;
the British House of Commons, 208;
the Senate now occupies prominent public attention, 208.
HUNTER, WILLIAM, Senator from Rhode Island, 7.
I
_Imprisonment for debt, abolition of._--
Act of Congress passed to abolish all imprisonment on process
issuing from the courts of the United States, 292;
effect of the example, 292;
report, 292;
extracts, 292;
"power of the creditor over the debtor in ancient Greece and
Rome, 292;
the history of English jurisprudence furnishes the remarkable
fact that for many centuries personal liberty could not be
violated for debt, 292;
progress of imprisonment in England, 293;
further remarks," 293;
act passed, 293;
effect upon the States, 293;
imprisonment condemned by morality, by humanity, and by the
science of political economy, 294.
_Incendiary publications circulated by mail._--
Moved, that so much of the President's message as related to
this subject be referred to a select committee, 580;
opposed, should go to the committee on post-offices and
post-roads, 580;
object to secure a committee that would calmly investigate the
whole subject, 580;
discussion relative to the committee, 580;
special committee appointed, 580;
bill and report, 580;
dissent of various members of the committee from the sentiments
of the report, 581;
two parts exceptionable, 581;
the nature of the Federal Government founded in "compact" and on
interference of non-slave States with slavery in other
States, 581;
extracts from the report, 581, 582, 583;
insidiousness of the report consisted in the assumption of
impending danger of the abolition of slavery in all the
slave States, and the necessity for extraordinary means to
prevent these dire calamities, when the fact was that
there was not one particle of any such danger, 584;
the report foreshadows disunion, 584;
in vain to expect security or protection for the slaveholding
States except from themselves, and concert only wanted
among them to obtain this end, 584;
Calhoun recurs to secession for a new grievance, 585;
remark of Clay relative to the compromise of 1833, 585;
remarks of Mr. Webster, 586;
examination of the features of the bill, 586;
remarks of Mr. Clay on the bill, 586;
the bill not only unnecessary, but as a law of dangerous, if not
a doubtful authority, 586;
whence did Congress derive the power to pass this law? 587.
Votes on the bill, 587;
three successive tie votes, 587;
yeas and nays called, 587;
the Vice-President called for, 587;
gives the casting vote for engrossment, 587;
remarks on the vote of various Senators, 587.
_Indian Factory System._--
Its origin, 21;
objects, 21;
how carried on, 21;
its inside working, 21;
bill to repeal passed, 21;
shows how long the Indians and the Government may be cheated
without knowing it, 21.
_Indians, removal of._--
Large tracts held by the Indians in South and Western States in
1821, 27;
early policy of the Government, 27;
applications to the Federal Government incessant for their
removal, 27;
what has become of the tribes in the older States? 27;
speech of Elliot, 27;
views of Jefferson, 28;
action of Monroe's administration, 28;
process for effecting the removal, 28;
bill passed, 28;
treaties ratified, 29;
the system of removal begun, 29.
_Creeks, removal from Georgia._--
Agreement between the United States and Georgia, 58;
treaty of removal concluded in 1824, 58;
resisted by the nation, 59;
attempts to enforce it by the State of Georgia, 59;
interference of the Administration, 59;
new treaty negotiated, 59;
objections to it in the Senate, 59;
further negotiation, 59;
treaty ratified, 59;
an incident, 59;
remarks of Van Buren, 60;
remarks of Benton, 61;
others, 62, 63.
_Cherokees, removal from Georgia._--
Facts of the case, 624;
combination of obstacles, 624;
proceedings relative to, 624;
treaty with the Cherokees, 624;
amount of the stipulation, 624;
treaty opposed in the Senate, 624;
protest from the Cherokee nation, 625;
proposition to reject the treaty, 625;
close vote, 625;
saved by free State votes, 626;
involved an extension of slavery, 626;
just and fraternal spirit of the free States to their southern
brethren, 626.
_Final removal of._--
This policy when commenced, 690;
completed, 690;
effects, 690;
extent of the removals, 690;
increase of area of slave population, 691;
conduct of the northern States, 691;
outcry against General Jackson, 691;
statements of De Tocqueville, 691;
remarks, 692;
amount of payments to the Indians, 692;
the smaller remote tribes, 693;
the Indian bureau, 693.
_Indian sovereignties within States._--
Indian oligarchies set up in some of the States, 163;
remarks of President Jackson's message in 1829-30, 164;
"the condition and ulterior destiny of the Indian tribes within
States, an object of much interest, 164;
has the General Government a right to sustain them in erecting
an independent government within the limits of a State? 164;
reference to the constitution, 164;
their efforts discountenanced," 164;
passage of an act to enable their removal recommended, 164;
an old policy taken hold of by party spirit, 164;
proceedings in Georgia, 164;
proceedings of the Cherokees, 164;
action of Governor Gilmer relative to the suit of the
Cherokees, 165;
charge of Judge Clayton to the Grand Jury of the Indian
countries, 165;
address of Milner to the Foreign Missionary Society of
London, 165;
remarks, 166;
the case of George Tassels, 166;
answer of Governor Gilmer to a request to make up a case before
the United States Supreme Court, 166;
settlement, 166.
INGHAM, SAMUEL D., Secretary of the Treasury, 119;
resigns his seat in the cabinet, 181.
_Internal Improvements_ within the States, source of the
question, 3;
New York canal finished, 22;
roads and canals all the vogue, 22;
candidates for the Presidency spread their sails, 22;
advocates of the measure, 22;
two prominent subjects discussed, 22;
extent of the design, 22;
Monroe's veto, 22;
the statement of the question, 22;
constitutional point how viewed in the message, 23;
the post-office and post-road grant of power, 23;
the war power, 23;
the power to regulate commerce, 24;
to pay debts and provide for the general welfare, 24;
to make laws necessary and proper, 25;
to make needful rules and regulations, 26;
the point on which Mr. Monroe yielded, 26;
the act for surveys passed, 26;
places recommended for improvement, 26;
veto message of Jackson, 26;
fate of the system, 27.
J
JACKSON, ANDREW, views on the cession of Texas, 16;
on internal improvement, 22;
candidate for the Presidency in 1824, 44;
message relative to a removal of the Indians, 164;
veto of Maysville road bill, 167;
letter to Van Buren, relative to his agency in the rupture of
the cabinet, 217;
veto of the recharter of the bank, 251;
elected President, 282;
proclamation against South Carolina, 299;
retains the bill to distribute the proceeds of the sales of the
public lands, 364;
veto, 365.
_His administration._--
His inaugural address, 119;
his cabinet, 119;
members of Congress, 120;
Speaker, 121;
recommendations of his first annual message, 121;
"amendment of the constitution relative to elections of
President and Vice President," 121;
remarks, 122;
amendment to the constitution too far removed from the
people, 122;
events impressively urge it, 122;
not another example on earth of a free people surrendering the
choice of their President, 122;
exclusion of members of Congress from office recommended, 122;
remarks of the message on this point, 122;
the policy recommended respecting the navy, 122;
instructions to Virginia Senators in 1800, 122;
the army and navy as found by President Jackson, 123;
recommendations relative to ship building, 123;
the inutility of the Bank of the United States asserted, 123;
remarks of the message, 123;
manner in which they were perverted, 123;
the finances, 124;
other recommendations, 124.
_Breaking up of the Cabinet._--
Resignation of the members, 181;
courtesy of the proceeding, 181;
ground upon which the President placed the required
resignations, 181;
the new cabinet, 181;
excitement in party politics, 181;
attack on Mr. Crawford, 181;
his answer, 181;
exposure of errors of the pamphlet of Calhoun, 181;
the words of Mr. Crawford, 182;
change in the course of the Telegraph newspaper, 182;
the stand taken by the Globe.--_See Globe newspaper._
Twenty-second Congress, 208;
the Speaker, 209;
message, 210;
boundary between Maine and New Brunswick referred to the King of
Netherlands, 210;
his opinion on the case, 210;
our claims with France, 210;
a treaty made, 210;
differences with Spain, 210;
claims against Naples, 211;
our demands on the Sicilies, 211;
relations with Russia, 211;
effect of our treaty with Austria, 211;
China and the East Indies, 212;
Mexico, 212;
Central America, 212;
South American powers, 212;
state of the finances, 213;
insolvent debtors to the Government, 213;
election of President and Vice President by a direct vote of the
people, 213;
the bank of the United States, 213.
Message after a second election, 283;
wholly confined to business topics, 283;
the finances, 283;
extinguishment of the national debt, 283;
reduction of burthens on the people, 283;
protection should be limited to a few articles of indispensable
necessity, 284;
views on the public lands, 284;
should cease to be a source of revenue soon as practicable, 284;
the federal title should be extinguished in the States, 284;
donations or sales at barely reimbursing prices is the wise
policy of the government, 284;
after a fixed day the surrender of that unsold should take
place, 284;
advantages of this course, 284;
removal of the Indians nearly consummated, 285;
obstacles to the removal of the Indian tribes, 285;
the removals seized upon by party spirit, 285;
Congress appealed to and refused to intervene, 285;
the Supreme Court appealed to and refused the application, 285;
the case of the missionaries, 285;
the case of Tassells, 285;
interference in the affairs of Georgia, 286;
an intimation given of the insolvency of the bank and the
insecurity of the public deposits, 286;
this intimation received with scorn by the friends of the
bank, 286;
conduct of the bank in relation to the payment of five millions
of the three per cent. stock, 286;
the attitude of South Carolina, 286;
opposition to the revenue laws, 286.
Message to 23d Congress, 371;
the state of the finances, 371;
remarks relative to an economical administration, 371;
reasons for the removal of the public deposits, 371;
amendments to the constitution recommended, 372;
remarks on conventions, 372.
_Combination against General Jackson._--
Incident in the career of Mr. Fox, leader in the House of
Commons, 400;
union against Gen. Jackson, 400;
their movements take a personal and vindictive character, 400;
power of the bank to produce distress, 401;
speakers, 401;
the business of the combination divided--distress and panic
the object, 401;
the friends of General Jackson, 401;
speech of Mr. Clay on the removal of the deposits, 402.
"In the midst of a revolution, hitherto bloodless, 402;
the Judiciary has not been exempted from the prevailing rage for
innovation, 402;
a large proportion of the good nod enlightened men of the Union
are yielding to sentiments of despondency, 402;
at the close of last session the power of Congress over the
purse was left untouched, 403;
after all the testimonies of the safety of the public money,
who would have supposed that the place would have been
changed? 403;
by virtue of whose will, power, dictation, were the deposits
removed? 404;
the President has no power over the Public Treasury, 404;
some of the tremendous consequences which may ensue from this
high-handed measure, 405;
what security have the people against the lawless conduct of the
President? 405;
the instance of Cæsar, 405;
what is it our duty to do?" 406;
remarks in reply, 406.
"The first of the resolutions a direct impeachment of the
President, 406;
we are trying an impeachment, 406;
the Senate should consider well before they proceed
further, 407;
the right of the President to dismiss his secretaries, 407;
two other impeachments going on at the same time, 407;
the President on trial for a high crime, 407;
for a misdemeanor, 408;
the Secretary of the Treasury on trial, 408;
the charge of being the instrument of the President, 408;
people called upon to rise and drive the Goths from the
capitol, 409;
the bank was not the Treasury of the United States, 409;
fourteenth article of the bank charter, 409;
the legal existence of the Treasury brought out by the
debates," 410.
Union of Clay and Calhoun against Jackson, 411;
speech of Calhoun, 411;
gives Clay assurance of aid, 411;
the robbery of the Treasury, 411;
the revolution not to go backwards, 412;
entirely owing to the military nod nullifying attitude of South
Carolina that the compromise was passed, 412;
a political coalition to act against Gen. Jackson, 412;
opposition to the "usurpations" of the President, 413;
contempt and scorn at the Secretary's reasons for removing the
deposits, 413;
the removal of Secretary Dunne an abuse of power, 413;
Calhoun's independence of the bank, 414;
Clay disclaims all connection with the bank, 414;
the list of Congressional borrowers or retainers large, 415.
Message to Congress in 1834, 477;
relations with France, 477;
the indemnity stipulated in the treaty has not been paid, 477;
extracts, 477;
question of waiting on the action of France, or of action on our
part, referred to Congress, 478;
United States should insist on a prompt execution, 478;
consequences considered, 478;
collision with France to be regretted on account of her position
with regard to liberal institutions, 478;
condition of the finances, 479;
freedom from public debt, 479;
seizure of the dividends due the United States on stock, by the
bank, 479;
other proceedings of the bank, 480;
criminality of the bank in making the distress, 480;
bank losses commenced at this period, 480;
selling the stock in the bank, 480;
law relative to public deposits, 480;
increase of the gold currency, 481;
reform in the Presidential election, 481.
Meeting of twenty-fourth Congress, 568;
choice of Speaker, 569;
message of the President, 589;
"relations with France, 569;
origin of our claims against France, 569;
extent of the injuries we received, 569;
an affair of uninterrupted negotiation for twenty years, except
a short time when France was overwhelmed by the military
power of United Europe, 569;
subject brought up in the message of 1829, 570;
exceptions taken to the message by the French Government, 570;
the justice of the claims recognized and the amount stipulated
in the treaty of 1831, 570;
its ratification, 570;
delays of the French Government in their action upon the subject
of its fulfilment heretofore stated, 570;
expectations founded on the promises of the French Government
not realized, 571;
consultation with Congress relative to measures for
reprisal, 571;
regarded as an insult by the French Government, 571;
recall of their Minister and suspension of all diplomatic
intercourse, 571;
having vindicated the dignity of France, they next proceeded to
illustrate her justice, 571;
bill passed in the Chamber of Deputies to make the
appropriations necessary to carry into effect the
treaty, 571;
a stipulation that the money should not be paid until it was
ascertained that no steps had been authorized by Congress
of a hostile character towards France, 571;
this point ascertained, 572;
subsequently the bill amended to require a satisfactory
explanation of the President's message," 572;
the apology repulsed by the President as a stain on the national
character, 572;
injurious effects of the loss of the fortification bill in the
previous Congress, 572;
the humane policy which governed the United States in the
removal of the Indians, 573;
the revival of the gold currency and its influence on the
industry of the country, 573;
increase of specie in the country, 573;
the transportation of the mails by railroad and the extortion
of the companies, 574;
the transmission by mail into the slave States of incendiary
publications tending to excite servile insurrection, 574;
reform in the mode of electing the two first officers of the
Republic, 575.
_Foreign Diplomacy_.--Most alarm felt from this part of his
administration by the opponents of his election, 601;
no part more successful, beneficial, and honorable, 601.
The British West India trade recovered, 602.
The French Indemnity treaty, 602;
efforts previously for redress, 602;
the message, 602;
Rives sent as Minister, 602;
the treaty, 602;
further proceedings, 603.
The Danish treaty of indemnity for spoliations on American
commerce, 603;
consisted of illegal seizures and confiscations of American
vessels in Danish ports during the time of the British
orders in Council and the French decrees, 603;
negotiations of J. Q. Adams' administration, 603;
subsequent success of the negotiations, 603.
Neapolitan indemnity treaty for spoliations on American
commerce, 603;
previous efforts to obtain indemnity, 603;
cause of delay, 604;
embarrassments, 604;
success, 604.
Spanish indemnity treaty for causes of complaint since 1819, 604;
Spanish blockades of ports of South American colonies, 604;
state of negotiations, 604;
success, 605.
Russian commercial treaty, none before negotiated, 605;
many previous efforts, 605;
every thing else granted but a commercial treaty, 605;
final success of negotiations, 606.
Portuguese indemnity for seizures during the blockade of
Terceira, 606;
treaty made, 606;
inability of Portugal to pay, 606;
time extended and payment made, 606.
Treaty with the Ottoman Empire made in 1831, 606;
first treaty with that power, 606;
still further treaty in relation to our commerce needed, 607;
stipulations, 607;
success, 607.
Renewal of the treaty with Morocco, 608.
Treaty with Siam, 608.
Treaty with Sultan of Muscat, 608.
Last message, 684;
recapitulation of the auspicious state of things at home and
abroad, 684;
the deposit act, 684;
the distribution scheme, 685;
effects, 685;
issuance of the Treasury circular, 685;
attack upon the circular in Congress, 686;
Seminole hostilities in Florida, 686;
the stock in the Bank of the United States, 687;
the delay of appropriations, 688;
mail contracts with railroads, 688;
supervision over the Indian tribes, 689;
the mode of the Presidential election, 689.
Farewell address of President Jackson, 732;
on disunion, 732;
his apprehensions, 733.
Conclusion of his administration, 733;
remarks and reflections, 733, 734;
appearance at the inauguration of Van Buren, 735;
his reception, 735;
his retirement, 735;
his decease, 736;
his first appearance to the writer, 736;
first interview, 736;
intercourse, 736;
Mrs. Jackson, 737, 739;
his character, 737, 738;
elected Major-General in Tennessee, 738;
nephews, 739.
_Jackson and Calhoun, rupture between._--
Pamphlet of Mr. Calhoun relative to, 167;
its title, 167;
its contents, 167;
the case as it was made out in the pamphlet an intrigue on the
part of Van Buren to supplant a rival, 168;
this case confronted by Jackson, 168;
his previous opinion of Calhoun, 168;
the reply of Jackson never published heretofore, 168;
how it came into the possession of Benton, 168;
letter of Kendall, 168;
contents of Jackson's exposition, 168;
justification of himself under the law of nations and the treaty
with Spain for taking military possession of Florida, 168;
do. under the orders of Monroe and Calhoun as Secretary of
War, 168;
a statement of Mr. Calhoun's conduct towards him in all that
affair of the Seminole War, &c., 169;
"introduction, 169;
extracts from orders, 169;
letter of Calhoun, 169;
Jackson's letter to Monroe, 169;
manner of the reception the letter, 170;
reply by John Rhea, 170;
circumstances under which Jackson entered Florida, 170;
conduct of the Spanish authorities, 171;
the impressions under which Jackson acted, 171;
his dispatch to the Secretary of War, 172;
acted within the letter and spirit of orders, and in accordance
with the secret understanding of the Government, in taking
possession of St. Marks and Pensacola, 172;
letters to the Secretary of War, 172;
no replies of disapprobation, 172;
statements of a Georgia journal, 173;
no reason to doubt Mr. Calhoun's approval, 173;
further evidence, 173;
letter of Col. A. P. Hayne, 173;
his impressions derived from Mr. Calhoun, 174;
informed that Calhoun was the instigator of the attacks upon
him, 174;
and that Crawford was unjustly blamed, 174;
statement of Mr. Cobb, 174;
inquiries of Col. Hamilton of Mr. Calhoun, 174;
private letter of Gen. Jackson to Mr. Calhoun, 174;
Calhoun's reply, 175;
recapitulation, 175;
how the suspicions of Gen. Jackson were wakened against Mr.
Calhoun, 175;
statement of Mr. T. Ringold, 175;
the statement of Mr. Crawford obtained, 175;
inquiry relative to its correctness, of Calhoun, 175;
his reply, 175;
_note_, 175;
united testimony of the Cabinet, 176;
toast of Calhoun by Gen. Jackson, 177;
the report on the resolutions of censure in the House, 177;
its bitterness due to Mr. Calhoun, 177;
proceedings of Mr. Leacock, 177;
Calhoun's secret communications to him, 178;
report of Mr. Leacock, 178;
a darker shade added, 178;
success of Calhoun's management thus far, 179;
the mask worn by Mr. Calhoun, 179;
further statements," 180;
calamitous events followed this rupture, 180;
Crawford's words relative to the production of the private letter
of Jackson to Monroe in the Cabinet meeting, 180.
_Jackson, attempted assassination of._--
The President and Cabinet attend the funeral of William E.
Davis, 521;
circumstances of the attempt to shoot the President, 521;
the assailant knocked down and secured, 521;
the prisoner, 521;
the pistols, 521;
prisoner examined by physicians relative to the soundness of his
mind, 522;
report of physicians, 522;
diseased mind acted upon by a general outcry against a public
man, 523;
not tried, but treated as insane, 524.
_Jackson, President, Senatorial Condemnation of._--
Clay and Calhoun the leading spirits in this measure, 423;
the resolution passed, 423;
irrelevance of the resolution to any right or duty of the
Senate, 423;
its effect, 423;
composure of President Jackson, 424;
course of his friends, 424;
mischief of the distress, 424;
the Protest of the President, 425;
its contents, 425;
extracts, 425;
"it wants both the form and substance of a legislative
measure, 425;
the whole phraseology judicial, 425;
its charges, 425;
in substance an impeachment of the President, 425;
this impeachment originated in the Senate without the aid or
concurrence of the House, 426;
Senators from three States voted contrary to the sense of their
legislatures, 426;
words of the Protest, 427;
an appeal to his private history for the patriotism and
integrity of his life," 427;
the excitement which ensued upon its reading in the Senate, 427.
Notice of the Expunging resolution given, 428;
remarks, 428;
"instance of the House of Commons, 428;
the question brought before the American people, 428;
motion to reject the President's message, is the question, 429;
the charges of the resolution, 429;
speeches in support of the resolution, 430;
three characters in which the Senate can act, 430;
one of the most difficult and delicate tasks in the convention
was to select a court for the trial of impeachments, 430;
it is an object not more to be desired, than difficult to be
obtained, 431;
further remarks, 431;
the Star Chamber Court, 432;
what occasion has the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment,
for the power of execution," 432;
motion carried, 432;
reasons for the Senate's refusal, 433.
JEFFERSON, THOMAS, rejects the treaty of 1807, 1;
his idea of a commercial communication with Asia, 14;
his interview with the traveller Ledyard, 14;
seeks discovery of the Columbia river, 14;
projects the expedition of Lewis and Clarke, 14;
views on the cession of Texas, 16;
letter to Dr. Breckenridge, 16;
as a statesman, 28;
remarks on future French affairs, 31;
remarks on the road from Georgia to New Orleans, 43;
decease of, 87;
character, 87, 88;
his connection with the doctrine of nullification, 148.
JESUP, Gen., second to Mr. Clay in the duel with Randolph, 70;
his statement, 70.
JOHNNY, the servant of Randolph, anxiety for his master at the duel
between Randolph and Clay, 75.
JOHNSON, CHARLES, on reference of the Bank memorial to a select
committee, 235.
JOHNSON, HENRY, Senator from Louisiana, 7;
governor, 7.
JOHNSON, RICHARD M., Senator from Kentucky, 7;
votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8;
Judge of Supreme Court, 8.
On committee of bank investigation, 241;
reports on imprisonment for debt, 292.
_Joint Committee_ of both Houses on the admission of Missouri, 9.
JONES, FRANCIS, Representative from Tennessee, 7.
K
KENDALL, AMOS, letter to Calhoun, 168;
Postmaster General, 181.
KING, RUFUS, Senator from New York, 7;
appointed Minister
to England, 57;
long service in the Government, 57;
his manners, 57;
dress, 57;
courtesy between him and Van Buren, 57;
his suggestions to Senator Benton, 58;
his statement of the sentiment of the revolutionary period, 58.
KING, WILLIAM R., Senator from Alabama, 7;
votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8;
on the Expunging resolutions of Alabama, 525, 526, 527.
KING, JOHN P., on abolition petitions, 613, 617;
on the independence of Texas, 666.
KREMER, GEORGE, avowed author of an anonymous publication against
Clay, 71.
L
LAFAYETTE, _his visit_.--
An absence of forty years, 29;
manner of his reception, 29;
address of Speaker Clay, 30;
Lafayette in the presence of posterity, 30;
appropriation of money and land to Lafayette, 30;
the grants opposed 30;
reasons, 30;
advocated, 31;
his sacrifices, 31;
views of Jefferson, 31;
return of Lafayette to France, 31.
LANMAN, JAMES, _the case of_.--On the expiration of the Senatorial
term of Lanman, the Legislature of Connecticut failing to
elect, the governor appointed him, 56;
debate on the validity of the appointment, 56;
not a case in which a governor can fill a vacancy, the vacancy
foreseen, not _happened_, 56;
precedents reported to the Senate, 56;
unsatisfactory, 56;
motion to admit, rejected, 56.
LAWRENCE, RICHARD, attempts to assassinate President Jackson, 521.
LEAKE, WALTER, votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8.
LEDYARD, JOHN, attempts the discovery of the Columbia river, 14.
LETCHER, ROBERT P., moves the compromise tariff bill, 309.
LEWIS, of North Carolina, on the admission of Arkansas, 632.
LIVINGSTON, EDWARD, Secretary of State, 181.
LLOYD, EDWARD, Senator from Maryland, 7;
governor, 7;
votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8.
LOGAN, WILLIAM, votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8.
LOWNDES, WILLIAM, Representative from South Carolina, 7;
weight of his opinions, 8;
on the committee to whom was referred the application of
Missouri, 9;
decease, 18;
his character, 18.
LOWRIE, WALTER, votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8.
M
MACAULAY, his description of removals from office, 162.
MACON, NATHANIEL, Senator from North Carolina, 7;
votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8;
opposes the grants to Lafayette, 30;
his vote for Vice-President in 1824, 45;
answer relative to the authorship of the report on the Panama
mission, 68.
Retirement of, 114;
his temperament, 114;
fixed the time for his retirement long before, 114;
his resignation, 114;
his death, 114;
his character, 114;
sketch of his life, 115;
enters the army, 115;
refuses to leave the camp for the legislative assembly of his
native State, 115;
the battle of Guilford, 115;
Macon's civil life, 116;
his political principles, 116;
disregard of wealth, 117;
his friendships, 117;
his executor, 117;
codicil to his will, 117;
his charity, 118;
his dress, 118;
his disinterestedness, 118;
his simplicity, 118;
letter on the Military Academy, 182;
his character, 534.
MADISON, JAMES, yields in favor of the second bank, 3;
on the regulation of commerce, 156;
his veto of an internal improvement bill, 167;
his letter on slavery agitation, 609;
remarks, 623;
decease of--time of his death, 678;
remarks of Dr. Witherspoon, 678;
his talent, 677;
his writings, 679;
characteristics, 679.
MCGUIRE, J. C., publishes a quarto volume of Madison's letters, 149.
MANGUM, WILLIE P., on the branch Mints, 550.
MARCY, WILLIAM L., for Van Buren as Minister to England, 216.
MARSHALL, JOHN, Chief Justice, 7;
administers the oath of office to Jackson, 119;
decease of Chief Justice, 681;
his character, 681;
his speech in the case of Jonathan Robbins, 681.
MCDUFFIE, GEORGE, moves amendment to the constitution, 37;
expresses the views of the South on the revised tariff, 100;
on revision of the tariff, 100;
on the Committee of Bank Investigation, 241.
MCINTOSH, WILLIAM, Chief of Creek Indians, 58;
negotiates a treaty, 58.
MCLANE, LOUIS, Representative from Delaware, 7;
sent Minister to England, 127;
Secretary of the Treasury, 181.
MCLEAN, JOHN, Postmaster General, 7;
Postmaster-General, 58;
appointed Justice of the Supreme Court, 120.
MCKINNEY, THOMAS L., superintendent of the Indian factory
system, 21.
MEIGS, R. J., coadjutor with Clay on the Missouri question, 10.
_Memorial_ of the Bank Directors to Congress relative to the
removal of the public deposits, 379;
of the rejected Government Directors of the Bank to Congress, 389.
MERCER, CHARLES FENTON, Representative from Virginia, 7.
_Message_ on the South Carolina proceedings, 303;
relative to the distribution of the proceeds of the sale of public
lands, 365;
to twenty-third Congress, 369;
on the renomination of the Bank Directors, 386.
METCALFE, THOMAS, Representative from Kentucky, 7;
governor, 7.
_Michigan_, admission of. _See Arkansas_.
_Military Academy._--
Numerous desertions in the army, 182;
difficulty to find a remedy for the evil, 182;
letter from Mr. Macon, 182;
not a government in the world so unfriendly to the rights of the
people as ours since the establishment of the West Point
Institution, 182;
officers rise from the ranks in all countries of Europe, 183;
returns to Parliament, 183;
how is it in our service? 183;
difficulty of obtaining a commission for a citizen in the
regular regiments, 183;
case of Hermann Thorn, 183;
admitted to service in Austria, 183;
case of Kit Carson, 183;
rejected because he did not come through the West Point
gate, 183;
this rule of appointment become the law of the land, 183;
popular opposition to the institution, 184;
it is said Washington was the founder of the institution, 184;
the institution of his day a very different affair, 184;
explained, 184;
all was right until 1812, 184;
extract from the act of 1812, 184;
the deception of the clause, 184;
other deceptions which follow, 185;
this establishment is mainly a school for the gratuitous
education of those who have influence to get there, 184;
gratuitous instruction to the children of the living is a
vicious principle, 185;
vital objections to the institution, 185;
a monopoly of the appointments how effected, 185;
the President and the academy are the real appointing power, and
the Senate an office for the registration of
appointments, 186;
act of 1812 rests its constitutionality on fictions, 186;
the title of the act fictitious, 186;
its title, 186;
our academy an imitation of European military schools, 186;
the remedy for these evils is to repeal the act of 1812, 186.
_Attempted Inquiry into._--
Organized under the act of 1812, 638;
movements against early commenced, 638;
committee appointed, 638;
report 638;
no attention given to it, 638;
other motions, 638;
debate, 639;
a monopoly for the gratuitous education of the sons of the
rich and influential, 639;
some rule should apply to the army as applies to members of
Congress, 640;
further efforts to obtain an investigation, 640;
attack on the appropriation resorted to, 641;
remarks of Franklin Pierce, 641;
"grounds of opposition, 641;
why has this investigation been resisted? 641;
from the middling interest comes the most efficient support in
trying periods, 642;
exclusiveness of the institution, 642;
the military academy not calculated to make the army
effective, 642;
the institution in the times of Washington, &c., and the
institution as it is now, 643;
gratuitous education in Great Britain examined, 644;
further remarks," 645.
A clause in the appropriation bill for the purchase of forty
horses, &c., erection of a building, a riding house in bad
weather, 712;
struck out, 712;
opposition to its restoration, 712, 713;
further debate, 714.
_Missouri, admission of._--
Exciting question of session of Congress of 1820-'21, 8;
the state admitted without restriction, 8;
the compromise, 8;
work of the South, 8;
unanimity of the President's cabinet, 8;
unanimity of the Senate on the compromise, 8;
its constitutionality called in question, 8;
Senators voting for it, 8;
vote in the House, 8;
the increase of slave States avowed to be a question of political
power between the two sections of the Union, 8;
provision in the Missouri Constitution forbidding Legislative
interference, 8;
clause authorizing the prohibition of the emigration of free
people of color, 9;
its treatment by Congress, 9;
the real point of objection, 9;
application for admission presented and referred, 9;
report of committee, 9;
resolution rejected, 9;
its fate in the Senate, 9;
House reject the resolution of the Senate, 9;
joint committee ordered and appointed in both Houses, 9;
report, 9;
adopted in the House, 9;
in the Senate, 10;
compliance of the General Assembly of Missouri, 10;
defeat of the attempt to restrict a State from having slaves if
she chose, 10;
the real struggle, object of, 10;
the objectionable clause, how since regarded, 10;
excitement of the occasion, 10;
a federal movement, 10;
sentiments of the northern democracy, 10;
a movement for the balance of power, 10.
_Missouri resolutions._--
Not now discussed, 360;
the old confederation was a league with a legislature acting on
sovereignties, 361;
the Federalist on the defects of the old system, 361;
on the certain destruction of the Union when the sword is once
drawn between the members, 361;
advantage of working if the laws operate on citizens and not on
States, 361.
_Missouri Question, extension of._--
Object to extend the boundary on the Missouri river, 626;
difficulties, 626;
threefold, 626;
a bill for the alteration of the compromise line and the extension
of the boundary reported, 627;
passed both Houses, 627;
this was the answer which northern members gave to the imputed
design of abolishing slavery, 627.
MITCHELL, GEORGE E., on reference of the bank memorial, to a select
committee, 284.
MONROE, JAMES, negotiates the treaty of 1807, 1;
efforts for the declaration of war in 1812, 6: President, 7;
letter showing the unanimity of his cabinet on the Missouri
question, 8;
his letters to Jackson on the cession of Texas, 15;
ditto to Jefferson, 16;
cause of these letters, 17;
veto on internal improvement bill, 22;
veto of Cumberland road bill, 167;
decease of, his place in history, 679;
his character, 679;
genius, 679;
discretion, 679;
foundation of his political career, 680;
remark of Jefferson, 680;
his career, 680.
MONROE doctrine, 67.
MOORE, GABRIEL, anecdote respecting the rejection of Van Buren as
Minister to England, 215;
against Van Buren as Minister to England, 215.
MORRIS, THOMAS, on abolition petitions, 612.
N
_New Mexico_, _internal trade with_.--All foreign ingress cut off
until 1821, 41;
intercourse between Missouri and the "Western Internal
Provinces," 41;
a branch of interior commerce, 41;
a bill brought into the Senate to open road and to afford
protection against the savages, 41;
statement of facts relative to the trade, 41;
precedents for the construction of a road, 42;
remarks of Mr. Jefferson on the road from Georgia to New
Orleans, 43;
the foreign part of the road the point of difficulty, 43;
moved to strike out the extra territorial part of the national
highway, 43;
views of Senators, 43, 44;
bill passed, 44;
road to New Mexico built under Adams' administration, 44.
NILES, JOHN M., on the Independence of Texas, 668.
NOBLE, JAMES, votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8.
_Nullification_--Event of its origin, 95;
the assumed right of a State to annul an act of Congress, 138;
new turn in the debate, 138;
allusions to the conduct of New England in 1812, 138;
meetings in South Carolina on the Tariff, 138;
resolves passed, 138;
their defence, 183;
the doctrine summed up, 138;
counter explanation, 139;
the Virginia resolution, 139;
how the South Carolina doctrine would have operated in New
England, 139;
the doctrine has no foundation in the constitution or in
Virginia resolutions, 139;
"the character of the government," 139;
"supremacy of the constitution and laws, 140;"
interpretation of the Virginia resolutions disputed, 140;
remarks, 140;
Hartford Convention, 140;
pledge of forcible resistance to any attempt to enforce
unconstitutional laws, 140;
remarks, 141;
Webster's peroration, 141;
remarks of Benton, 142;
his slowness to believe in any design to subvert the Union, 142.
Anniversary of Jefferson's birth-day, 148;
a subscription dinner, 148;
the guests, 148;
the regular toasts, 148;
conversation excited by them, 148;
toast of the President, 148;
toast of Calhoun, 148;
remarks relative to Mr. Jefferson, 148;
his vindication, 148;
resolves of Virginia, 149.
_Ordinance in South Carolina_.--The fate of the American system
was sealed by the elections of 1832, 297;
the course of South Carolina, 297;
words of the ordinance, 297, 298;
it placed the State in the attitude of open and forcible
resistance to the laws of the United States to take effect
in the February following, 298;
officially communicated to the President, 298;
his oath of office, 298.
_Proclamation against nullification_.--Proceedings of the South
Carolina convention stated, 299;
the ordinance founded not on the indefeasible right of resisting
acts which are plainly unconstitutional and too oppressive
to be endured, 299;
but on the position that a State may declare the acts of Congress
void and prohibit their execution, 300;
two appeals from an unconstitutional act, 300;
words of the social compact, 300;
if this doctrine had been established at an early day the Union
would have been dissolved in its infancy, 300;
our constitutional history shows it would have been repudiated if
proposed for a feature of our Government, 300;
the constitution declares, &c., 301;
a law repealed by a small majority of the voters of a single
State, 301;
the constitution forms a government, not a league, 301;
address to the members of the convention, 302.
_Message on the South Carolina proceedings_.--Notice in the annual
message, 303;
continuation and aggravation of the proceedings, 303;
special message, 303;
"ordinance transmitted by the Governor of South Carolina, 303;
hope indulged that by explaining the recommendations proposed to
Congress, the authorities of South Carolina might
recede, 303;
hence proclamation issued, 303;
the reasonable expectations not realized, 303;
neither the recommendations of the Executive nor the disposition
manifested by Congress, nor the unequivocal expression of
public opinion, have produced any relaxation in the measures
of opposition, 303;
the State authorities actively organizing their military
resources, 304;
proclamation of the Governor has openly defied the authority of
the Executive of the Union, 304;
determination of the authorities of South Carolina, 304;
acts on the part of South Carolina, 304, 305;
no sufficient cause for such proceedings on the part of South
Carolina, 306;
she still claims to be a component part of the Union, 306;
the duty of the Executive, 307;
recommendations of the President, 307;
importance of the crisis," 307.
Deep feeling of discontent in South Carolina operated upon by
politicians, 308;
this feeling just and reasonable, and operated upon by politicians
for personal and ambitious objects, 308;
twofold aspect of his proclamation and message, 308;
one of relief and justice in reducing the revenue; and the other,
firm and mild in enforcing the laws against offenders, 308;
two classes of discontented--the honest and the politicians, 308;
bills proposed in Congress, 308.
_Revenue Collection or Force Bill._--Bill to secure the execution
of certain laws in South Carolina, 330;
remarks, 330;
"contains no novel principle, 330;
provision for removal of the Custom House, 330;
legislation necessary, 330;
secession on one hand, and nullification on the other, 331;
state of affairs in South Carolina, 331;
the bill confers on the President the power of closing old ports
of entry and opening new ones, 331;
a prominent cause which led to the revolution, 331;
empowered to employ the land and naval forces to put down all
abettors, 332;
no ambiguity about this measure, 332;
the President is charged by the constitution with the execution of
the laws, 332;
the President's measure, 332;
the resemblance between this bill and the Boston Port bill, 333;
the war is waged against the measures of the administration," 333;
the support or Mr. Webster, 333.
_Nullification resolutions._--Resolutions on the powers of the
government introduced into the Senate, 334;
counter-resolutions offered, 334;
source whence Mr. Calhoun obtained the seminal idea of
nullification as a remedy in a government, 335;
Virginia resolution of, 98, 99;
the essential idea derived from the Roman tribunitian veto, 335;
considered a cure for all the disorders of a Roman State, 335;
remarks, 335;
"the Roman system, 335;
operation of the Roman veto, 335;
the right of a State to interfere, 336;
governments of several States might be cited as an argument
against this view, 336;
the tendency to conflict in this action," 336;
Calhoun's opinion of the defects of our form of government,
and the remedy for these defects, 337;
the defect of an unchecked authority of the majority, 337;
the remedy an authority in the minority to check that majority and
to secede, 337;
example of Jewish history, 337;
its squint to the Virginia resolutions, 337;
circumstances under which this remedy contended for, 337;
object to create or find this remedy in our system, 337;
nullification, resistance, secession, found by Calhoun in the
Virginia resolutions, 337;
all that was intended by the Virginia resolutions, being merely
an appeal to public opinion, 337;
debate, 337;
"what was the conduct of Virginia in the memorable era of 98 and
99, 338;
her real intentions and policy were proved not by declarations
and speeches merely, but by facts, 338;
the constitution does not provide for events which must be
preceded by its own distraction, 338;
secession and nullification revolutionary, 338;
its tendency is to break up the constitution as to all the other
States, 339;
it strikes a deadly blow at the vital principle of the whole
Union, 339;
it arrests the power of the law, absolves the citizen from duty,
and elevates another authority to supreme command, 339;
the laws must be repealed throughout the whole Union, or executed
in Carolina as well as elsewhere, 339.
"Nature of our federal government, 339;
a union in contradistinction to a league, 339;
it is not a compact or confederacy between the people of the
several States in their sovereign capacities, 339;
no State authority has power to dissolve those relations, 340;
the constitution, acts of Congress, &c., the supreme law, 340;
an attempt of a State at nullification a direct usurpation of the
just powers of the federal government," 340;
some other cause than the alleged one at the bottom of this
desire of secession, 340;
ambitious and personal proceedings intimated as involved in the
proceedings of South Carolina, 340;
expression of Calhoun, 340;
a contest between power and liberty, 341;
the freedom and the slave property of the South involved, 341;
exclusion of patriotic men of the South from the Presidency, 341;
contradicted by all history of our national elections, 341;
protective tariff the sole or main cause of the South Carolina
discontent, 341;
remarks on this point, 341;
"another subject connected with this which will prevent the return
of peace and quiet, 341;
the force bill a practical assertion of one theory of the
government against another, 341;
the bill cannot be acquiesced in, unless the South is dead to the
sense of liberty," 341;
these positions not sustained by Southern sentiment, 342--_See
Tariff, Reduction of duties._
O
_Ordinance of 1787._--Authorship claimed for Nathan Dane, 133;
claimed for Jefferson, 133;
history of the case, 133;
its ultimate passage the work of the South, 133;
extracts from the Journal of Congress, 134;
remarks on the claim for Dane of authorship, 134;
"origin of the measure, 134;
an attempt to transfer the honor to the South, 135;
proposed a second time," 135;
statements compared with facts, 135, 136.
_Oregon Territory._--Proposition for the settlement of, first made
at the session of 1820-21, 13;
causes that led to it, 13;
committee moved, 13;
carried, 13;
the committee, 13;
report, 13;
proceedings in the House, 13;
consequences of neglect by the Government, 13;
advantages from its settlement, 13;
historical facts, 14.
_Joint occupation of._--Astoria captured during the war of
1812, 109;
not restored under the treaty of Ghent, 109;
convention for joint occupation concluded at London, 109;
words of the convention, 109;
article written by Benton on the subject, 109;
out traders driven out of the country, 110;
other effects of the joint occupation, 110;
resolutions against the ratification of the subsequent treaty
relative to continuance of the joint occupation, 111.
OTIS, HARRISON GRAY, Senator from Massachusetts, 7.
P
PALMER, WILIAM A., votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8.
_Panama Mission._--A master subject in its day, 65;
gave rise to grave questions, 65;
designed as a popular movement to turn the tide running against
Adams, 65;
the Congress at Panama, 65;
debate in the Senate on the nomination of ministers, 65;
invited by the South American States to send deputies, 65;
motion to debate the question with open doors, 65;
reference to the President, 65;
his answer, 65;
indignation of the Senate, 66;
nominations confirmed, 66;
patronage distributed to advocates of the measure, 66;
the basis of the agreement for the Congress, the existing state of
war between all the new States and the mother country, 66;
its object, 66;
relations of the United States, 66;
message of the President relative to objects of the Congress, 67;
the Monroe doctrine, 67;
extract from Adams' message respecting it, 67;
entirely confined to our own borders, 67;
other objects--advancement of religious liberty, 67;
proofs of our good will, 67;
reference of the message, 67;
adverse report, 67;
expressive of the democratic doctrines of the day, 67;
its general principle that of good-will and friendship, but no
entangling alliances, 68;
remarks of committee on religious freedom, 68;
their views on the Monroe doctrine, 68;
our present unconnected and friendly position regarded as most
beneficial to the republics, 68;
the advantages of friendly relations without entangling
alliances, 69;
right of the President to institute the mission, 69;
relations with Haiti, on what principle established, 69;
excitement produced by the proposed mission, 69.
_Paper_ read to the cabinet by General Jackson relative to the
removal of the public deposits, 376.
_Patronage, Executive, reduction of._--Committee appointed to report
on the expediency of reducing, 80;
the committee, 80;
report, 80;
the six bills reported, 80;
extract from the report, 80;
"grounds of the committee's opinion, 80;
multiply the guards against the abuse of power, 81;
the extent of patronage," 81;
subsequent increase of patronage, 81;
remarks on the bills reported, 81, 82.
PARROTT, JOHN F., votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8.
PIERCE, FRANKLIN, on abolition petitions, 615.
PINCKNEY, CHARLES, Representative from South Carolina, 7.
PINKNEY, WILLIAM, Senator from Maryland, 7;
negotiates the treaty of 1807, 1;
votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8;
decease, 19;
rank as an orator, 19;
speeches, 19;
on the Missouri controversy, 19;
abilities, 20;
manner in which Randolph announces his death, 20;
character, 20.
PLEASANTS, JAMES, Senator from Virginia, 7;
governor, 7;
votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8.
POINDEXTER, GEORGE, against Van Buren as Minister to England, 215;
on the protest of General Jackson, 427.
POLK, JAMES K., on the non-payment of the three per cents., 289;
on continuing the deposits in the bank, 289;
chosen Speaker of the House, 569.
_Presidential election of 1824._--The candidates, 44;
how brought forward, 44;
number of electoral votes, 44;
vote for each, 44;
candidates for the Vice Presidency, 45;
vote, 45.
_In the House._--The theory and practical working of the
constitution in the election of President and
Vice-President, 46;
first election in the House that of Jefferson and Burr, 46;
ballotings, 47;
effect on the constitution, 47;
second election in the House that of 1824, 47;
proceedings, 47;
the democratic principle finally victorious, 47;
conduct of certain individuals, 48;
Clay expresses to Benton his intention to vote for Adams before
the election, 48;
letter of Clay to Benton, 48;
evidences of Clay's declaration, 48;
this election put an end to caucus nominations by members of
Congress, 49;
a different mode of concentrating public opinion adopted 49;
its degeneration, 49;
an anomalous body where the election is now virtually made, 49;
this destructive to the rights and sovereignty of the people, 49;
the remedy, 49.
_Presidential election of 1828._--The candidates, 111;
result 111;
vote of the free States for the slave-holding candidates, 111;
election of Jackson a triumph of democratic principle, 111;
errors of Mons. de Tocqueville, 112;
charge of violent temper against Jackson, 112;
"mediocre talent and no capacity to govern," 112;
"opposed by a majority of enlightened classes," 113;
"raised to the Presidency solely by the recollection of the
victory of New Orleans," 113. _See page_ 282.
_Presidential election of 1836._--The candidates, 683;
Vice-President elected by the Senate, 683;
details 683, 684.
PRESTON, WILLIAM C., on French affairs, 594.
_Protection_ to American Industry, origin of the question, 3.
_Protective System._--The periodical season for its discussion, 265;
the session most prolific of party topics and party contests of
any ever known, 266;
the reason, 266;
the subjects, 266;
the bank and tariff two leading measures, 266;
proposal of the President's message, 266;
the proposition of Mr. Clay, 266;
the seven years before the Tariff and the seven years after, 266;
the one, calamity; the other, prosperity, 266;
remarks, 266;
the seven years of calamity immediately followed the establishment
of the bank, 266;
protection an incident before 1816, afterwards an object, 267;
origin and progress of the protective policy, 267.
"It began on the 4th of July, 1789. The second act on the statute
book, 267;
prosperity consequent on the French revolution, 267;
state of things after the peace in 1815, 267;
subject again brought up in 1820, 267;
summary of the policy," 267.
Other speakers in favor of the policy, 268;
those against it, 268;
bearing of the question on the harmony and the stability of the
Union. 268.
A crisis arrived, 268;
dissatisfaction of all the South, 268;
objects of the Revolution, 268;
manufacturers should be supported incidentally, 268.
"This system an overruling necessity, 269;
the danger to its existence lies in the abandonment, and not in
the continuance of the American system, 269;
great excitement in South Carolina, 269;
the Union necessary to the whole and to all its parts, 269;
the majority must govern, 269;
can it be believed that two-thirds of the people would consent to
the destruction of a policy believed to be indispensably
necessary to their prosperity?"; 269.
An appalling picture dissolution of the Union presented on either
hand, 270;
former designs of bringing Jackson forward for the
Presidency, 270;
views entertained in South Carolina, 270;
views of the Democratic party 270;
"cannot feel indifferent to the sufferings of any portion of the
American people, 270;
what is the cause of Southern distress? 271;
other causes which exist," 271;
the levy and expenditure of the federal government the cause of
Southern decadence, 271;
exportation of American manufactures, 272;
this fact urged to show the excellence of American fabrics, and
that they are worthy of protection, 272;
also urged to show their independence of protection, 272;
"American cottons now traverse the one-half of the circumference
of the globe, 272;
effect of these duties to create monopolies at home, 272;
the Custom House returns," 272;
the prosperity attributed to the Tariffs of 1824 and 1828, 272;
real cause of the revived prosperity, 273;
remarks, 273;
Clay's remarks on his own failing powers and advanced age, 273;
compliments on his remarks, 273;
sparring between Gen. Smith and Mr. Clay on the age of the latter,
273, 274;
the seriousness of Southern resistance to the Tariff, 274;
an appeal to all to meet the South in a spirit of
conciliation, 274.
_Protest_ of Gen. Jackson on the vote of censure in the Senate, 425.
_Public distress._--From the moment of the removal of the deposits,
the plan of the bank was to force their return, and with it a
renewal of its charter, by operating on the business of the
country and the alarms of the people, 415;
course to be pursued, 415;
first step to get up distress meetings, 415;
memorial sent to Congress, 415;
speeches on their presentation, 415;
remarks of Mr. Tyler on presenting a memorial from Virginia, 416;
do. of Mr. Robbins on presenting a memorial, 416;
do. of Mr. Webster on presenting a memorial, 417, 418, 419;
do. of Mr. Southard on presenting a memorial, 417;
do. of Mr. Clay on presenting a memorial, 418;
do. of Mr. Kent on presenting a memorial, 418;
Clay's apostrophe to the Vice President, charging him with a
message of prayer and supplication to the President, 420;
the Vice President takes a pinch of Mr. Clay's snuff, 420;
resolution of a public meeting relative to the message to be
conveyed by the Vice President, 420.
All this is a repetition of what was heard in 1811, 421;
extracts from Debates of Congress, 421;
the two distresses proved the same thing, 421;
agitation and commotion in the large cities, 421;
gaining a municipal election in New York, 421;
extracts relative to everyday occurrences, 421;
amounts of money expended, 422.
Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the Finances, 462;
call made at the height of the panic, 462;
showed an increase in every branch of the revenue, instead of a
decline, 462;
test of the prosperity of the United States, 462;
the distress confined to the victims of the Bank, or fictitious
and artificial, 462;
attempt to quietly put the report aside, 462;
preparation made to defeat this move, 462;
the entire reading demanded, 462;
speech of Mr. Benton on its conclusion, 462;
the speech, 462;
"assertions and predictions under which the call had been
made, 462;
a report to make the patriot's heart rejoice, 463;
it had been called for to be given to the people, and the people
should have it, 463;
the statements of the report examined, 463;
evidence of commercial prosperity, 464;
increased imports, increased shipping, increased sales of public
lands, 464;
it has been said that trade is paralyzed, 465;
the odium of all the distress falls on the bank, 465;
the prosperity of the country, 466;
recapitulation of the evidences, 467;
the alarm is over, the people are tired of it, 467;
the spectre of distress could never be made to cross the
Mississippi, 467;
the bank is now a nuisance," 468;
report laid on the table and printed, 469. _See Tariff._
_Public Land Debtors._--The credit system then prevailed, 11;
debt for lands sold to the Government, 12;
situation of the public land debtors, 12;
system on which the lands were sold, 12;
subject referred to in the President's message, 12;
the measure of relief devised, 12;
the cash system and reduced price adopted, 12;
the pre-emption right introduced, 12;
opposed, 12;
carried, 12;
the graduation principle pressed, 12.
_Public Lands._--Burke's bill for the sale of the Crown lands
presented in the British House of Commons, 102;
its application to this country, 102;
his remarks, 102;
sales of land by a government to its citizens a false policy, 102;
movements to obtain a graduation of price, 103;
recommendation of Jackson's message, 103;
the revenue derived from the sale of lands a trifle compared with
the revenue derivable from the same lands through settlement
and cultivation, 103;
sale of land brings no population, cultivation produces
population, 103;
remarks in favor of donation of lands, 103;
example of the Atlantic States in favor of donations, 104;
remarks against the reservation of saline and mineral lands, 104;
these lands sold in Missouri, 105;
system of renting mines abolished, 105;
case of "Granny White," 105;
the example of all nations in favor of giving land, 106;
proclamation of the King of Persia in 1823, 106;
Western States sufferers by this land policy, 106;
change in public sentiment, 107.
A proposition to inquire into the expediency of limiting the sales
of land to those in market--to suspend the surveys,
&c., 130;
"a proposition that would check emigration to the new States of
the West, 130;
limit settlements, 130;
deliver up large portions to the dominion of wild beasts, 131;
remove the land records, 131;
never right to inquire into the expediency of doing wrong, 131;
inquiry is to do wrong," 131;
charge upon the East of intending to check the growth of the
West, 132;
history of the first ordinance for the sale and survey, 132;
to make clean work is like requiring your guest to eat all the
bones before he should have more meat, 132;
the propriety of selling at auction prices and at an arbitrary
minimum for all qualities, 132;
system adopted by all nations, 133;
the British and Spanish colonies fostered under a very different
system, 133;
indefinite postponement moved, 133.
_Distribution to the States._--Bill to reduce the price ordered to
a third reading, 275;
pre-emption established, 275;
plan to distribute the proceeds reported, 275;
report, 275;
"inexpedient to reduce the price, or to cede the lands to the
States, 275;
sound policy enjoins the preservation of the existing
system, 275;
governments, no more than individuals, should be intoxicated by
prosperity, 275;
should husband their resources, 276;
the proposal to divide the proceeds among the States, 276;
a bill for this purpose reported," 276.
Impropriety of originating such a bill in a Committee of
Manufactures, 276;
referred to the Committee on Public Lands, 276;
a counter report, 276;
"this view fundamentally erroneous, 276;
the Committee on Manufactures regard the Federal domain merely as
an object of revenue, 276;
quotation from the speech of Burke, 276;
these sentiments the inspiration of political wisdom, 277;
expectations from the public lands, 277;
result of an experiment of near fifty years, 277;
the bill to divide the proceeds is wholly inadmissible in
principle and erroneous in its details, 277;
it proposes to change injuriously and fatally for the new States
the character of their relation to the Federal Government on
this subject, 277;
its effects, 277;
the details of the bill are pregnant with injustice and unsound
policy, 278;
it makes no distinction between those States which did or did not
make cessions of their vacant land to the Federal
Government, 278;
it proposes benefits to some States which they cannot receive
without dishonor nor refuse without pecuniary
prejudice, 278;
these lands were granted to pay the debts of the Revolutionary
War, 278;
other objections, 278;
postponed in the House, 279.
_Distribution of proceeds._--Bill renewed, 362;
arguments in its favor, 362;
provisions of the bill, 362;
advantages of settling the question and disposing of the public
lands, 363;
revenue from sales considered, 363.
A measure dangerous in itself and unconstitutional, 364;
bill passed the Senate, 364;
passed in the House with amendments, 364;
Senate concur on the last night of the session, 364;
retained by the President, 364;
reasons, 364;
denunciations of the Press, 365;
next session bill returned with objections, 365;
"first principles of the whole subject, 365;
the practice of the Government, 365;
an entire subversion of one of the compacts by which the United
States became possessed of the Western domain, 366;
these ancient compacts are invaluable monuments of an age of
patriotism and virtue, 366;
other principles inserted in the bill, 366;
the object to create a surplus for distribution, 367;
a more direct road to consolidation cannot be devised, 367;
difficult to perceive what advantages will accrue to the
States, 368;
the true policy is that the public lands shall cease as soon as
practicable to be a source of revenue, 368;
statement of revenues derived from the public lands," 368;
remarks on this veto message, 369.
R
RANDOLPH, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 7;
opposes Clay on the Missouri question, 10;
decease of, 473;
place of his death, 473;
his career, 473;
how he should be judged, 473;
never enjoyed a day of perfect health, 473;
insanity at periods, 473;
conversation on that point, 474;
his parliamentary life, 474;
friendship with Macon, 474;
disposition, 474;
feelings on slavery, 474;
as a duellist, 475;
religious sentiment, 475.
_Relief, Mr. Webster's plan of._--Renewal of the charter of the bank
for six years, 433;
to give up the exclusive or monopoly feature, 433;
further particulars, 433;
leave asked to bring in the bill, 433;
opposition from Clay and Calhoun, 433;
reasons for Calhoun's position, 434;
his object to "unbank the banks," 434;
remarks, 434;
ultimate object to arrive at a metallic currency, 435;
this an object of the administration, 435;
conversations among Senators, 435;
motion for leave to bring in a bill laid on the table, 435;
excuse for this movement, 436.
No previous opportunity to show the people the kind of currency
they were entitled to possess, 436;
the Government intended to be a hard money Government, 436;
evidences on this point, 437, 438;
the quantity of specie derivable from foreign commerce, added to
the quantity of gold derivable from our mines, were fully
sufficient to furnish the people with an abundant
circulation of gold and silver, 438, 439;
the value now set upon gold is unjust and erroneous, 440;
these laws have expelled it from circulation, 440;
nature and effects of this false valuation, 441, 442, 443;
intention and meaning of the constitution that foreign coins
should pass currently as money, and at their full value,
within the United States, 444;
the plan presented for the support of public credit in 1791, 445;
four points presented, 445;
facts, 445;
injuries resulting from the exclusion of foreign coins, 446;
what reason can now be given for not preventing it? 447;
a review of the present condition of the statute currency of the
United States, 448;
three distinct objections to the Bank of the United States as a
regulator of the currency, 449;
a power that belongs to the Government, 449;
it cannot be delegated, 449;
it ought not to be delegated to any bank, 450;
differs from Mr. Calhoun in the capacity of the bank to supply a
general currency, 451, 452;
circulation of the bank in 1833, 453;
objections to prolonging the existence of the present bank, 454;
the conduct of the present bank, 454;
that of the first bank, 455;
the spirit which seems to have broken out against the State banks
deprecated, 456;
a small paper circulation one of the greatest grievances that can
afflict a community, 457;
restoration of the gold currency has great influence in putting
down a small note circulation, 458. _See Public Distress._
_Removals from Office._--Error of De Tocqueville, 159;
his statement, 159;
case of Adams' administration, 159;
no distinct party lines, 159;
no case presented to him for political removal, 160;
so in the main with Jackson, 160;
extent of removals by him, 160;
his election a change of parties, 160;
he followed the example of Jefferson, 160;
the circumstances of Jefferson, 160;
the four years' limitation law not then in force, 161;
fundamental principle, 161;
his letter to Monroe, 161;
do. to Governor Giles on removals, 161;
do. to Elbridge Gerry, 161;
do. to Mr. Lincoln, 161;
Jefferson's law of removals, 161;
said he had never done justice to his own party in this
respect, 162;
clamor against Jackson, 162;
the practice of removals for opinion' sake becoming too
common, 162;
description of Macaulay, 162;
the evil become worse since the time of De
Tocqueville, 162;
an evil in our country, 162;
Jefferson's rule affords the remedy, 162;
remarks upon it, 163.
_Report_ of Government Bank Directors, 374.
_Resolutions_ of Webster relative to the Compromise, 317;
relative to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the
removal of the public deposits, &c., 394, 398.
RHEA, JOHN, Representative from Tennessee, 7.
_Rivers and Harbors._--Internal Improvement of, how based, 4;
how restricted, 4.
RIVES, WILLIAM C., on the meaning of the Virginia resolutions, 337;
on the independence of Texas, 668.
ROBERTS, JONATHAN, votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8.
ROBERTSON, GEORGE, Representative from Kentucky, 7.
ROWAN, JOHN, on revision of the tariff, 95.
RUSH, RICHARD, Secretary of the Treasury, 55;
negotiates for joint occupancy of Oregon, 109.
S
_Salt Tax, repeal of._--This tax an odious measure, 143;
fluctuations in the tax, 143;
efforts to repeal it, 143;
"the English salt tax and manner of its repeal, 144;
the enormous amount of the tax, 144;
contrary to every principle of taxation, 144;
the distribution of this tax on different sections of the
Union, 144;
the Northwest, 144;
the South, 145;
the West, 145;
provision curers and exporters were entitled to the same bounty
and allowance with exporters of fish, 145;
the provision trade of the West, 145;
the repeal of the salt duty the greatest favor to this trade, 145;
the domestic manufacture has enjoyed all possible protection, 146;
time enough been had for the trial, 146;
the American system without a gross departure from its principles
could not cover this duty any longer, 146;
every argument that could be used here had been used in England in
vain, 147;
the petition of the British manufacturers, 147;
effect of an era of free trade in salt," 147.
This tax a curse, 154;
a mystery in salt, 154;
bill to abolish offered, 155;
the fisheries, 155;
"the tax on alum salt, the foundation of all these bounties, 155;
different acts of Congress recited, 155, 156;
reasons for abolishing the duty on alum salt, 156;
an article of indispensable necessity to the provision trade of
the United States, 156;
no salt of the kind made in the United States, 156;
the duly enormous and quadruples the price, 156;
it is unequal in its operation, 156;
means of drawing an undue amount of money from the public
treasury, 157;
a practical violation of one of the most equitable clauses in the
Constitution of the United States, 157;
it now rests on a false basis, 157;
its repeal will not materially diminish the revenue nor delay the
extinguishment of the public debt, 157;
it belongs to an unhappy period in the history of the
government," 157.
Amount paid by it into the treasury, 714;
quantity imported, 714;
its import from England, 715;
effect of the tax, 716;
its direct injuries, 716;
the burdens appear in the most odious light, 716;
testimony of Dr. Young, 717.
SANFORD, NATHAN, Senator from New York, 7;
candidate for Vice Presidency in 1824, 45.
SCOTT, JOHN, Delegate from Missouri, 8;
presents the application of Missouri for admission into the
Union, 9.
_Seal of Colonel Benton_, origin of it, 77.
_Secession_ of a State--origin of the doctrine, 4;
Senate in favor, 34;
do. against, 34.
SERGEANT, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 7;
on the committee to whom was referred the application of
Missouri, 9;
nominated minister to Panama, 60;
renominated for the Vice Presidency, 232;
candidate for the Vice Presidency, 282.
SEVIER, AMBROSE H., on the cession of the public lands, 709.
SHAW, H., Representative from Massachusetts, 9;
votes for the admission of Missouri, 9;
coadjutor with Clay on the Missouri question, 10.
_Sierra Leone_, origin of the colony of, 88.
SILSBEE, NATHANIEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 7.
_Slaves deported, British Indemnity for._--Controversy respecting
slaves carried off in the war of 1812 concluded in 1827, 88;
similar controversy under the treaty of 1783, 88;
origin of the colony of Sierra Leone, 88;
subject referred to the Emperor Alexander, 88;
arbitrament disputed, 88;
payment made, 88;
statement of the case, 88;
the reference, 89;
views, 89;
the third treaty, 89;
the payment, 90;
the example, 90;
question of restitution arising under the Revolutionary war, 90;
number carried off, 90;
the commissioners at Ghent, 91;
French spoliation claim, 91;
contrast with the claim for deported slaves, 91;
proof that Northern men will do justice to the South, 91.
_Slavery, effect of its existence or non-existence on different
States._--"The ghost of the Missouri question, 136;
the line drawn between the free State of Ohio and the slave State
of Kentucky, 136;
views of leading men North and South indisputably the same in the
earlier periods of our government, 136;
the sublime morality of those who cannot bear the abstract
contemplation of slavery a thousand miles off, 136;
the morality of the primitive Christians," 136;
conduct of the Free States at the first introduction of the
slavery topic into Congress, 137;
further remarks, 138.
_Slavery in the District of Columbia, Abolition of._--Memorial of
Society of Friends in Pennsylvania, 576;
source whence the memorial emanated, 576;
previous proceedings on these memorials, 576;
motion to reject when presented for reception, 576;
this point the origin of a long and acrimonious war in the two
Houses of Congress, 576;
reception and condemnation would quiet the question, 576;
moved to postpone, 577;
remarks of Senator Benton, 577;
"character of the petitioners, 577;
the abolitionists, 577;
publications and prints, 577;
intended to inflame the passions of slaves, 577;
cause of the massacre of San Domingo, 577;
course of the French society, 578;
the conspiracy in Louisiana, 578;
these societies had already perpetrated more mischief than the
joint remainder of all their lives spent in prayers of
contrition and works of retribution, could ever atone
for, 578;
the conduct of the great body of the people in the free
States, 579;
object is to give that vote which will have the greatest effect in
putting down these societies, 579;
past action of the Senate," 579.
_Slavery agitation._--
Tune of its rise, 5;
unceasing efforts to alarm the South by imputations against the
North, of unconstitutional designs on the subject of
slavery, 609;
letter of Mr. Madison to Mr. Clay, 609;
letter to Edward Coles, 609;
nullification in a new disguise, 609;
publications to alarm the South, 610;
the "Crisis," 610;
the subject of a Southern Convention, 610;
the conduct of Mr. Calhoun, 610;
petitions for the abolition of slavery in the district of
Columbia, 611;
Calhoun's remarks, 611;
extreme ground taken, 611;
his doctrine, 611;
reply of Mr. Morris, 612;
Bedford Brown in reply to Mr. Calhoun, 612;
King charges upon the remarks of Calhoun the effect of
increasing the slavery agitation, 613;
Calhoun, in reply, charges that any other course will divide
and distract the South, 614;
remarks of Mr. Hill relative to the views of Northern
States, 614;
petitions in the House, 615;
remarks of Mr. Franklin Pierce, 615;
course of the Telegraph newspaper, 615;
the Herald of Freedom newspaper, 616;
Calhoun sends a paper to the Clerk's desk to be read, containing
an attack upon a member of the other House, 616;
apology by the presiding officer for permitting it to be
read, 616;
remarks of Mr. Benton at the request, and in defence of Mr.
Pierce, 617;
the statement of Mr. Calhoun involved him in the solecism of
sending forth incendiary publications through the action
of the Senate, 617;
remarks of Mr. Benton on this point, 617;
remarks of Mr. King on the strange scene of Southern Senators
attacking their Northern friends because they defended the
South, 617;
increase of abolitionism denied, 618;
treatment of George Thompson, 618;
further statements, 619;
remarks of Mr. Webster, 619;
refusal of Mr. Calhoun to vote on the motion to reject the
prayer of petitioners, 619;
his remarks, 619;
an unjustifiable assumption, 620;
memorial of the Society of Friends, 620;
further remarks, 620.
Action of the House on abolition petitions, 621;
resolution presented by Mr. Pinkney, 621;
votes, 621;
committee ordered and report, 621;
report adopted, 621;
remarks of Mr. J. Q. Adams on the reception of these
petitions, 622;
action of early Congresses on this subject, 623;
Madison on abolition petitions, 623;
his consistent course, 623;
South, the point of danger from slavery agitation, 623.
SLOAN, JOHN, Representative from Ohio, 7.
SMITH, BERNARD, Representative from New Jersey, 9;
votes for the admission of Missouri, 9.
SMITH, SAMUEL, Representative from Maryland, 7;
on the committee to whom was referred the application of
Missouri, 9;
for Van Buren as Minister to England, 216;
on the British West India Trade, 125;
on the expenses of government, 230;
on the protective policy, 268;
on the compromise tariff bill, 315, 327.
SMITH, WILLIAM, Senator from South Carolina, 7;
Judge, 7;
votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8;
moves to be excused from voting on the measure for the relief of
public land debtors, as he was one, 12;
excuse refused, 12.
SMYTHE, ALEXANDER, Representative from Virginia, 7.
SOUTHARD, SAMUEL L., Senator from New Jersey, 7;
Secretary of the Navy, 55;
on the Expunging resolution, 528;
on the independence of Texas, 669.
_Speakers_ in the House in favor of protection, 32;
ditto against, 33.
_Specie Circular._--
Its issue marked the firmness, foresight, and decision of General
Jackson, 676;
its purport, 676;
extent of the land sales, 677;
remarks on the evil which required the specie circular, 677;
benefits of suppressing it, 677;
a view of the actual condition of the paper currency, 678;
bill which was the basis of the remarks rejected, 678;
President decides to issue the order, 678.
Resolution to rescind the Treasury Circular offered, 694;
remarks of Senator Ewing, 694;
origin of the order, 695;
its legality, 695;
remarks of Senator Benton, 695;
a little panic, 695;
letter of Mr. Biddle, 696;
Clay's speech at Lexington, 696;
illegality of the treasury order examined, 696;
the new distress, 697;
Mr. Biddle's description of it, 697;
movement to produce a general suspension of specie
payments, 697;
remarks of Senator Benton, 697;
reply of Senator Crittenden, 698;
ditto of Senator Webster, 699;
other speakers, 700;
subject referred, 700;
report, 700;
action of the Senate, 700;
cause of Mr. Benton's speech, 700;
his speech on the proceedings, 701, 702;
explosion of the banks foretold, 708;
reply of Senator Walker to Benton, 708, 704;
Mr. Calhoun's reason for not voting on the recision bill, 706;
bill passed in the Senate, 706;
amendment of the House, 706;
lost, 706;
veto, 706.
STEVENSON, ANDREW, chosen Speaker, 121;
elected Speaker, 209;
chosen Speaker of the House, 371.
STORES, HENRY R., Representative from New York, 7.
STOKES, MONTFORT, Senator from North Carolina, 7;
Governor, 7;
votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8.
STORY, JOSEPH, Justice of Supreme Court, 7.
_Supreme Court_, its Judges and officers, 731.
SWIFT, BENJAMIN, opposes the admission of Arkansas, 627.
T
TANEY, ROGER B., Attorney General, 181;
nomination as Secretary of the Treasury sent in near close of the
session, 470;
immediately rejected, 470;
resigns, 470;
appointed Chief Justice, 731;
vote in the Senate, 731.
_Tariff and American System._--
Beginning of the question, 32;
protection looked for among the incidental powers, 32;
the design was to make protection the object, and revenue the
incident, 32;
revision of the tariff proposed, 32;
public distress the leading argument for the new tariff, 32;
remarks of Mr. Clay, 32.
"Public distress of the whole country the most prominent object of
attention, 32;
its evidences, 32;
its extent, 32;
a truthful picture," 32.
Other speakers, 32, the distress disputed, 33;
its cause the paper system, 33;
no necessity for protection, 33;
Webster's remarks, 33;
other speakers in opposition, 33;
passage of the bill in the House, 34;
closeness of the vote, 34;
moved to refer to finance committees in the Senate, 34;
lost, 34;
referred to committee on manufactures, 34;
passed the Senate, 34;
increase of revenue a motive with some friends of the bill, 34;
views of the candidates for the Presidency, 34;
position of various States on the bill, 34.
_Revision of._--
Date of a serious division between the North and South, 95;
the work of politicians and manufacturers, 95;
productions of different States favored by additional duties on
their rival imports, 95;
remarks, 95;
"in vain that it is called the American system, 95;
as a tax for the support of Government, it is to be supported;
if for any other purpose, it is to be reprobated, 95;
the surrender of individual opinion to the interest of the
State," 95;
the bill contained a vicious principle, 95;
the tariff an issue in the Presidential contest, 96;
manufacturers warned not to mingle their interests in
politics, 96;
change of policy in the New England States, 96;
"she held back, 96;
denounced, 96;
the present measure called a New England one, 96;
tone of those who administered the Government," 96;
the question now both political and sectional, 97;
the duty on indigo, 97;
remarks on the motion, 97;
"history of its production, 97;
reasons for encouraging its home production, 98;
reasons for a unanimous vote, 98;
burdens imposed by every tariff on Virginia and the
Carolinas," 99;
"object to make the bill consistent, though opposed to the
principle, 99;
no boon asked for the South, 99;
capacity of the country to produce it, 100;"
motion lost, 100;
a nominal duty imposed, 100;
this regarded as an insult by the South, 100;
Southern views of the bill, 100;
scheme of this Tariff, where conceived, 101;
the bill a regular appendage of presidential elections, 101;
change between the prosperity of the North and the South, 101;
cause to which attributed, 101;
its justice, 101;
feeling of the mass of democratic members, 102.
_Reduction of Duties._--
A certain amount reduced, at the previous session, 308;
a step in the right direction, 308;
further reduction expected, 308;
Verplanck's bill, 308;
the financial history of the country since the late war, 309;
a satisfactory statement, 309;
carrying back the protective system to the year of its
commencement, 309;
abundant protection to real manufacturers, 309;
bound to be satisfactory to the South Carolina school, 309;
bill lingered in the House under interminable debates on systems
and theories, 309;
suddenly knocked over by a new bill, 309;
moved to strike out all after the enacting clause, and to insert
a new bill, called the compromise, 309;
delay asked for by Northern members, 310;
remarks, 310;
"one short hour ago collecting our papers to go home, 310;
a new bill, proposed, and the cry of 'question' raised, 310;
hasty legislation deprecated in matters of great
importance, 310;
this matter assumes an imposing attitude, 310;
a bill to tranquillize feelings, 310;
it is said the next Congress will be hostile to the tariff, 311;
the discontent has a deeper seat than the tariff," 311;
the seductive and treacherous nature of compromise
legislation, 311;
bill passed at once, 311;
a bill without precedent in the annals of legislation, 312;
the manner of proceeding, 312;
the degree to which it was a compromise, 312;
list of the voters, 312.
Clay asks leave to introduce a bill called a "compromise
measure," 313;
remarks, 313;
"two great objects in view, 314;
the first object looks at the tariff, 313;
it stands in imminent danger, 313;
it must fall at the next session, 313;
be productive of calamitous consequences, 313;
can be placed on a better foundation now, than at the next
session, 313;
the majority of the dominant party is adverse to the
tariff, 313;
the father of the system charged with its unnatural
abandonment, 313;
a wish to separate it from politics," 314;
the principle of the bill a series of annual reductions of
one-tenth per cent., &c., 314;
other features of the bill, 314;
remarks on the number of years the protective policy has to run,
and the guaranties for its abandonment, 314;
a stipulation to continue nine years, and no guarantee for its
abandonment, 314;
moral guarantees, 314;
"this project has not the elements of success, 315;
a violation of the constitution, as the Senate have no power to
originate a revenue bill, 315;
after they are defeated, and can no longer maintain a conflict,
they come to make the best bargain they can, 315;
the tariff is in its last gasp, 315;
what has the tariff led us to already? 315;
what evidence that the manufacturers will not come at the end of
the time, and ask more protection than ever," 315;
"a measure for harmony, 315;
the unhappy divisions of North and South attributable to this
bill, 315;
further remarks," 315;
fallibility of political opinions, 316;
Clay's views, 316;
Calhoun's views, 316;
Clay's determination relative to a reaction, 316;
manner in which the bill was received by the public, 316;
Niles' Register, 316;
conclusions of the manufacturers, 316;
position of Webster, 316;
not consulted on the subject, 316;
"the bill a well-understood surrender of the power of
discrimination, or a stipulation not to use that power for
a certain period, 317;
if the tariff is in danger, it is because the people will not
sanction it, 317;
resolutions relative to the bill," 317.
Probable reasons for Webster's exclusion from all knowledge of the
compromise bill, 318;
coincidence of his views with those of General Jackson, 318;
a reduction of the tariff to a stable condition frustrated by
the compromise bill, 318;
objections urged against the bill, 318;
attitude of South Carolina surmounted the objections, 318;
would remove all cause of discontent from her, 318;
House bill introduced during the discussion on the question of
leave, 319;
ditto passed, 319;
share of the manufacturing states in this compromise, 319;
an incident showing that "measures may be passed on other
reasons than their merits, 319;
remarks, 319;
"an extraordinary augmentation of duties in a bill which was to
reduce duties, 319;
two or three little factories in Connecticut must be
protected, 319;
contrary to the whole tenor and policy of the bill, 320;
a view of the circumstances which had attended the duties on
these woollens," 320.
Another incident--the character of protection openly claimed for
this bill, 320;
remarks of various Senators on this point, 321;
silence of Calhoun on this point, 321.
The constitutionality of originating this bill in the Senate, 321;
purely a question of privilege, and the decision of it belonged
alone to the other House, 321;
no Committee of Ways and Means in the Senate, 321;
it is not the less a money bill turn its object being
protection, 321;
amendment proposed relative to the drawback on manufactured
imports, 321;
instance refined sugar, 322;
lost, 322;
carried, so far as relates to sugar, in after years, 322.
Motion to substitute home valuations for foreign or imported
goods, 322;
strenuously opposed by Calhoun, 322;
insisted upon by friends of the bill, 322;
moved to lay the bill on the table, 322;
adjournment moved and carried, 322;
Calhoun recedes, 322;
the conditions, 322;
their fallacy, 323;
debate on this point, 323;
"a home valuation deemed necessary by the friends of the
protective system, 323;
believed that after nine years most of the manufacturers will be
sufficiently grown to protect themselves under a
twenty-five per cent. duty, 323;
it would be an increase of duties, 323;
essentially necessary in order to prevent and detect
frauds, 323;
it will be an entering wedge for future measures, 323;
for the sake of conciliation, the bill is brought forward, 324;
the objections to the motion insurmountable, 324;
the bill will save South Carolina from herself, 324;
you cannot have the fair twenty per cent. without adopting the
principle of home valuation, 325;
the unequal operation of the home valuation, 325;
not possible to maintain our institutions and our liberties
under the continuance of this controversy, 326;
proposed to lay the bill on the table, 326;
further debate, 327;
motion withdrawn, 327;
amendment moved, 327;
adjournment moved, 327;
carried, 327;
amendment that no valuation be adopted which will operate
unequally in different parts of the Union considered, 327;
requirement of the constitution, 327;
merchant put to great inconvenience, 327;
the bill is declared to be permanent, 327;
home valuation impracticable and unprecedented, and unknown in
any legislation, 328;
without the assurance that the principle will not be disturbed,
bill should be opposed, 329;
home valuation tending to a violation at the constitution, 329;
injurious and almost fatal to the Southern ports, 329;
create great additional expense, 329;
an increase of duties in a new form, 329;
the fate of the bill depends on the fate of the amendment, 329;
two conditions of the vote of Mr. Calhoun, 329;
amendment fixing a home valuation adopted," 330;
a new principle thus adopted at the expense of the
constitution, 330.
_Compromise, secret history of._--
Calhoun and Clay rival candidates for the Presidency, 342;
leaders in opposite political systems, 342;
cause of their friendship, 342;
rupture, 342;
a question between them, which had the upper hand of the
other, 342;
Letcher conceives the idea of a compromise to release South
Carolina from her position, 342;
determination of Jackson to arrest Calhoun for high
treason, 343;
conferences, 343;
agreement with the manufacturers, 343;
action of Mr. Clayton, 343;
amendments which were agreed to, 343;
manner of the passage of the home valuation amendment, 344;
Calhoun's remarks, 344;
his vote, 344;
John M. Clayton master of both, 344.
_Act of 1833._--
Compromises, 344;
act of 1833 a breach of all the rules and principles of
legislation, 345;
a conception of rival politicians who had failed in the game of
agitation, and threw it up for the game of
pacification, 345;
how could this measure be effected in a country so vast and
intelligent, 345;
Benton's view of the compromise, 346;
vices of the act, 346;
mischiefs done to the frame of the government, 347.
_See Protective System_.
TATNALL, Col., on the treaty with the Creeks, 64;
second to Randolph in the duel with Clay, 72.
TAYLOR, JOHN W., Representative from New York, 7;
Speaker, 7;
votes for the Missouri compromise, 8.
_Taylor, John_, decease of, a perfect and complete republican
statesman, 45;
demeanor, 45;
dress, 45;
his character, 45;
writings, 45;
presented the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, 46;
on the Virginia resolutions, 351.
TAYLOR, G. K., on the Virginia Resolutions, 350.
_Territories._--Their rights under the constitution, 4.
_Texas_, _Independence of._--
Memorials on the subject, 665;
effects of the victory of San Jacinto, 665;
remarks, 665;
reference to Committee on Foreign Affairs moved, 666;
if Texas has a government _de facto_, it is the duty of the
government to acknowledge it, 666;
moderation and deliberation counselled, 666;
acknowledgment and admission advocated, 667;
new theatre for the slavery agitation revealed, 667;
a design to make Texas an element in the Presidential
election, 667;
the former cession of Texas, 667;
the course of Calhoun, 667;
remarks of Bedford Brown, 668;
remarks of Mr. Rives, 668;
national faith should be preserved inviolate, 668;
report in favor, 669;
"the balance of power and the perpetuation of our institutions,"
as a reason for admission, 669;
resolutions of recognition passed both Houses, 670;
remarks of Senator Benton, 670;
the separation of the two countries among the fixed order of
events, 672;
the Alamo, 673;
humanity of Mexican ladies, 674;
calumny on the cause of the revolt, 674;
the revolt has illustrated the Anglo Saxon character, 675.
THOMAS, JESSE B., votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8.
THOMAS, FRANCIS, on Committee of Bank Investigation, 241;
on the admission of Arkansas, 631.
THOMPSON, SMITH, Secretary of the Navy, 7.
TOMPKINS, D. D., Vice President, 7.
THORN, Lieut., his fate, 109.
THORN, HERMANN, application for a commission in the army, 183.
_Treasury notes_, resorted to, 1;
degree of depreciation in second year the war of 1812, 1.
_Treaty of 1807._--Cause of its rejection without reference to the
Senate, 1.
_Treaty-making power._--Its extent, 4.
_Treaty of_ Indian Springs, 58.
TRIMBLE, DANIEL, Representative from Kentucky, 7.
TUCKER, GEORGE, Representative from Virginia, 7.
TYLER, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 7;
on the force bill, 331;
defends the Senate investigating committee's report, 486.
V
VAN BUREN, MARTIN, remarks in the treaty with the Creeks, 60;
Secretary of State, 119;
appointed Minister to England, 181;
resigns his seat in the cabinet, 181;
his rejection as Minister to England, 214;
candidates for the succession to General Jackson, 214;
effect of Van Buren's appointment as Secretary of State, 214;
a stepping-stone to the Presidency, 214;
appointed minister, and left for London, 214;
charged with breaking up the cabinet for the purpose of ousting
the friends of Calhoun, 214;
his nomination sent to the Senate, and rejection certain, soon
as a case could be made out for justification, 214;
causes of objection, 215;
rejection was not enough--a killing off in the public mind
intended, 215;
the speeches, 215;
anecdote, 215;
the speakers, 215;
apostrophe of Madame Roland, 215;
oh politics! how much bamboozling is practised in thy name, 215;
tie votes, 215;
speakers for the nomination, 216;
grounds upon which the objections were based, 216;
quotation from McLane, 216;
report of Mr. Gallatin containing a refutation of the objections
relative to the British trade, 216;
the original of Van Buren's letter of instructions, 216;
unpublished speech of Van Buren, 217;
the Washington ground, 217;
Jackson, author of the instructions, 217;
letter of General Jackson to Van Buren after the latter became
President, 217;
completely disproving a dishonorable imputation, 217;
Calhoun's friendship for Jackson, 218;
the New York system of proscription, 218;
silence of Benton, reason for, 218;
his letter to Van Buren, 218;
the rejection in England, 219;
its effects upon Mr. Van Buren, 219;
remark of Calhoun, 219;
the tie votes, 219;
the injunction of secrecy removed, 219;
relative to removals under Jackson, 218;
elected Vice President, 282.
VAN DYKE, NICHOLAS, votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8.
_Veto of Maysville Road Bill._--
Third veto on the subject of internal improvements, 167;
history of these vetoes, 167;
they embrace all the constitutional reasoning on the
question, 167.
_Veto of the bank, effects of._--
This a general caption for the opposition newspapers throughout
the country, 280;
the ruin of the country made to appear, 280;
extracts from journals, 281;
the programme of the bank and its branches, 281;
wicked attempt on the part of a moneyed corporation to govern the
election, 281.
VERPLANCK'S, GULIAN C., bill for the reduction of duties, 308.
_Virginia resolutions_, suggestive of nullification to Mr.
Calhoun, 335;
debate of 1830, the dawn of the ideas of nullification, 347;
the Virginia resolutions quoted, 347;
nullification doctrines avowed, 347;
resolutions of '98 appealed to, 347;
the resolutions, 346;
their vindication, 348;
from their text, 348;
the right and duty of State interposition claimed, 348;
forcible or nullifying interposition not meant, 348;
the constitution suggests several modes of interposition, 348;
to interpose, does not mean to nullify and set at nought, 349.
The cotemporaneous interpretation, 349;
where found, 349;
speakers in the Virginia Legislature, 349;
opinions advanced by the speakers, 350, 351;
the opposers of the resolutions did not charge upon them, nor
their supporters in any manner contend for any principle
like that of nullification, 352;
responses of State Legislatures, report on the, 352;
extracts, 352;
enumeration of the powers which in the promises are claimed for
the States, 353;
views of the republicans who adopted the resolutions, 353;
remark of Madison, 353;
of Monroe in 1800, 354;
the passage of the sedition law, 354;
conduct of the people of Virginia, 354.
The resolutions disabused of nullification by their author, 354;
the letters of Madison, 355;
extracts from his letter to Mr. Everett, 355;
reasons for rejecting in the constitution fanciful and
impracticable theories, 355;
what the constitution adopts as a security of the rights and
powers of the States, 356;
completeness of these provisions for the security of the
States, 356;
on the doctrine of nullification, 356;
letter to Joseph C. Cabell, 356, 357, 359;
to Daniel Webster, 356;
to James Robertson, 356;
to N. P. Trist, 357, 359;
to C. E. Haynes, 357;
to Andrew Stevenson, 357;
from a memorandum on nullification, 358, 359;
_note_, 358;
to Mr. Townsend, 359;
further extracts, 360;
remarks, 360.
_Vote_ against the ratification of the treaty of 1818, 17;
on repairs of Cumberland road, 22;
on the bill to make a road to New Mexico, 44;
on the bill to occupy the Columbia river, 50;
on the nomination of Clay as Secretary of State, 55;
on the nominations to the Panama mission, 66;
on treaty with the Cherokees, 108;
on leave to offer a resolution of inquiry relative to recharter of
the bank, 205;
on the recharter of the bank, 250;
do. in the House, 250;
on selling the stock of the United States in bank, 295;
on the compromise tariff bill, 312;
on the compromise bill, 330;
on the bill to distribute the sales from public lands, 364;
on the resolution of inquiry into the fitness of the persons
nominated for bank directors, 385;
on the resolution relative to the report of the Secretary of the
Treasury, 395;
on the resolution condemning President Jackson, 423;
on Webster's plan of relief, 435;
on laying the expunging resolutions of Alabama on the table, 528;
on the branch mints, 553;
on the deposit bank bill, 553;
on the fortification bill, 555;
on the incendiary publication bill, 588;
on the reception of abolition petitions, 619;
on abolition petition of Society of Friends, 621;
on abolition petitions in the House, 621;
on the Cherokee treaty, 625;
on the admission of Arkansas, 631;
on the distribution bill, 651;
on recognizing the independence of Texas, 670;
on the recision of the specie circular, 705;
on the substitute to land distribution, 708;
on striking out the deposit clause from the appropriation
bill, 711.
W
WALKER, JOHN W., Senator from Alabama, 7;
judge, 7;
votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8;
on the independence of Texas, 665;
on the specie circular, 703.
_War of 1812._--
By whose exertions the declaration was obtained, 6;
its great results, 6.
WASHINGTON, Judge, of Supreme Court, 8.
WATMOUGH, JOHN G., on the Committee of Bank investigation, 241.
WAYNE, JAMES M., moves a reference of the bank memorial to a select
committee, 284;
on the bank investigation, 288;
appointed Judge of the Supreme Court, 569.
WEBSTER, DANIEL, denies the public distress, 33;
on the protective system, 96;
on revision of the tariff, 96;
on the ordinance of 1787, 134;
on the conduct of the free States on slavery, 137;
in reply to Hayne, 138;
debate with Hayne, 138, 140;
opposes Van Buren as Minister to England, 215;
on the recharter of the bank, 243, 244;
on the prospect of public distress, 254;
on the force bill, 332;
on nullification, 338;
on the French spoliation bill, 488, 505;
on the Expunging resolution, 550;
on the bill to suppress incendiary publications, 586;
on French affairs, 594, 596;
on abolition petitions, 619;
on the specie circular, 699.
WHITE, HUGH L., on the entrance of the bank directors into the
political field, 254.
WICKLIFFE, CHARLES H., on the Committee of Inquiry, 287.
WILKINS, WILLIAM, on the force bill, 330.
WILLIAMS, JOHN, Senator from Tennessee, 7.
WILLIAMS, LEWIS, Representative from South Carolina, 7;
Father of the House, 7.
WILLIAMS, T. H., votes for the Missouri Compromise, 8.
WIRT, WILLIAM, Attorney General, 7, 55;
counsel for the Cherokee Indians, 165;
candidate for the Presidency, 282;
decease of, 475;
rank as a lawyer, 475;
lessons of his life, 475;
early condition, 475;
authorship, 476;
time of his death, 476;
remarks of Mr. Webster at bar meeting, 476.
WOODBURY, LEVI, Secretary of the Navy, 181.
WRIGHT, SILAS, on the French Spoliation bill, 489.
Y
YELL, ARCHIBALD, on the cession of the public lands, 711.
Recent American History and Biography.
Destruction and Reconstruction.
Personal Experiences of the Late War. By RICHARD TAYLOR,
Lieutenant-General in the Confederate Army. 1 vol., 8vo. Cloth,
price, $2.00.
Four Years with General Lee:
Being a Summary of the more Important Events touching the
Career of General Robert E. Lee, in the War between the States;
together with an Authoritative Statement of the Strength of the
Army which he commanded in the Field. By WILLIAM H. TAYLOR, of
his Staff, and late Adjutant-General of the Army of Northern
Virginia. 8vo. Cloth, $2.00.
Military Operations of Joseph E. Johnston.
Narrative of Military Operations directed during the Late War
between the States. By JOSEPH E. JOHNSTON, General C. S. A.
Illustrated by Steel Plates and Maps. 1 vol., 8vo. Cloth, $5.00;
sheep, $6.00; half morocco, $7.50.
The Life of General Albert Sidney Johnston.
By his Son, Colonel WILLIAM PRESTON JOHNSTON. One large octavo
volume, 774 pages. With Maps, a fine Portrait on Steel, and
Eight full-page Illustrations. Cloth, $5.00; sheep, $6.00; half
turkey, $7.00.
The Autobiography of William H. Seward (1801-1834).
With a later Memoir by his Son, FREDERICK W. SEWARD, late
Assistant Secretary of State. Per volume, over 800 pages, cloth,
$4.25; sheep, $5.25; half turkey, $6.25; full turkey, $8.25.
Military History of General U. S. Grant.
From April, 1861, to April, 1865. By ADAM BADEAU, Colonel and
Aide de-Camp to the General-in-Chief, Brevet Brigadier-General
U. S. A. With Portrait, and numerous Maps. 3 vols., 8vo,
complete. Cloth, $12.00; sheep, $15.00; half turkey, $20.00.
Memoirs of W. T. Sherman.
By Himself. (With a Military Map showing the Marches of the
United States Forces under General Sherman's command.) Two
handsome vols., 8vo. Blue cloth, $5.50; sheep, $7.00; half
morocco, $8.50; full morocco, $12.00.
CHEAP EDITION. 1 vol. Cloth, $3.50.
D. APPLETON & CO., Publishers, 1, 3, & 5 Bond St., New York.
=HISTORY OF THE WORLD=, FROM THE EARLIEST RECORDS TO THE FALL OF
THE WESTERN EMPIRE. By PHILIP SMITH, B. A. 3 vols., 8vo, vellum
cloth, gilt top, $2.00 per vol.
New edition, in elegant style, and at greatly reduced price.
"These volumes embody the results of many years of arduous
and conscientious study. The work is entitled to be called
the ablest and most satisfactory book on the subject in our
language. The author's methods are dignified and judicious,
and he has availed himself of all the recent light thrown by
philological research on the annals of the East. The work
is well supplied with maps."--_Dr. C. K. Adams's Manual of
Historical Literature._
=MONTESQUIEU'S CONSIDERATIONS ON THE CAUSES OF THE GRANDEUR AND
DECADENCE OF THE ROMANS.= A New Translation, together with an
Introduction, Critical and Illustrative Notes, and an Analytical
Index. By JEHU BAKER. Being incidentally a Rational Discussion
of the Phenomena and the Tendencies of History in General. 12mo.
Cloth, $2.00.
"Mr. Jehu Baker has rendered a great service to English-speaking
people by producing a new and admirable translation of
Montesquieu's 'Considerations on the Grandeur and Decadence of
the Romans.' But Mr. Baker has by no means confined himself
to the simple work of translation. Many foot-notes have been
added throughout the volume, each chapter is followed by an
extended and elaborate note, and a careful analytical index
greatly increases the value of the work for purposes of
reference."--_Boston Courier._
=THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL, AND THEIR PLACE IN HISTORY=, TO THE
CLOSE OF THE EIGHTH CENTURY B. C. By W. ROBERTSON SMITH, M. A.,
LL. D., author of "The Old Testament in the Jewish Church."
12mo. Cloth, $1.75.
"It is not every Professor of Hebrew whose academical lectures
would furnish forth such a rich feast as now lies before
us. Even the happy few who know something of the facts of
the Bible will learn much from the felicitousness or the
present exposition. For Mr. Robertson Smith is not only a
'full man,' but has a singular gift of making a hard subject
intelligible.... He loves to blow away the mists of controversy
and show the truth in all its attractive simplicity."--_The
Academy._
=THE VISION OF ESTHER.= By CHARLES DE KAY. A sequel to "The
Vision of Nimrod; an Oriental Romance in Verse." 12mo. Cloth,
$1.50.
"This work belongs to a new time, to a new class of readers and
thinkers, and to a future group of poets. It will grow upon
the thought and attention of the public as independent effort
always does. Mr. De Kay has an unusual mastery of language; and
it would be hard to find more beautifully written verse, of a
vigorous and natural sort, than one can easily discover in this
poem. It need only be added that 'Esther,' like the poetry of M.
Sully-Prudhomme, is one of the signs of the time. The movement
of thought, of discovery, of aspiration, is in a straight line.
No one can fail to see the line. The poet most run as the world
runs; and Mr. De Kay is at least one American poet who has felt
the fire of his age. He will live longer than the imitators of
Longfellow and Bryant."--_New York Times._
=L. L. L.; OR, FIFTY LAW LESSONS.= Embracing all the Technical
Points of Business Law. By ARTHUR B. CLARK, Principal B. & S.
Business College, Newark, N. J. 12mo. Cloth, $1.25.
_For sale by all booksellers; or mailed, post-paid, on receipt of
price._
New York: D. APPLETON & CO., 1, 3, & 5 Bond Street.
* * * * *
Transcriber's note:
Minor typographical errors have been corrected without note.
Irregularities and inconsistencies in the text have been retained as
printed.
Mismatched quotes are not fixed if it's not sufficiently clear where
the missing quote should be placed.
The cover for the eBook version of this book was created by the
transcriber and is placed in the public domain.
Page 41: " without the protection or counteance" ... "counteance"
has been replaced with "countenance".
Page 48: "I had communicated to you unequivocally, before the
15th of December, 1824, my determition to vote for Mr. Adams" ...
"determition" has been changed to "determination".
Page 162: " merely because they had owed they situations to some
(whig) nobleman" ... the second "they" has been changed to "their".
Page 283: "for the gallant veterans of the Revotion" ... "Revotion"
has been changed to "Revolution".
Page 375: " $2,850 for 01,000 copies of 'Gallatin on Banking,'" ...
01,1000 has been changed to 10,000.
Page 442, 443: "Mr. B. did not think it necessary to descant and
expatiate upon the merits and advantages" of a gold currency." ...
The word "descant" was very unclear and was inserted in the hope
that it is the word intended by the author.
Page 548: "necessity for a new committee to examine that" ... the
word "that" is unclear, and could possibly be "the".
End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Thirty Years' View (Vol. I of 2), by
Thomas Hart Benton
*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THIRTY YEARS' VIEW (VOL. I OF 2) ***
***** This file should be named 44851-8.txt or 44851-8.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
http://www.gutenberg.org/4/4/8/5/44851/
Produced by Curtis Weyant, Julia Neufeld and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.
Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.
*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that
- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is
owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments
must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg-tm works.
- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
of receipt of the work.
- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809
North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email
contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation's web site and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
For additional contact information:
Dr. Gregory B. Newby
Chief Executive and Director
[email protected]
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org
This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
