diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/53186-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53186-0.txt | 31879 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 31879 deletions
diff --git a/old/53186-0.txt b/old/53186-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index bd85220..0000000 --- a/old/53186-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,31879 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Life of James Buchanan, v. 1 (of 2), by -George Tickner Curtis - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world 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. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - - - -Title: Life of James Buchanan, v. 1 (of 2) - Fifteenth President of the United States - -Author: George Tickner Curtis - -Release Date: October 2, 2016 [EBook #53186] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LIFE OF JAMES BUCHANAN, V. 1 *** - - - - -Produced by KD Weeks, David Edwards and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This -file was produced from images generously made available -by The Internet Archive) - - - - - - - Transcriber’s Note: - -This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects. -Italics are delimited with the ‘_’ character as _italic_. - -Footnotes have been gathered at the end of each chapter. - -Please consult the note at the end of this text for a discussion of any -textual issues encountered in its preparation. - -[Illustration: James Buchanan] - - - - - LIFE - OF - JAMES BUCHANAN - - FIFTEENTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES - - BY - GEORGE TICKNOR CURTIS - - _IN TWO VOLUMES_ - VOL. I. - - NEW YORK - HARPER & BROTHERS, FRANKLIN SQUARE - 1883 - - - - - Copyright, 1883, by GEORGE TICKNOR CURTIS. - - _All rights reserved._ - - ------- - - _Stereotyped by Smith & McDougal._ - - - - - PREFACE. - - -Notwithstanding the proverbial tendency of biographers to contract what -Macaulay has called “the disease of admiration,” no one who can lay -claim to any strength of mind need allow the fear of such an imputation -to prevent him from doing justice to a public man whose life, for -whatever reason, he has undertaken to write. But that my readers may -judge of the degree of my exposure to this malady, a frank explanation -of the circumstances under which I came to write this work is due both -to them and to myself. - -In the summer of 1880, the executors and the nearest surviving relatives -of Mr. Buchanan asked me to allow them to place in my hands the whole -collection of his private papers, with a view to the preparation of a -biographical and historical work concerning his public and private life. -This duty could not have been undertaken by me, without an explicit -understanding that I was to treat the subject in an entirely independent -and impartial spirit. To be of much value, the work, as I conceived, -must necessarily be, to some extent, a history of the times in which Mr. -Buchanan acted an important part as a public man. Moreover, although I -had been for far the greater part of this period an attentive observer -of public affairs, I had no special interest in Mr. Buchanan’s fame, and -was never personally known to him. I could have no object, therefore, of -any kind, to subserve, save the truth of history; nor did the -representatives of Mr. Buchanan desire me, in assuming the office of his -biographer, to undertake that of an official eulogist. I have sought for -information, aside from the papers of the late President, in many -quarters where I knew that I could obtain it; but the opinions, -inferences and conclusions contained in these volumes are exclusively my -own, excepting in the few instances in which I have expressly quoted -those of other persons. No one has exercised or endeavored to exercise -the slightest influence over what I have said of Mr. Buchanan, and I -acknowledge and have felt no loyalty to his reputation beyond the -loyalty that every man owes to justice and to truth. - -I have thought it proper to say this much concerning my relations to the -family of Mr. Buchanan, for two reasons. The President, by his will, -appointed as his biographer a personal friend, the late Mr. William B. -Reed of Philadelphia, in whom he had great confidence, and who was a -very accomplished writer. But Mr. Reed was prevented by private -misfortunes from doing anything more than to examine Mr. Buchanan’s -voluminous papers, and to prepare two introductory chapters of the -intended Life. Of these I could make no use, as they did not accord with -my method of treating the subject. After Mr. Reed had surrendered the -task which he had undertaken, the papers were placed in the hands of the -late Judge John Cadwallader of Philadelphia, another personal friend of -the President. This gentleman died before he had begun to write the -proposed work; and when the papers, which had been placed in his hands -by the executors, came into mine, along with another large collection -from Wheatland, I had to subject them to an entirely new arrangement and -classification, before anything could be done. In resorting to a -stranger as the biographer of Mr. Buchanan, his executors and friends -did what circumstances had rendered unavoidable. The only assurance I -can give is that I have had no reason to be otherwise than strictly -faithful to what I believe to be the truth concerning the whole of Mr. -Buchanan’s career. - -The other reason for a candid explanation of my relation to this subject -will occur to every one. Mr. Buchanan’s administration of the Government -during the four years which preceded the commencement of our civil war, -is a topic upon which friends and foes have widely differed. But no -unprejudiced person who now examines the facts can doubt that, in many -minds, injustice has been done to him. Perhaps this was inevitable, -considering that a sectional civil war, of vast magnitude and attended -with great bitterness, followed immediately after his retirement from -office, when a political party which had been in opposition to his -administration came for the first time into the full control of the -Federal Government. It was in the nature of things—or rather, I should -say, it was in the nature of man—that those who succeeded to the -Government should have charged upon the outgoing administration that -they had been remiss in their public duty; and that under the example of -men in high places, there should have grown up a popular belief that Mr. -Buchanan favored the secession of the Southern States, either purposely, -or by lack of the proper energy to meet it in its incipient stages. -Charges of this kind found popular credence in a time of unexampled -excitement; and since the war was ended, there have been, and doubtless -there still are, many persons who regard President Buchanan as a man who -could have saved the country from a frightful civil war, if he had had -the wish and the energy to nip Secession in the bud. - -Such, at all events, were the reproaches with which many of his -countrymen pursued him into retirement, and continued to follow him to -his grave. Denied as he was a hearing while he lived, because the perils -and turmoils of the immediate present unfitted men to look -dispassionately back into the past, he may well have desired that in -some calmer time, when he had gone where there is neither ignorance, nor -prejudice, nor rancor, some one should “read his cause aright to the -unsatisfied.” To that better time he looked forward with an undoubting -faith in the ultimate justice of his country. I believe that the time -which he anticipated has come; and that nothing more than a proper -examination of the facts is now needed, to insure for him all the -vindication that he could ever have desired. - -In regard to this and to every other part of his life, I have found it -an interesting task to trace the history of a man whose public and -private character were always pure, whose patriotism was co-extensive -with his whole country, whose aims were high, and who was habitually -conscientious in the discharge of every obligation. My estimate of his -abilities and power as a statesman has risen with every investigation -that I have made; and it is, in my judgment, not too much to say of him -as a President of the United States, that he is entitled to stand very -high on the catalogue—not a large one—of those who have had the moral -courage to encounter misrepresentation and obloquy, rather than swerve -from the line of duty which their convictions marked out for them. - -I must say a few words in explanation of my method of describing -important public transactions, the interest in which attaches both to -the events and to an individual who has borne a chief part in them. -There are two modes of historical writing. One is to make a narrative of -the course of a foreign negotiation, for example, or of any other public -action, without quoting despatches or documents. The other, which -scarcely rises above the dignity of compilation, is to let the story be -told mainly by the documents. But in biography, where the interest -centres for the nonce in some principal actor, I conceive that the -better course is to unite the two methods, by so much of description as -is needful to illustrate the documents, and by so much of quotation as -is needful to give force to the narrative. It often happens, however, -that the private letters which a person in high official station -receives or writes, are quite valuable to the elucidation of official -papers and official acts, as they certainly may render a description -more lively than it would be without them. The collection of Mr. -Buchanan’s papers is exceedingly rich in private correspondence, both -with persons towards whom he stood in official, and with other persons -towards whom he stood in only social, relations; and I have drawn -largely upon these materials. Whether I have accomplished the object at -which I have aimed, the reader will judge. It is for me to do no more -than to apprise him that I have endeavored to write for his instruction -and his entertainment, as well as to render justice to the person whose -life I have described. To vindicate in all things the public policy of -the party with which he acted, has not been my aim. I have only sought -to exhibit it in its true relation to the history of the times. -Sincerity and strength of conviction were as characteristic of those to -whom Mr. Buchanan was politically opposed, as they were of his political -associates. - -It is perhaps almost superfluous for me to say that it would have been -impracticable for me within the limits of these two volumes to give an -account of every debate in Congress in which Mr. Buchanan took part, or -of every transaction with which he was connected as a foreign minister, -as Secretary of State, or as President. Such of his speeches as I have -quoted at length have been selected because of the interest that still -attaches to the subject, or some part of it, or because they illustrate -his powers as a debater; and in making selections or quotations from his -diplomatic papers, I have been unavoidably confined to those which -related to critical questions in our foreign relations. It was equally -impracticable for me to touch upon the connections which he had with -numerous political persons in the course of a public life of forty -years. I have drawn a necessary line, and have drawn it between those -with whom he stood in some important official relation, or who occupied -important public positions, and those who belong in the category of -politicians more or less prominent and active, with whom all very -eminent public men have more or less to do; including the former and -excluding the latter. But of course I have varied this rule in the case -of friends who stood in personal rather than political relations with -him. - -It remains for me to give a description of the materials of which I have -made use, and to make the customary acknowledgments to those who -supplied them. - -Any man who has been in public life for a long period of time, and has -attained to the highest public stations, must necessarily have -accumulated a vast amount of materials of the highest importance to the -elucidation of his own history and of the history of the times in which -he has acted. Mr. Buchanan had a habit of preserving nearly everything -that came into his hands. The mass of his private correspondence is -enormous. I can hardly specify the number of letters that I have had to -read, in order to form an adequate idea of the state of the public mind -in the opposite sections of the Union during the period when he first -had to encounter the secession movement. My recollection of the -condition of public opinion at such junctures was pretty vivid, but I -could not venture to trust to it without examining the best evidence; -for undoubtedly the best evidence of public opinion was to be found in -the private letters which at such periods reached the President from all -quarters of the country. Many hundreds of such letters have been -examined, in order to write, and to write correctly, a very few pages. -Mr. Buchanan had also another habit of great utility. Although he did -not always keep a regular diary or journal, he rarely held an important -conversation, or was engaged in a critical transaction, without writing -down an account of it with his own hand immediately afterward. These -extremely valuable memoranda will be found to throw great light upon -many matters that have hitherto been left in obscurity, or have been -entirely misrepresented. He was also an indefatigable letter-writer; and -of those of his own letters of which he did not keep copies, he procured -many from his correspondents after his retirement to Wheatland. He wrote -freely, easily, and I should think rapidly. His familiar letters rarely -received or required much correction; but his official productions were -polished with great care. - -The principal mass of these papers, along with the public documents -which were connected with them, was collected by Mr. Buchanan himself, -in the interval between his retirement from the Presidency and his -death. This collection was placed in my hands by his brother and -executor, the Rev. Edward Y. Buchanan, D.D., of Philadelphia. Another -large collection came to me from Mr. and Mrs. Henry E. Johnston, the -present possessors of Wheatland. Mrs. Johnston enriched the collection -of papers which were sent to me from Wheatland, by adding to them a -great quantity of her uncle’s letters to herself, of which she kindly -permitted me to take copies. - -From James Buchanan Henry, Esq., nephew of the President, and for some -time his private secretary, and from Miss Buchanan, daughter of the Rev. -Dr. Buchanan, I have received interesting contributions, which have -found their place in my work. - -Next to these, the immediate relatives of President Buchanan, I am -indebted to the Hon. Jeremiah S. Black, Attorney-General and afterwards -Secretary of State during Mr. Buchanan’s Presidency, for important -information. I am under like obligations to Brinton Coxe and Joseph B. -Baker, Esqs., of Philadelphia, friends of the late President. - -And finally, from my own valued friend of many years, Samuel L. M. -Barlow, Esq., of New York, I have received two very interesting -contributions, which are quoted and credited in their appropriate -places. I am also under a similar obligation to W. U. Hensel, Esq., of -Lancaster, and to George Plumer Smith, Esq., of Philadelphia. Nor should -I omit to mention the name of Hiram B. Swarr, Esq., co-executor with Dr. -Buchanan, and the confidential lawyer of the late President, at -Lancaster, as one who has very materially aided my researches. - -NEW YORK, May 1, 1883. - - - - - CONTENTS. - - - - CHAPTER I. - 1791–1820. - - PAGE - - Birth and Parentage—Early Education and College Life—Study 1 - of the Law—Admission to the Bar—Settles in Lancaster—A - Volunteer in the War of 1812—Enters the Legislature of - Pennsylvania—Early Distinction—Professional Income—Retires - from Public Life—Disappointment in Love—Re-enters Public - Life—Elected to Congress - - CHAPTER II. - 1820–1824. - - Monroe’s Administration—Eminent Men in Congress—Notices of 23 - William Lowndes and John Randolph of Roanoke—John - Sargeant—Buchanan becomes a leading Debater—Bankrupt - Bill—Cumberland Road—The Tariff - - CHAPTER III. - 1824–1825. - - Election of John Quincy Adams—The “Bargain and 38 - Corruption”—Unfounded Charge—General Jackson’s erroneous - Impression—His Correspondence with Mr. Buchanan - - CHAPTER IV. - 1825–1826. - - Bitter Opposition to the Administration of John Quincy 57 - Adams—Bill for the Relief of the Revolutionary - Officers—The Panama Mission—Incidental Reference to - Slavery - - CHAPTER V. - 1827–1829. - - Great Increase of General Jackson’s 70 - Popularity—“Retrenchment” made a Political Cry—Debate on - the Tariff—Buchanan on Internal Improvements—The Interests - of Navigation—The Cumberland Road again - Discussed—Ineligibility of a President - - CHAPTER VI. - 1829–1831. - - The first Election of General Jackson—Buchanan again elected 94 - to the House of Representatives—He becomes Chairman of the - Judiciary Committee—Impeachment of Judge Peck—Buchanan - defeats a Repeal of the 25th Section of the Judiciary - Act—Proposed in Pennsylvania as a Candidate for the - Vice-Presidency—Wishes to retire from Public Life—Fitness - for great Success at the Bar - - CHAPTER VII. - 1831–1833. - - John Randolph of Roanoke made Minister to Russia—Failure of 128 - Mr. Randolph’s Health—The Mission offered to Mr. - Buchanan—His Mother’s Opposition to his Acceptance—Embarks - at New York and arrives at Liverpool—Letters from - England—Journey to St. Petersburg—Correspondence with - Friends at Home - - CHAPTER VIII. - 1832–1833. - - Negotiation of Treaties—Count Nesselrode—His characteristic 161 - Management of opposing Colleagues—The Emperor Nicholas—His - sudden Announcement of his Consent to a Commercial - Treaty—Why no Treaty concerning Maritime Rights was - made—Complaints about the American Press—Baron Sacken’s - imprudent Note—Buchanan skillfully exonerates his - Government—Sensitiveness of the Emperor on the subject of - Poland - - CHAPTER IX. - 1832–1833. - - General Jackson’s second Election—Grave public Events at 183 - Home reflected in Mr. Buchanan’s Letters from his - Friends—Feelings of General Jackson towards the - “Nullifiers”—Movements in Pennsylvania for electing Mr. - Buchanan to the Senate of the United States—He makes a - Journey to Moscow—Return to St. Petersburg—Death of his - Mother—Singular Interview with the Emperor Nicholas at his - Audience of Leave - - CHAPTER X. - 1833. - - Departure from St. Petersburg—Journey to Paris—Princess 217 - Lieven—Pozzo di Borgo—Duc de Broglie—General - Lafayette—Louis Philippe—Arrival in London—Dinners at - Prince Lieven’s and Lord Palmerston’s—Prince Talleyrand - - CHAPTER XI. - 1833–1836. - - Mr. Buchanan returns Home—Greeting from General 227 - Jackson—Elected to the Senate of the United States—State - of Parties—The great Whig Leaders in the Senate—Peril of a - War with France - - CHAPTER XII. - 1835–1837. - - Removal of Executive Officers—Benton’s “Expunging” 281 - Resolution - - CHAPTER XIII. - 1836. - - First Introduction of the Subject of Slavery in the Senate, 315 - during the Administration of Jackson—Petitions for its - Abolition in the District of Columbia—The Right of - Petition vindicated by Buchanan—Incendiary - Publications—Admission of Michigan into the Union—Statuary - for the Capitol—Affairs of Texas - - CHAPTER XIV. - 1837–1840. - - Bill to prevent the Interference of Federal Officers with 378 - Elections—Devotion of the Followers of Jackson—The Whig - Party less compact in consequence of the Rivalry between - Mr. Clay and Mr. Webster—Retrospective Review of the Bank - Question—The Specie Circular—Great Financial Disasters - - CHAPTER XV. - 1837–1841. - - Mr. Van Buren’s Presidency—The Financial Troubles 418 - accumulating—Remedy of the Independent Treasury—Buchanan - on the Causes of Specie Suspension, and the Pennsylvania - Bank of the United States—Great Political Revolution of - 1840—Buchanan declines a Seat in Mr. Van Buren’s Cabinet - - CHAPTER XVI. - 1841–1842. - - Death of President Harrison—Breach between President Tyler 458 - and the Whigs—Tyler’s Vetoes—Buchanan’s Reply to Clay on - the Veto Power—His Opposition to the Bankrupt Act of 1841 - - CHAPTER XVII. - 1843–1844. - - Buchanan elected to the Senate for a Third Term—Efforts of 515 - his Pennsylvania Friends to have him nominated for the - Presidency—Motives of his Withdrawal from the Canvass—The - Baltimore Democratic Convention of 1844 nominates Mr. - Polk—The Old Story of “Bargain and Corruption”—Private - Correspondence - - CHAPTER XVIII. - 1842–1849. - - Harriet Lane 531 - - CHAPTER XIX. - 1844–1845. - - Annexation of Texas—Election of President Polk—The 543 - Department of State accepted by Mr. Buchanan - - CHAPTER XX. - 1845–1846. - - The Oregon Controversy—Danger of a War with 551 - England—Negotiation for a Settlement of a Boundary—Private - Correspondence - - CHAPTER XXI. - 1845–1848. - - Origin of the War with Mexico—Efforts of Mr. Polk’s 579 - Administration to prevent it - - CHAPTER XXII. - 1848–1849. - - Central America—The Monroe Doctrine, and the Clayton-Bulwer 619 - Treaty - - - - - LIFE OF JAMES BUCHANAN. - - - - - CHAPTER I. - 1791–1820. - -BIRTH AND PARENTAGE—EARLY EDUCATION AND COLLEGE LIFE—STUDY OF THE - LAW—ADMISSION TO THE BAR—SETTLES IN LANCASTER—A VOLUNTEER IN THE WAR - OF 1812—ENTERS THE LEGISLATURE OF PENNSYLVANIA—EARLY - DISTINCTION—PROFESSIONAL INCOME—RETIRES FROM PUBLIC - LIFE—DISAPPOINTMENT IN LOVE—RE-ENTERS PUBLIC LIFE—ELECTED TO - CONGRESS. - - -Autobiography, when it exists, usually furnishes the most interesting -and reliable information of at least the early life of any man. Among -the papers of Mr. Buchanan, there remains a fragment of an -autobiography, without date, written however, it is supposed, many years -before his death. This sketch, for it is only a sketch, ends with the -year 1816, when he was at the age of twenty-five. I shall quote from it, -in connection with the events of this part of his life, adding such -further elucidations of its text as the other materials within my reach -enable me to give. - -The following is the account which Mr. Buchanan gives of his birth and -parentage: - -“My father, James Buchanan, was a native of the county Donegal, in the -kingdom of Ireland. His family was respectable; but their pecuniary -circumstances were limited. He emigrated to the United States before the -date of the Definitive Treaty of Peace with Great Britain; having sailed -from —— in the brig Providence, bound for Philadelphia, in 1783. He was -then in the twenty-second year of his age. Immediately after his arrival -in Philadelphia, he proceeded to the house of his maternal uncle, Mr. -Joshua Russel, in York county. After spending a short time there, he -became an assistant in the store of Mr. John Tom, at Stony Batter, a -country place at the foot of the North Mountain, then in Cumberland (now -in Franklin county.) - -“He commenced business for himself, at the same place, about the -beginning of the year 1788; and on the 16th of April, in the same year, -was married to Elizabeth Speer. My father was a man of practical -judgment, and of great industry and perseverance. He had received a good -English education, and had that kind of knowledge of mankind which -prevented him from being ever deceived in his business. With these -qualifications, with the facility of obtaining goods on credit at -Baltimore at that early period, and with the advantages of his position, -it being one of a very few spots where the people of the western -counties came with pack horses loaded with wheat to purchase and carry -home salt and other necessaries, his circumstances soon improved. He -bought the Dunwoodie farm for £1500 in 1794, and had previously -purchased the property on which he resided at the Cove Gap. - -“I was born at this place on the 23d of April, 1791, being my father’s -second child. My father moved from the Cove Gap to Mercersburg, a -distance of between three and four miles, in the autumn of 1796, and -began business in Mercersburg in the autumn of 1798. For some years -before his death, which occurred on the 11th of June, 1821, he had quite -a large mercantile business, and devoted much of his time and attention -to superintending his farm, of which he was very fond. He was a man of -great native force of character. He was not only respected, but beloved -by everybody who approached him. In his youth, he held the commission of -a justice of the peace; but finding himself so overrun with the business -of this office as to interfere with his private affairs, he resigned his -commission. A short time before his death, he again received a -commission of the peace from Governor Hiester. He was a kind father, a -sincere friend, and an honest and religious man. - -“My mother, considering her limited opportunities in early life, was a -remarkable woman. The daughter of a country farmer, engaged in household -employment from early life until after my father’s death, she yet found -time to read much, and to reflect deeply on what she read. She had a -great fondness for poetry, and could repeat with ease all the passages -in her favorite authors which struck her fancy. These were Milton, Pope, -Young, Cowper, and Thomson. I do not think, at least until a late period -of her life, she had ever read a criticism on any one of these authors, -and yet such was the correctness of her natural taste that she had -selected for herself, and could repeat, every passage in them which has -been admired. - -“She was a sincere and devoted Christian from the time of my earliest -recollection, and had read much on the subject of theology; and what she -read once, she remembered forever. For her sons, as they successively -grew up, she was a delightful and instructive companion. She would argue -with them, and often gain the victory; ridicule them in any folly or -eccentricity; excite their ambition, by presenting to them in glowing -colors men who had been useful to their country or their kind, as -objects of imitation, and enter into all their joys and sorrows. Her -early habits of laborious industry, she could not be induced to -forego—whilst she had anything to do. My father did everything he could -to prevent her from laboring in her domestic concerns, but it was all in -vain. I have often, during the vacations at school or college, sat in -the room with her, and whilst she was (entirely from her own choice) -busily engaged in homely domestic employments, have spent hours -pleasantly and instructively in conversing with her. She was a woman of -great firmness of character and bore the afflictions of her later life -with Christian philosophy. After my father’s death, she lost her two -sons, William and George Washington, two young men of great promise, and -a favorite daughter. These afflictions withdrew her affections gradually -more and more from the things of this world—and she died on the 14th of -May, 1833, at Greensburg, in the calm but firm assurance that she was -going home to her Father and her God. It was chiefly to her influence -that her sons were indebted for a liberal education. Under Providence, I -attribute any little distinction which I may have acquired in the world -to the blessing which He conferred upon me in granting me such a -mother.” - -The parents of Mr. Buchanan were both of Scotch-Irish descent, and -Presbyterians. At what time this branch of the Buchanan family emigrated -from Scotland to Ireland is not known; but John Buchanan, the -grandfather of the President, who was a farmer in the county of Donegal -in Ireland, married Jane Russel, about the middle of the last century. -She was a daughter of Samuel Russel, who was also a farmer of -Scotch-Presbyterian descent in the same county. James Buchanan, their -son, and father of the President, was brought up by his mother’s -relatives. Elizabeth Speer, the President’s mother, was the only -daughter of James Speer, who was also of Scotch-Presbyterian ancestry, -and who emigrated to Pennsylvania in 1756. James Speer and his wife -(Mary Patterson) settled at first on a farm ten miles from Lancaster, -and afterwards at the foot of the South Mountain between Chambersburg -and Gettysburg. It is told in some memoranda which now lie before me, -that in 1779, James Speer left the “Covenanted Church,” on account of -difficulties with Mr. Dobbins, his pastor, and was afterwards admitted -to full communion in the Presbyterian congregation under the care of the -Rev. John Black. This incident sufficiently indicates the kind of -religious atmosphere in which Mrs. Buchanan grew up; and the letters of -both parents to their son, from which I shall have occasion to quote -frequently, afford abundant evidence of that deep and peculiar piety -which characterized the sincere Christians of their denomination. They -were married on the 16th of April, 1788, when Mrs. Buchanan was just -twenty-one, and her husband twenty-seven. Eleven children were born to -them between 1789 and 1811. James, the future President, was born April -23d, 1791. - -Of his early education and his college life, he gives this account: - -“After having received a tolerably good English education, I studied the -Latin and Greek languages at a school in Mercersburg. It was first kept -by the Rev. James R. Sharon, then a student of divinity with Dr. John -King, and afterwards by a Mr. McConnell and Dr. Jesse Magaw, then a -student of medicine, and subsequently my brother-in-law. I was sent to -Dickinson College in the fall of 1807, where I entered the junior class. - -“The college was in a wretched condition; and I have often regretted -that I had not been sent to some other institution. There was no -efficient discipline, and the young men did pretty much as they pleased. -To be a sober, plodding, industrious youth was to incur the ridicule of -the mass of the students. Without much natural tendency to become -dissipated, and chiefly from the example of others, and in order to be -considered a clever and a spirited youth, I engaged in every sort of -extravagance and mischief in which the greatest proficients of the -college indulged. Unlike the rest of this class, however, I was always a -tolerably hard student, and never was deficient in my college exercises. - -“A circumstance occurred, after I had been a year at college, which made -a strong and lasting impression upon me. During the September vacation, -in the year 1808, on a Sabbath morning, whilst I was sitting in the room -with my father, a letter was brought to him. He opened it, and read it, -and I observed that his countenance fell. He then handed it to me and -left the room, and I do not recollect that he ever afterwards spoke to -me on the subject of it. It was from Dr. Davidson, the Principal of -Dickinson College. He stated that, but for the respect which the faculty -entertained for my father, I would have been expelled from college on -account of disorderly conduct. That they had borne with me as best they -could until that period; but that they would not receive me again, and -that the letter was written to save him the mortification of sending me -back and having me rejected. Mortified to the soul, I at once determined -upon my course. Dr. John King was at the time pastor of the congregation -to which my parents belonged. He came to that congregation shortly after -the Revolution, and continued to be its pastor until his death. He had -either married or baptized all its members. He participated in their -joys as well as their sorrows, and had none of the gloomy bigotry which -too often passes in these days for superior sanctity. He was, I believe, -a trustee of the college, and enjoyed great and extensive influence -wherever he was known. To him I applied with the greatest confidence in -my extremity. He gave me a gentle lecture—the more efficient on that -account. He then proposed to me, that if I would pledge my honor to him -to behave better at college than I had done, he felt such confidence in -me that he would pledge himself to Dr. Davidson on my behalf, and he did -not doubt that I would be permitted to return. I cheerfully complied -with this condition; Dr. King arranged the matter, and I returned to -college, without any questions being asked; and afterwards conducted -myself in such a manner as, at least, to prevent any formal complaint. -At the public examination, previous to the commencement, I answered -without difficulty every question which was propounded to me. At that -time there were two honors conferred by the college. It was the custom -for each of the two societies to present a candidate, and the faculty -decided which of them should have the first honor, and the second was -conferred upon the other candidate as a matter of course. I had set my -heart upon obtaining the highest, and the society to which I belonged -unanimously presented me as their candidate. As I believed that this -society, from the superior scholarship of its members, was entitled to -both, on my motion we presented two candidates to the faculty. The -consequence was, that they rejected me altogether, gave the first honor -to the candidate of the opposite society, and the second to Mr. Robert -Laverty, now of Chester county, assigning as a reason for rejecting my -claims that it would have a bad tendency to confer an honor of the -college upon a student who had shown so little respect as I had done for -the rules of the college and for the professors. - -“I have scarcely ever been so much mortified at any occurrence of my -life as at this disappointment, nor has friendship ever been manifested -towards me in a more striking manner than by all the members of the -society to which I belonged. Mr. Laverty, at once, in the most kind -manner, offered to yield me the second honor, which, however, I declined -to accept. The other members of the society belonging to the senior -class would have united with me in refusing to speak at the approaching -commencement, but I was unwilling to place them in this situation on my -account, and more especially as several of them were designed for the -ministry. I held out myself for some time, but at last yielded on -receiving a kind communication from the professors. I left college, -however, feeling but little attachment towards the Alma Mater.” - -In regard to the danger of his expulsion from the college, which Mr. -Buchanan has frankly recorded in his autobiographical fragment, I find -no other reference to it. But I have seen in the note-books of his -studies and in the notes which he kept of lectures that he attended, -abundant proof that he was, as he says, “a tolerably hard student.” He -seems to have had a strong propensity to logic and metaphysics, and of -these studies there are copious traces in his own handwriting. The -incident which he relates concerning his disappointment in not receiving -one of the highest of the college honors at his graduating -“commencement,” is thus touched upon in a letter from his father: - - MERCERSBURG, September 6, 1809. - -DEAR SON:— - -Yours is at hand (though without date) which mortifies us very much for -your disappointment, in being deprived of both honors of the college, -especially when your prospect was so fair for one of them, and more so -when it was done by the professors who are acknowledged by the world to -be the best judges of the talents and merits of the several students -under their care. I am not disposed to censure your conduct in being -ambitious to have the first honors of the college; but as it was thought -that Mr. F. and yourself were best entitled to them, you and he ought to -have compounded the matter so as to have left it to the disposition of -your several societies, and been contented with their choice. The -partiality you complain of in the professors is, no doubt, an unjust -thing in them, and perhaps it has proceeded from some other cause than -that which you are disposed to ascribe to them. - -Often when people have the greatest prospects of temporal honor and -aggrandizement, they are all blasted in a moment by a fatality connected -with men and things; and no doubt the designs of Providence may be seen -very conspicuously in our disappointments, in order to teach us our -dependency on Him who knows all events, and they ought to humble our -pride and self-sufficiency...... I think it was a very partial decision, -and calculated to hurt your feelings. Be that as it will, I hope you -will have fortitude enough to surmount these things. Your great -consolation is in yourself, and if you can say your right was taken from -you by a partial spirit and given to those to whom it ought not to be -given, you must for the present submit. The more you know of mankind, -the more you will distrust them. It is said the knowledge of mankind and -the distrust of them are reciprocally connected...... - -I approve of your conduct in being prepared with an oration, and if upon -delivery it be good sense, well spoken, and your own composition, your -audience will think well of it whether it be spoken first, or last, or -otherwise...... - -We anticipate the pleasure of seeing you shortly, when I hope all these -little clouds will be dissipated. - - From your loving and affectionate father, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - -Following Mr. Buchanan’s sketch of his early life, we come to the period -immediately after he graduated from Dickinson College. - -I came to Lancaster to study law with the late Mr. Hopkins, in the month -of December, 1809, and was admitted to practice in November, 1812. I -determined that if severe application would make me a good lawyer, I -should not fail in this particular; and I can say, with truth, that I -have never known a harder student than I was at that period of my life. -I studied law, and nothing but law, or what was essentially connected -with it. I took pains to understand thoroughly, as far as I was capable, -everything which I read; and in order to fix it upon my memory and give -myself the habit of extempore speaking, I almost every evening took a -lonely walk, and embodied the ideas which I had acquired during the day -in my own language. This gave me a habit of extempore speaking, and that -not merely words but things. I derived great improvement from this -practice. - -It would seem that young Buchanan remained at home with his parents -after he had graduated until the month of December, when he went to -Lancaster and entered himself as a student at law, in the office of Mr. -Hopkins. The following letters from his parents give all that I am able -to glean respecting the period of his law pupilage, and the choice of a -permanent residence after he had been admitted to practice, which was, -it seems, in November, 1812. - - [FROM HIS FATHER.] - - March 12, 1810. - -...... I am very glad to hear you are so well pleased with Lancaster, -and with the study of the law. - -...... I hope you will guard against the temptations that may offer -themselves in this way, or any other, knowing that without religion all -other things are as trifles, and will soon pass away...... Your young -acquaintances often talk of you, and with respect and esteem. Go on with -your studies, and endeavor to be eminent in your profession. - -Mr. Buchanan was admitted to the bar in the year which saw the -commencement of the war with Great Britain, under the Presidency of Mr. -Madison. His early political principles were those of the Federalists, -who disapproved of the war. Yet, as the following passages in his -autobiography show, he was not backward in his duty as a citizen:[1] - -The first public address I ever made before the people was in 1814, a -short time after the capture of Washington by the British. In common -with the Federalists, generally, of the Middle and Southern States, -whilst I disapproved of the declaration of war under the circumstances -in which it was made, yet I thought it was the duty of every patriot to -defend the country, whilst the war was raging, against a foreign enemy. -The capture of Washington lighted up a flame of patriotism which -pervaded the whole of Pennsylvania. A public meeting was called in -Lancaster for the purpose of adopting measures to obtain volunteers to -march for the defence of Baltimore. On that occasion I addressed the -people, and was among the first to register my name as a volunteer. We -immediately formed a company of dragoons, and elected the late Judge -Henry Shippen our captain. We marched to Baltimore, and served under the -command of Major Charles Sterret Ridgely, until we were honorably -discharged. This company of dragoons was the _avant courier_ of the -large force which rushed from Pennsylvania to the defence of Baltimore. - -Mr. Buchanan’s entrance into public life is thus described by himself: - -In October, 1814, I was elected a member of the House of -Representatives, in the Legislature, from the county of Lancaster. The -same principles which guided my conduct in sustaining the war, -notwithstanding my opposition to its declaration, governed my course -after I became a member of the Legislature. An attack was threatened -against the city of Philadelphia. The General Government was nearly -reduced to a state of bankruptcy, and could scarcely raise sufficient -money to maintain the regular troops on the remote frontiers of the -country. Pennsylvania was obliged to rely upon her own energies for the -defence, and the people generally, of all parties, were ready to do -their utmost in the cause. - -Two plans were proposed. The one was what was called the Conscription -Bill, and similar to that which had been rejected by Congress, reported -in the [State] Senate by Mr. Nicholas Biddle, by which it was proposed -to divide the white male inhabitants of the State above the age of -eighteen into classes of twenty-two men each, and to designate one man -by lot from the numbers between the ages of eighteen and forty-five of -each class, who should serve one year, each class being compelled to -raise a sum not exceeding two hundred dollars, as a bounty to the -conscript. This army was to be paid and maintained at the expense of the -State, and its estimated cost would have been between three and three -and one-half million of dollars per annum. The officers were to be -appointed by the Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the -Senate. - -The other was to raise six regiments under the authority of the State, -to serve for three years, or during the war, and to pass efficient -volunteer and militia laws. - - [_Here the narrative changes to the third person._] - -“On the 1st of February, 1815, Mr. Buchanan delivered his sentiments in -regard to the proper mode of defending the Commonwealth, on the bill -entitled ‘An act for the encouragement of volunteers for the defence of -this Commonwealth.’ He said: ‘Since, then, the Congress have deserted us -in our time of need, there is no alternative but either to protect -ourselves by some efficient measures, or surrender up that independence -which has been purchased by the blood of our forefathers. No American -can hesitate which of these alternatives ought to be adopted. The -invading enemy must be expelled from our shores; he must be taught to -respect the rights of freedom.’ - -“Again, speaking of the Conscription Bill, he said: ‘This law is -calculated to be very unjust and very unequal in its effects. Whilst it -will operate as a conscription law upon the poor man in the western -parts of the State, where property is not in danger, it will be but a -militia law with the rich man in the eastern part of the State, whose -property it contemplates defending. The individuals in each class are, -to be sure, to pay the two hundred dollars in proportion to their -comparative wealth, as a bounty to the substitute or conscript. It will, -therefore, be just in its operation among the individuals composing each -class, but how will it be with respect to entire classes? Twenty-two men -in the city of Philadelphia, whose united fortunes would be worth two -million dollars, would be compelled to pay no more than twenty-two men -in the western country, who may not be worth the one-thousandth part of -that sum.’ - -“After Mr. Buchanan had stated that he would have voted for the -Enlistment Bill, had he not been necessarily absent when it passed the -House, he said: ‘After all, I must confess, that in my opinion an -efficient volunteer and militia bill, together with the troops which can -be raised under the Voluntary Enlistment Bill, will be amply sufficient -for the defence of the city of Philadelphia. We need not be afraid to -trust to the patriotism or courage of the people of this country when -they are invaded. Let them have good militia officers, and they will -soon be equal to any troops of the world. Have not the volunteers and -militia on the Niagara frontier fought in such a manner as to merit the -gratitude of the nation? Is it to be supposed that the same spirit of -patriotism would animate the man who is dragged out by a conscription -law to defend his country, that the volunteer or militiaman would feel? -Let us, then, pass an efficient militia law, and the Volunteer Bill -which is now before us. Let us hold out sufficient inducement to our -citizens to turn out, as volunteers. Let their patriotism be stimulated -by self-interest, and I have no doubt that in the day of trial there -will be armies of freemen in the field sufficiently large for our -protection. Your State will then be defended at a trifling comparative -expense, the liberties of the people will be preserved, and their -willingness to bear new burdens be continued.’ - -“The bill having passed the Senate, was negatived in the House, on the -3d of February, 1815, by the decisive vote of 51 to 36. It was entitled -‘An act to raise a military force for the defence of this Commonwealth.’ -The Senate and the House thus differed in regard to the best mode of -defending the Commonwealth; the one being friendly to the Conscription -Bill, and the other to the Voluntary Enlistment and Volunteer Bill. All -agreed upon the necessity of adopting efficient means for this purpose. -Before any final action was had upon the subject, the news of peace -arrived, and was officially communicated by Governor Snyder to the -Legislature on the 17th February, 1815.” - -So open and decided was I in my course in favor of defending the -country, notwithstanding my disapproval of the declaration of war, that -I distinctly recollect that the late William Beale, the shrewd, -strong-minded, and influential Democratic Senator from Mifflin county, -called upon me, and urged me strongly during the session to change my -[political] name, and be called a Democrat, stating that I would have no -occasion to change my principles. In that event, he said he would -venture to predict that, should I live, I would become President of the -United States. He was mistaken, for although I was friendly to a -vigorous prosecution of the war, I was far from being a “Democrat” in -principle. - - [FROM HIS FATHER.] - - September 22, 1814. - -DEAR SON:— - -I received your letter of the 9th ult. from Baltimore, which stated that -you were then honorably discharged. This news was very gratifying, as at -that moment we received accounts that the British were making their -attack on Baltimore, both by sea and land, and consequently our -forebodings with respect to your fate were highly wound up...... - -You say you are in nomination for the Assembly. I am not certain that it -will be to your advantage, as it will lead you off from the study and -practice of the law. If by your industry and application you could -become eminent at the bar, that would be preferable to being partly a -politician and partly a lawyer. However, you must now be directed by -circumstances and the counsel of your friends. - -...... The Assembly has passed a law for the benefit of the poor, which -in fact prevents them from paying any debts, as they hold all under -cover of the reserve made them in the law. So much for popularity at the -expense of justice. - - October 21, 1814. - -DEAR SON:— - -I received yours by Mr. Evans, informing me you were elected to the -Assembly. The circumstances of your being so popular amongst your -neighbors as to give you a majority over Isaac Wayne, who, I suppose, -was one of the highest on your ticket, is very gratifying to me, and I -hope your conduct will continue to merit their approbation. But above -all earthly enjoyments, endeavor to merit the esteem of heaven; and that -Divine Providence who has done so much for you heretofore, will never -abandon you in the hour of trial. Perhaps your going to the Legislature -may be to your advantage, and it may be otherwise. I hope you will make -the best of the thing now. The feelings of parents are always alive to -the welfare of their children, and I am fearful of this taking you from -the bar at a time when perhaps you may feel it most...... - -There is now every prospect of a continuation of the war. The terms -offered us by the British are such that no true American could comply -with, or submit to them...... News has just come to this place that Lord -Hill has arrived with 16,000 men. - - From your loving father, - - J. B. - - January 20, 1815. - -...... I am glad to find you are well pleased at being a member of the -Legislature. Perhaps it may have the effect you mention, that of -increasing your business hereafter. I am glad to hear that you mean to -proceed with caution, and speak only when you are well prepared for the -subject you mean to speak upon. You are young, consequently deficient in -experience; therefore you must supply that defect by watchfulness and -application, never forgetting that every gift you may possess flows from -that Being who has always been your friend, and will continue to be so, -if you are in your duty. - - February 24, 1815. - -DEAR SON:— - -I expect you are now engaged in repealing many of those laws which have -been enacted for prosecuting the war with vigor. As the olive-branch has -been presented to us, it will change all our plans, and we will again be -permitted to return in peace to our different occupations, and ought to -thank heaven for the blessing. This night we are to illuminate this -place in consequence of peace. Those who have seen the treaty say it is -dishonorable to America; that there are none of those points gained for -which we declared war. - - June 23, 1815. - -...... You appear to hesitate about going to the Legislature again, and -I am both unable and unwilling to advise you on that point; but as it -appears your business has not decreased by being there last winter, I -would have no objection to your going another session, as it would -afford you another opportunity of improvement, and perhaps the people of -your district may some time elect you to Congress. Could you not get an -active young man as a student that could keep your office open in your -absence, and do a little business for you?...... - -You may expect to have many difficulties and dangers to encounter in -your passage through life, especially as your situation becomes -enviable; but I hope you will always depend upon the protection of that -kind Providence, who has dealt so kindly with you, to shield you from -the shafts of malicious enemies. - -Your mother and the family send their kind love to you, and believe me -your loving father, - - J. B. - -The next event in his life of which I find any mention in his -autobiography, was the delivery of an oration before the Washington -Society of Lancaster, July 4, 1815, of which he speaks as follows: - -On the 4th of July, 1815, I delivered the oration before the Washington -Association of Lancaster, which has been the subject of much criticism. -There are many sentiments in this oration which I regret; at the same -time it cannot be denied that the country was wholly unprepared for war, -at the period of its declaration, and the attempt to carry it on by -means of loans, without any resort to taxation, had well nigh made the -Government bankrupt. There is, however, a vein of feeling running -throughout the whole oration—of which, as I look back to it, I may be -excused for being proud—which always distinguishes between the conduct -of the administration and the necessity for defending the country. -Besides, it will be recollected that this oration was not delivered -until after the close of the war. I said: “Glorious it has been, in the -highest degree, to the American character, but disgraceful in the -extreme to the administration. When the individual States discovered -that they were abandoned by the General Government, whose duty it was to -protect them, the fortitude of their citizens arose with their -misfortunes. The moment we were invaded, the genius of freedom inspired -their souls. They rushed upon their enemies with a hallowed fury which -the hireling soldiers of Britain could never feel. They taught our foe -that the soil of freedom would always be the grave of its invaders.” - -I spoke with pride and exultation of the exploits of the navy, and also -of the regular army during the last year of the war. The former “has -risen triumphant above its enemies at home, and has made the proud -mistress of the ocean tremble. The people are now convinced that a navy -is their best defence.”[2] - -In the conclusion there is a passage concerning foreign influence which -must be approved by all. “Foreign influence has been, in every age, the -curse of Republics. Her jaundiced eye sees all things in false colors. -The thick atmosphere of prejudice, by which she is forever surrounded, -excludes from her sight the light of reason; whilst she worships the -nations which she favors for their very crimes, she curses the enemies -of that nation, even their virtues. In every age she has marched before -the enemies of her country, ‘proclaiming peace, when there was no -peace,’ and lulling its defenders into fatal security, whilst the iron -hand of despotism has been aiming a death-blow at their liberties.” And -again, “We are separated from the nations of Europe by an immense ocean. -We are still more disconnected from them by a different form of -government, and by the enjoyment of true liberty. Why, then, should we -injure ourselves by taking part in the ambitious contests of foreign -despots and kings?” - - [FROM HIS FATHER.] - - July 14, 1815. - -No doubt you will have many political enemies to criticise your oration, -but you must take the consequences now. It is a strong mark of -approbation to have so many copies of it published. I hope to see one of -them. - -I am busily engaged with my harvest. I am very glad I did not purchase -goods as I proposed, as they have fallen greatly in price. - - September 1, 1815. - -...... Myself and the family are very anxious to see you, yet I am glad -that your business is so good that you cannot, with propriety, leave it, -yet you must always make your calculations to come as often as you can. -Have you agreed to your nomination for the Legislature another session? -You know your own situation best. If you think proper to take another -seat, it has my approbation. I have read your oration, and I think it -well done. Perhaps it is a little too severe, and may hurt the feelings -of some of your friends, who have been friendly, independent of -politics. I have lent it to a few people who have asked for it, and they -all speak well of your performance. - - Oct. 19, 1815. - -...... It appears from the Lancaster Journal, you are again elected. I -wish you may end the next session with the same popularity as a -statesman that you gained in the last session. - -Mr. Buchanan’s own account of his second term of service in the -Legislature is thus given: - -I was again elected a member of the House of Representatives in the -State Legislature in October, 1815. The currency at that period was in -great disorder throughout the Middle, Western, and Southern States, in -consequence of the suspension of specie payments occasioned by the war. -On the 20th of December, 1815, a resolution was adopted by the House of -Representatives, instructing the Committee on Banks, “to inquire into -the causes of the suspension of specie payments by the banks within this -Commonwealth; and also, whether any or what measures ought to be adopted -by the Legislature on this subject.” This committee was composed of Mr. -McEuen, of the city; Milliken, of Mifflin; Stewart, of Fayette; and -Dysart, of Crawford. On the 12th of January, 1816, Mr. McEuen made a -report which concluded with a recommendation that a law should be -passed, obliging the banks to pay interest on balances to each other -monthly, at the rate of six per cent. per annum, after the 1st of March; -also, obliging the banks refusing to pay specie for their notes after -the 1st of January, 1817, to pay interest at the rate of eighteen per -cent. per annum from the time of demand; and forfeiting the charters of -such banks as should refuse to redeem their notes in specie after the -1st of January, 1818. A bare majority of the committee had concurred in -the report. The minority had requested me to prepare a substitute for -it, and offer it as soon as the report was read. This substitute -concluded with a resolution, “that it is inexpedient at this time for -the Legislature to adopt any compulsory measures relative to the banks.” -The original report and the substitute were postponed, and no action was -ever had afterwards upon either. - -The substitute states the following to have been the causes of the -suspension of specie payments in Pennsylvania: - -1. The blockade by the enemy of the Middle and Southern seaports, the -impossibility of getting their productions to market, and the consequent -necessity imposed upon them to pay in specie to New England the price of -the foreign merchandise imported into that portion of the Union. - -2. The large loans made by banks and individuals of this and the -adjacent States to the Government to sustain the war, and the small -comparative loans made in New England, which were paid by an extravagant -issue of bank notes. These latter bore but a small proportion to the -money expended there. To make up this deficiency, the specie of the -Middle and Southern States was drawn from the vaults of these banks, and -was used by the New England people in commerce, or smuggled to the -enemy. - -3. The great demand for specie in England. - -4. The recent establishment of a number of new banks throughout the -interior of Pennsylvania, which drew their capital chiefly from the -banks in Philadelphia and thereby weakened them, compelled them first to -suspend specie payments. These new banks, in self-defence, were -therefore obliged to suspend. - -5. The immense importation of foreign goods at the close of the war, and -the necessity of paying for them in specie, have continued the -suspension. - -During this session, and whilst the debates on the subject were -proceeding in Congress, I changed my impression on the subject of a Bank -of the United States, and became decidedly hostile to such an -institution. In this opinion I have never since wavered, and although I -have invested much of the profits of my profession in stocks, and was -often advised by friends to buy stock in this bank, I always declined -becoming a stockholder. Whilst the bill was pending in Congress, I urged -Mr. Holgate and other influential Democrats in the House to offer -instructions against the measure, but could not prevail with them. I -recollect Mr. H. told me that it was unnecessary, as our Democratic -Senators in Congress would certainly vote against the measure without -any instructions. - -Mr. Buchanan appears to have left the Legislature at the end of the -session of 1815–16, with a fixed determination to devote himself -exclusively to the practice of his profession. He says: - -After my second session in the Legislature, I applied myself with -unremitting application to the practice of the law. My practice in -Lancaster and some of the adjoining counties was extensive, laborious, -and lucrative. It increased rapidly in value from the time I ceased to -be a member of the Legislature. During the year ending on the 1st of -April, 1819, I received in cash for professional services $7,915.92, -which was, down to that time, the best year I ever experienced.[3] - -Among his professional employments at this period, I find the following -modest allusion to a cause in which he gained great distinction: - -During the session of the Legislature of 1816–17 I alone defended the -Hon. Walter Franklin and his associates on articles of impeachment -against them before the Senate; and during the session of 1817–18, I -defended the same judges on other articles, and had for associates Mr. -Condy and Mr. Hopkins. I never felt the responsibility of my position -more sensibly than, when a young man between 25 and 26 years of age, I -undertook alone to defend Judge Franklin; and although he was anxious I -should, again the next year, undertake his cause without assistance, yet -I insisted upon the employment of older and more experienced counsel. - -As the impeachment case referred to in the close of this sketch was the -occasion of Mr. Buchanan’s early distinction at the bar, a brief account -of it may be here given. It was a prosecution instituted from political -motives, and was a lamentable exhibition of party asperity. Judge -Franklin was the president judge of the court of common pleas for a -judicial district composed of the counties of Lancaster, Lebanon, and -York. His associates were not lawyers. At a period of great political -excitement, which had continued since the close of the war with Great -Britain, there arose a litigation in Judge Franklin’s court which grew -out of one of the occurrences of the war. In July, 1814, the President -had made a requisition on the Governor of Pennsylvania for the services -of certain regiments of militia. The troops were called and mustered -into the Federal service. Houston, a citizen of Lancaster, refused to -serve; he was tried by a court-martial, held under the authority of the -State, convicted, and sentenced to pay a fine. For this he brought an -action in the common pleas against the members of the court-martial and -its officer who had collected the fine. On the trial, Judge Franklin -ruled that when the militia had been mustered into the service of the -United States, the control of the State and its power to punish were -ended. The plaintiff, therefore, recovered a verdict. Judge Franklin was -subjected to this impeachment for ruling a point of law on which the -Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States afterwards differed. - -In a diary kept by a gentleman who watched this impeachment with the -deepest interest, I find the following allusion to Mr. Buchanan’s -argument: - -“This argument was conducted with great ingenuity, eloquence, and -address. It made a deep impression. It will tend very much to raise and -extend the reputation of Mr. Buchanan, and will have, I hope, a -favorable effect upon his future prospects as a lawyer and a -politician.” - -The impression produced by Mr. Buchanan’s argument was so strong, that -the managers of the impeachment asked for an adjournment before they -replied to it. His defence was made upon the sound doctrine that -“impeachment” of a judge for a legal opinion, when no crime or -misdemeanor has been committed, is a constitutional solecism. The -respondent was acquitted, and his advocate acquired a great amount of -reputation for so young a man. - -With an honorable and distinguished professional career thus opening -before him, a favorite in society both from his talents and his -character, young, high-spirited and full of energy, it seemed that -happiness had been provided for him by his own merits and a kind -Providence. But there now occurred an episode in his life which cast -upon him a never-ending sorrow. He became engaged to be married to a -young lady in Lancaster, who has been described to me, by persons who -knew her, as a very beautiful girl, of singularly attractive and gentle -disposition, but retiring and sensitive. Her father, Robert Coleman, -Esq., a wealthy citizen of Lancaster, entirely approved of the -engagement. After this connection had existed for some time, she -suddenly wrote a note to her lover and asked him to release her from the -engagement. There is no reason to believe that their mutual feelings had -in any degree changed. He could only reply that if it was her wish to -put an end to their engagement, he must submit. This occurred in the -latter part of the summer of 1819. The young lady died very suddenly, -while on a visit to Philadelphia, on the 9th of the December following, -in the twenty-third year of her age. Her remains were brought to her -father’s house in Lancaster, on the next Saturday, just one week from -the day on which she left home. “The funeral,” says the diary already -quoted from, “took place the next day, and was attended by a great -number of the inhabitants, who appeared to feel a deep sympathy with the -family on this distressing occasion.” - -From the same source, I transcribe a little obituary notice, which was -published in a Lancaster paper on the 11th of December, and which the -diary states was written by Mr. Buchanan: - -“Departed this life, on Thursday morning last, in the twenty-third year -of her age, while on a visit to her friends in the city of Philadelphia, -Miss Anne C. Coleman, daughter of Robert Coleman, Esquire, of this city. -It rarely falls to our lot to shed a tear over the mortal remains of one -so much and so deservedly beloved as was the deceased. She was -everything which the fondest parent or fondest friend could have wished -her to be. Although she was young and beautiful, and accomplished, and -the smiles of fortune shone upon her, yet her native modesty and worth -made her unconscious of her own attractions. Her heart was the seat of -all the softer virtues which ennoble and dignify the character of woman. -She has now gone to a world where in the bosom of her God she will be -happy with congenial spirits. May the memory of her virtues be ever -green in the hearts of her surviving friends. May her mild spirit, which -on earth still breathes peace and good-will, be their guardian angel to -preserve them from the faults to which she was ever a stranger— - - “‘The spider’s most attenuated thread - Is cord, is cable, to man’s tender tie - On earthly bliss—it breaks at every breeze.’” - -The following letter, written by Mr. Buchanan to the father of the young -lady, is all that remains of written evidence, to attest the depth of -his attachment to her: - - [JAMES BUCHANAN TO ROBERT COLEMAN, ESQ.] - - LANCASTER, December 10, 1819. - -MY DEAR SIR: - -You have lost a child, a dear, dear child. I have lost the only earthly -object of my affections, without whom life now presents to me a dreary -blank. My prospects are all cut off, and I feel that my happiness will -be buried with her in the grave. It is now no time for explanation, but -the time will come when you will discover that she, as well as I, have -been much abused. God forgive the authors of it. My feelings of -resentment against them, whoever they may be, are buried in the dust. I -have now one request to make, and, for the love of God and of your dear, -departed daughter whom I loved infinitely more than any other human -being could love, deny me not. Afford me the melancholy pleasure of -seeing her body before its interment. I would not for the world be -denied this request. - -I might make another, but, from the misrepresentations which must have -been made to you, I am almost afraid. I would like to follow her remains -to the grave as a mourner. I would like to convince the world, and I -hope yet to convince you, that she was infinitely dearer to me than -life. I may sustain the shock of her death, but I feel that happiness -has fled from me forever. The prayer which I make to God without ceasing -is, that I yet may be able to show my veneration for the memory of my -dear departed saint, by my respect and attachment for her surviving -friends. - -May Heaven bless you, and enable you to bear the shock with the -fortitude of a Christian. - - I am, forever, your sincere and grateful friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - -There is among Mr. Buchanan’s papers a letter written to him by one of -his friends, shortly after the death of Miss Coleman, which shows how -this affliction immediately affected him, and how it was regarded by -persons of high social standing in Pennsylvania, who were not prejudiced -by erroneous beliefs in regard to the circumstances which led to the -breaking of the engagement. - - [AMOS ELLMAKER TO MR. BUCHANAN.] - - December 20, 1819. - -DEAR SIR:— - -I hear you have left Lancaster, and have not heard where you have gone -to; but I take it for granted the absence will be short. I am writing, I -know not why, and perhaps had better not. I write only to speak of the -awful visitation of Providence that has fallen upon you, and how deeply -I feel it. The thought of your situation has scarcely been absent from -my mind ten days. I trust your restoration to your philosophy and -courage, and to the elasticity of spirits natural to most young men. Yet -time, the sovereign cure of all these, must intervene before much good -can be done. The sun will shine again—though a man enveloped in gloom -always thinks the darkness is to be eternal. Do you remember the Spanish -anecdote? A lady, who had lost a favorite child, remained for months -sunk in sullen sorrow and despair. Her confessor, one morning, visited -her, and found her, as usual, immersed in gloom and grief. “What!” says -he; “have you not forgiven God Almighty?” She rose, exerted herself, -joined the world again, and became useful to herself and friends. - -Might I venture to hint advice? It would be to give full scope (contrary -to common advice on similar occasions), I say to give full vent and -unrestrained license to the feelings and thoughts natural in the case -for a time—which time may be a week, two weeks, three weeks, as nature -dictates—without scarcely a small effort during that time to rise above -the misfortune; then, when this time is past, to rouse, to banish -depressing thoughts, as far as possible, and engage most industriously -in business. My opinion is that too early an effort to shake off a very -heavy affliction is often, if not always, dangerous. An early effort is -futile, and worse—an unavailing struggle renders the mind cowardly, and -sinks the spirits deeper in gloom. The true way to conquer is to run -away at first. The storm which uproots the firmest oak passes harmlessly -over the willow. - -Forgive all this talk; it opens in my own bosom a wound which a dozen -years have not cicatrized, and brings to my recollection a dark period -of my own days, the remembrance of which yet chills me with horror. - -Two of your cases here may be tried. If they are, I will endeavor to -assist your colleague, Mr. Elder, for you, and for your benefit. This is -our court week for the civil list...... - -Mrs. E—— talks much of you, and if she knew I was writing, would have me -add her kindest message—indicative of the interest she feels. Farewell. - - AMOS ELLMAKER. - -In the course of Mr. Buchanan’s long subsequent political career, this -incident in his early life was often alluded to in partisan newspapers, -and in that species of literature called “campaign documents,” -accompanied by many perversions and misrepresentations. These -publications are each and all unworthy of notice. On one occasion, after -he had retired to Wheatland, and when he had passed the age of seventy, -he was shown by a friend a newspaper article, misrepresenting, as usual, -the details of this affair. He then said, with deep emotion, that there -were papers and relics which he had religiously preserved, then in a -sealed package in a place of deposit in the city of New York, which -would explain the trivial origin of this separation.[4] His executors -found these papers inclosed and sealed separately from all others, and -with a direction upon them in his handwriting, that they were to be -destroyed without being read. They obeyed the injunction, and burnt the -package without breaking the seal. It happened, however, that the -original of the letter addressed by Mr. Buchanan to the young lady’s -father, before her funeral, was not contained in this package. It was -found in his private depositaries at Wheatland; and it came there in -consequence of the fact that it was returned by the father unread and -unopened. - -It is now known that the separation of the lovers originated in a -misunderstanding, on the part of the lady, of a very small matter, -exaggerated by giddy and indiscreet tongues, working on a peculiarly -sensitive nature. Such a separation, the commonest of occurrences, would -have ended, in the ordinary course, in reconciliation, when the parties -met, if death had not suddenly snatched away one of the sufferers, and -left the other to a life-long grief. But under the circumstances, I feel -bound to be governed by the spirit of Mr. Buchanan’s written instruction -to his executors, and not to go into the details of a story which show -that the whole occurrence was chargeable on the folly of others, and not -on either of the two whose interests were involved. - -Among the few survivors of the circle to which this young lady belonged, -the remembrance of her sudden death is still fresh in aged hearts. The -estrangement of the lovers was but one of those common occurrences that -are perpetually verifying the saying, hackneyed by everlasting -repetition, that “the course of true love never did run smooth.” - -But it ran, in this case, pure and unbroken in the heart of the -survivor, through a long and varied life. It became a grief that could -not be spoken of; to which only the most distant allusion could be made; -a sacred, unceasing sorrow, buried deep in the breast of a man who was -formed for domestic joys; hidden beneath manners that were most -engaging, beneath strong social tendencies, and a chivalrous -old-fashioned deference to women of all ages and all claims. His -peculiar and reverential demeanor towards the sex, never varied by rank, -or station, or individual attractions, was doubtless in a large degree -caused by the tender memory of what he had found, or fancied, in her -whom he had lost in his early days by such a cruel fate. If her death -had not prevented their marriage, it is probable that a purely -professional and domestic life would have filled up the measure alike of -his happiness and his ambition. It is certain that this occurrence -prevented him from ever marrying, and impelled him again into public -life, after he had once resolved to quit it. Soon after this -catastrophe, he was offered a nomination to a seat in Congress. He did -not suppose that he could be elected, and did not much desire to be. But -he was strongly urged to accept the candidacy, and finally consented, -chiefly because he needed an innocent excitement that would sometimes -distract him from the grief that was destined never to leave him.[5] -Great and uninterrupted, however, as was his political and social -success, he lived and died a widowed and a childless man. Fortunately -for him, a sister’s child, left an orphan at an early age, whom he -educated with the wisest care, filled to him the place of a daughter as -nearly and tenderly as such a relative could supply that want, adorning -with womanly accomplishments and virtues the high public stations to -which he was eventually called. - ------ - -Footnote 1: - - Under the date of September 13, 1813, Mr. Buchanan’s father writes to - him: “Yesterday the fast day was kept here pretty unanimously. Mr. - Elliot gave us an excellent sermon, and spoke of the war as a - judgment, and the greatest calamity that could befall a people. He - showed it to be worse than the famine or the pestilence. In the two - latter cases, he said God acted as the immediate agent: in that of war - he acted by subordinate agents; therefore the calamity was the - greater.” This was the tone of many Federalist sermons. - -Footnote 2: - - “There is extant, according to the best of my recollection in the - National Intelligencer, though not in Everett’s edition of his works, - a speech of Mr. Webster in 1814, in the House of Representatives, on - the ‘Conduct of the War.’ It is very severe on the military - operations, especially in Canada (which no doubt, as a general thing, - deserved all that was said of them), but he dwells with pride on our - naval exploits. ‘However,’ says he, ‘we may differ as to what has been - done or attempted on land, our differences cease at the water’s - edge.’” (Note by Mr. Buchanan.) - -Footnote 3: - - I find a memorandum in Mr. Buchanan’s handwriting of his professional - emoluments during his years of active practice. - - 1813 $938│1821–2 $11,297 - 1814 $1,096│ 1823 $7,243 - 1815 $2,246│ 1825 $4,521 - 1816 $3,174│ 1826 $2,419 - 1817 $5,379│ 1827 $2,570 - 1818 $7,915│ 1828 $2,008 - 1819 $7,092│ 1829 $3,362 - 1820 $5,665│ - -Footnote 4: - - These and other papers of importance were sent by Mr. Buchanan from - Wheatland to a bank in New York during the Civil War, when - Pennsylvania was threatened with an invasion by the Confederate - troops. - -Footnote 5: - - Conversing once in London with an intimate friend, very much younger - than himself (Mr. S. L. M. Barlow of New York), Mr. Buchanan said: “I - never intended to engage in politics, but meant to follow my - profession strictly. But my prospects and plans were all changed by a - most sad event which happened at Lancaster when I was a young man. As - a distraction from my great grief, and because I saw that through a - political following I could secure the friends I then needed, I - accepted a nomination.” - ------ - - - - - CHAPTER II. - 1820–1824. - -MONROE’S ADMINISTRATION—EMINENT MEN IN CONGRESS—NOTICES OF WILLIAM - LOWNDES AND JOHN RANDOLPH OF ROANOKE—JOHN SARGEANT—BUCHANAN BECOMES - A LEADING DEBATER—BANKRUPT BILL—CUMBERLAND ROAD—THE TARIFF. - - -In the autumn of 1820, Mr. Buchanan was elected a Representative in -Congress for a district composed of the counties of Lancaster, York, and -Dauphin. He was nominated and elected as a Federalist. He took his seat -on the 3d of December, 1821. - -Of course a young man of nine-and-twenty, who had been for two terms a -member of the Legislature of his native State, and had been somewhat -active in that body, was already possessed of some powers as a debater. -But his political principles, as a national statesman, were yet to be -formed. The “Federalism” of the period in which Mr. Buchanan came into -public life, and which was professed by those among whom he grew up, -chiefly consisted in an opposition to the war of 1812 and to some of the -measures of the Administration which conducted it. In the five years -which followed the peace of 1815, the sharper lines which had separated -the Federal and the Republican (or Democratic) parties, and their -distinctive organizations, almost disappeared. Mr. Monroe, who succeeded -Mr. Madison, was elected President, for the term commencing March 4, -1817, by a majority of 109 out of 217 electoral votes. At his second -election, for the term commencing March 4, 1821, his majority was 118 -out of 235. This near approach to unanimity evinces almost an -obliteration of party distinctions. Mr. Monroe’s personal popularity and -the general confidence that was reposed in him had a considerable -influence in producing what was called “the era of good feeling.” which -prevailed while he administered the government. The Federalists, who had -been strongest in the North and the East, were conciliated by his first -Inaugural, while his strength was not weakened among the Republicans (or -Democrats) of the South. In truth, it was not until the war was over and -some of the animosities which it caused had begun to fade, that the -attention of men began to be directed to questions of internal -administration, which would involve an exploration of the Federal powers -and a discussion of policies applicable to a state of peace. - -When Mr. Buchanan entered Congress there was no sectionalism to disturb -the repose of the country. The Cabinet was a fair representation of the -different sections, its members being from Massachusetts, New York, -Georgia, South Carolina, Ohio, and Maryland. It remained the same, with -one exception only, until Mr. Monroe went out of office in 1824.[6] It -is not easy to trace among the public men of this period any fixed -political doctrines such as afterwards came to distinguish the opposing -parties. All that can be said is, that in the Middle States those who -had been Republicans had a strong tendency to the Virginia principles of -State Rights; but what these were, beyond a general tendency to watch -and prevent undue expansion of the Federal powers, it would be difficult -now to say. In Congress, most of the Eastern representatives were Free -Traders, while those of the Middle States were in favor of moderate -protection. Among the Southern members there was a disposition to follow -a liberal policy in the administration of the government, which was -aided by the ability and ambition of Mr. Calhoun, the Secretary of War. -But among the members, chiefly confined to the Southwestern States, -there was a compact knot of men who were called “Radicals,” in the -political nomenclature of that period. It is hard to define them, but -their distinctive policy appears to have been a steady resistance to all -expenditures of public money, and a persistently strict construction of -the Constitution. Thus there cannot be said to have been any -well-defined parties at this period, such as the country has since been -accustomed to. But they began to be formed on the questions relating to -finance and the development of the internal resources of the country, -which arose during Mr. Monroe’s Presidency, and continued to a later -period. Men who had been Federalists and men who had been Republicans, -during the previous administrations, passed into the one or the other of -the subsequent parties, which assumed new designations, without much -real historical connection with the old parties that had preceded them. - -The personal composition of the two Houses of Congress at this time -presents many interesting names. In the Senate, Rufus King, who had been -a Senator during Washington’s Administration, and Nathaniel Macon, who -had been a Representative at the same time, gave a flavor of the -formative period of the Republic. John Galliard and William Smith (of -South Carolina) and James Brown (of Louisiana) were also among the older -members. A somewhat younger class of men numbered among them Martin Van -Buren, who succeeded General Jackson as President. - -Mr. Buchanan always considered it one of the great advantages of his -life that he had the benefit, at this early period, of the society of -Mr. King and Mr. Macon, and he always spoke in the most grateful terms -of their personal kindness to him. The members of the House of -Representatives, with one exception, General Smith of Maryland, were -younger men. They are spoken of in the following paper, which I find in -Mr. Buchanan’s handwriting, and in which he has recorded his impressions -of that beau-ideal of a statesman, William Lowndes, of South Carolina, -by whose early death, in 1822, the country lost one of the ablest, most -accomplished and purest men it has ever produced:[7] - -“I entered the House of Representatives with George McDuffie and Joel R. -Poinsett of South Carolina, Andrew Stevenson of Virginia, John Tod of -Pennsylvania, John Nelson of Maryland, Reuben H. Walworth and Churchill -C. Cambreleng of New York, and Benjamin Gorham of Massachusetts. They -were all able and promising men, having already attained high -distinction in their respective States. - -“Among those who had served in former Congresses, Mr. William Lowndes of -South Carolina was the foremost in ability and influence. Next to him -stood Mr. Sergeant of Pennsylvania, Mr. McLane of Delaware, Mr. Philip -P. Barbour of Virginia, Mr. Baldwin of Pennsylvania, Mr. Tracy of New -York, and John Randolph of Roanoke. Neither Mr. Clay nor Mr. Webster was -a member of Congress at this period. Mr. Lowndes did not take his seat -until December 21st, nearly three weeks after the beginning of the -session. In the meantime, the new members of the House awaited his -arrival in Washington with much interest. He, with Mr. Calhoun and Mr. -Cheves, had constituted what was termed the ‘Galaxy’ of young men whom -South Carolina sent to the House to sustain the war of 1812 with Great -Britain, and he ranked the first among them. - -“Mr. Lowndes had been unanimously nominated in December, 1821, by the -Legislature of South Carolina, as a candidate for the Presidency to -succeed Mr. Monroe. To this he made no direct response. In a letter to a -friend in Charleston, after stating that he had not taken and never -would take a step to draw the public eye upon him for this high place, -he uttered the memorable sentiment: ‘The Presidency of the United States -is not, in my opinion, an office to be either solicited or declined.’ -And such was the general conviction of his candor and sincerity that no -man doubted this to be the genuine sentiment of his heart. Fortunate -would it have been for the country had all future aspirants for this -exalted station acted in accordance with this noble sentiment. At the -time, as Mr. Benton truly observes, ‘he was strongly indicated for an -early elevation to the Presidency—indicated by the public will and -judgment, and not by any machinery of individual or party management, -from the approach of which he shrank as from the touch of -contamination.’[8] - -“When Mr. Lowndes took his seat in the House, it was apparent to all -that his frail and diseased frame betokened an early death, though he -was then only in the forty-first year of his age. He was considerably -above six feet in height, and was much stooped in person. There was -nothing striking in his countenance to indicate great and varied -intellectual powers. As a speaker he was persuasive and convincing. -Though earnest and decided in the discussion of great questions, he -never uttered a word which could give personal offence to his opponents -or leave a sting behind. His eloquence partook of his own gentle and -unpretending nature. His voice had become feeble and husky, and when he -rose to speak, the members of the House, without distinction of party, -clustered around him so that they might hear every word which fell from -his lips. Towards his antagonists he was the fairest debater ever known -in Congress. It was his custom to state their arguments so strongly and -clearly that John Randolph, on one occasion, exclaimed: ‘He will never -be able to answer himself.’ He possessed all the varied information -necessary to the character of a great American statesman; and this, not -merely in regard to general principles, but to minute practical details. - -“On one occasion it became his duty, as Chairman of the Committee on -Commerce, in the House, to present a history of the origin, progress and -character of our trade with the East Indies. This he did with such -fulness and precision that Mr. Silsbee, a well-informed and -much-respected member of the House, and afterwards a Senator from -Massachusetts, declared in his place, that although he had been engaged -in that trade for many years, the gentleman from South Carolina had -communicated to the House important information and shed new light on -the subject which had never been known to him. On another occasion, two -young members made a wager that Mr. Lowndes could not promptly state the -process of manufacturing a common pin. On propounding the question to -him, he at once stated the whole process in minute detail. - -“Mr. Lowndes’ great influence,—for he was the undisputed leader in the -House—arose in no small degree from the conviction of its members that -he never had a sinister or selfish purpose in view, but always uttered -the genuine sentiments of his heart. Mr. Lowndes had not the least -jealousy in his nature. In his social intercourse with his -fellow-members he was ever ready and willing to impart his stores of -information on any subject, without feeling the least apprehension that -these might be used to anticipate what he himself intended to say, or in -debate against himself. His health continuing to decline, he resigned -his seat in the House, and by the advice of his physicians, embarked in -October, 1822, from Philadelphia in the ship Moss, with his wife and -daughter, for London. He died on the passage, on the 27th of that month, -and was buried at sea. - -“His death was announced in the House of Representatives on the 21st of -January, 1823, by Mr. James Hamilton, his successor. This was the first -occasion on which such honors had been paid to the memory of any one not -a member of the House at the time of his decease. Among the eulogies -pronounced was one by John W. Taylor, of New York, who had been the -Speaker of the House during the session immediately preceding. He had -been an active and able opponent of Mr. Lowndes throughout the debates -and proceedings on the Missouri question, which had for two years -convulsed the House and the country, until its settlement at the close -of the last session. Coming from a political antagonist, it so -graphically presents the true character of Mr. Lowndes, that I am -tempted to copy a portion of it. After referring to his death, as ‘the -greatest misfortune which had befallen the Union’ since he had held a -seat in its councils, he proceeds: ‘The highest and best hopes of this -country looked to William Lowndes for their fulfillment. The most -honorable office in the civilized world—the Chief Magistracy of this -free people—would have been illustrated by his virtues and talents. -During nine years’ service in this House, it was my happiness to be -associated with him on many of its most important committees. He never -failed to shed new light on all subjects to which he applied his -vigorous and discriminating mind. His industry in discharging the -arduous and responsible duties constantly assigned him, was persevering -and efficient. To manners the most unassuming, to patriotism the most -disinterested, to morals the most pure, to attainments of the first rank -in literature and science, he added the virtues of decision and -prudence, so happily combined, so harmoniously united, that we knew not -which most to admire, the firmness with which he pursued his purpose or -the gentleness with which he disarmed opposition. His arguments were -made not to enjoy the triumph of victory, but to convince the judgment -of his hearers; and when the success of his efforts was most signal, his -humility was most conspicuous. You, Mr. Speaker, will remember his zeal -in sustaining the cause of our country in the darkest days of the late -war.’ - -“The whole House, with one accord, responded to the truthfulness of -these sentiments so happily expressed by Mr. Taylor. And yet, strange to -say, the published debates of Congress contain but a meagre and -imperfect sketch, and offer no report at all of the speeches of this -great and good man. His fame as a parliamentary speaker, like that of -the great commoner, Charles James Fox, must mainly rest upon tradition -now fast fading away. The editors of the National Intelligencer truly -remark that, ‘of all the distinguished men who have passed periods of -their lives in either House of Congress, there is certainly no one of -anything like equal ability who has left fewer traces on the page of -history or on the records of Congress than William Lowndes, the eminent -Representative in Congress for several years of the State of South -Carolina.’ The reason which they assign why so few of his eloquent -speeches are to be found on record is attributable, in part, to his -unfeigned diffidence, which placed less than their true value upon his -own exertions, and in part to an objection which he had, on principle, -to the practice of writing out speeches for publication, either before -or after the delivery. Little or no reliance could be placed on the -reporters of that day. The art even of shorthand writing was almost -unknown in this country, and the published sketches prepared by the -so-called reporters, were calculated to injure rather than to elevate -the character of the speaker. - -“How much has been lost to the country by the scruples of Mr. Lowndes -may be imagined from the ‘little gem’ of a speech written out by him at -the personal request of Mr. Silsbee, then a member of the House, on the -bill for the relief of the family of Commodore Perry, but never -published until more than twenty years after his death. It does not -appear in the annals of 1821 that he made any speech on this occasion. -It may be added, to show the incapacity of the reporters of that day, -that there is no other mention of his speech against the bankrupt bill, -commenced on February 21st, and concluded on March 5th, 1822, though -listened to with rapt attention by the House, except that he did speak -on these two days. From physical exhaustion he was unable to say all he -had intended on this important subject. His name does not even appear in -the index as a speaker on this bill. - -“I have written much more than I should otherwise have done, to repair -injustice done to the character of the ablest, purest, and most -unselfish statesman of his day.”[9] - -Of John Randolph and John Sergeant, Mr. Buchanan thus records his -recollections: - -John Randolph of Roanoke was the most conspicuous, though far from the -most influential member of the House, when I first took my seat. He -entered the House in 1799, and had continued there, with the exception -of two terms, from that early period. His style of debate was in perfect -contrast to that of Mr. Lowndes. He was severe and sarcastic, sparing -neither friend nor foe, when the one or the other laid himself open to -the shafts of his ridicule. He was a fine _belles-lettres_ scholar, and -his classical allusions were abundant and happy. He had a shrill and -penetrating voice, and could be heard distinctly in every portion of the -House. He spoke with great deliberation, and often paused for an instant -as if to select the most appropriate word. His manner was confident, -proud, and imposing, and pointing, as he always did, his long forefinger -at the object of attack, he gave peculiar emphasis to the severity of -his language. He attracted a crowded gallery when it was known he would -address the House, and always commanded the undivided attention of his -whole audience, whether he spoke the words of wisdom, or, as he often -did, of folly. For these reasons he was more feared than beloved, and -his influence in the House bore no proportion to the brilliancy of his -talents. He was powerful in pulling down an administration, but had no -skill in building anything up. Hence he was almost always in the -opposition, but was never what is called a business member. To me he was -uniformly respectful, and sometimes complimentary in debate. I well -remember Mr. Sergeant putting me on my guard against Mr. Randolph’s -friendship.” - -“Mr. Sergeant entered the House in December, 1815, and had continued to -be a member since that day. As a lawyer, he stood in the front rank -among the eminent members of the bar of Philadelphia, at a period when -its members were greatly distinguished throughout the country for -ability and learning. His personal character was above reproach. From -his first appearance he maintained a high rank in the estimation of the -House. As a debater, he was clear and logical, and never failed to -impart information. His fault was that of almost every member of -Congress who had become a member after a long and successful training at -the bar. He was too exhaustive in his arguments, touching every point in -the question before the House without discriminating between those which -were vital and those which were subordinate. His manner was cold and -didactic, and his prolixity sometimes fatigued the House. In his social -intercourse with the members, he was cold but not repulsive. The high -estimation in which he was held, arose from the just appreciation of his -great abilities, and of his pure and spotless private character. There -was nothing _ad captandum_ about him. He was regarded by his -constituents in Philadelphia with pride and affection, who generally -spoke of him as ‘our John Sergeant.’” - -The first debate in which Mr. Buchanan took part related to a bill, -introduced by General Smith of Maryland, making appropriations for the -Military Establishment. This discussion, which took place on the 9th and -11th of January, 1822, was an excited one, from the inner motive of the -opposition to the bill, which was aimed at the supposed aspirations of -Mr. Calhoun, the Secretary of War. In reference to the Secretary Mr. -Buchanan said: “I have no feeling of partiality for the Secretary of -War, nor of prejudice against him. I view him merely as a public -character, and, in that capacity, I conscientiously believe that he has -done his duty.” After a sharp reply from Mr. Randolph, the bill was -passed by a very large majority, the members of the so-called “Radical” -party alone voting against it. There very soon occurred another debate -which is of greater importance, since it marks the direction which Mr. -Buchanan’s mind was beginning to take on the subject of Federal powers -and State Rights. This was the occasion of the introduction of a -Bankrupt bill. - -Prior to this time, Congress had but once exercised the constitutional -power “to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies -throughout the United States.” This was in the Bankrupt law of 1800, -which was repealed in 1804. Of the power of Congress to legislate on the -subject of “bankruptcy” there can of course be no doubt, since it is -expressly conferred. But there has always been a doubt respecting the -true construction of the terms “bankruptcy” and “bankrupt.” Following -the English system, the Act of 1800 rejected the idea that these terms -include all “insolvents,” of all occupations, and confined the meaning -to “traders,” or mercantile insolvents. Here, therefore, was one very -serious question in interpretation to be encountered; for although the -measure, of which some account is now to be given, contemplated, as it -was first introduced, none but commercial insolvents, it finally turned -upon an amendment which would have made it applicable to all classes of -insolvent debtors. In either aspect, too, it brought into view the -contrasted functions of the Federal and the State courts, in the -enforcement and collection of private debts. - -The close of the war, in 1815, was followed by extensive financial -embarrassment among the commercial classes. The merchants of -Philadelphia suffered severely during the five years which succeeded the -peace, and it was by one of their Representatives, Mr. John Sergeant, -that a bankrupt bill, retrospective as well as prospective in its -operation, was introduced in the House, on the 11th of December, 1821. -On the 22d of January, 1822, the debate was opened by Mr. Sergeant, as -Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. His speech was exceedingly able, -and even pathetic, for he spoke for a large class of ruined men. The -discussion continued until the 12th of March, Mr. Sergeant standing -almost alone in advocacy of the bill, in opposition to George Tucker and -Philip P. Barbour of Virginia, and to Mr. Lowndes of South Carolina. The -latter, although opposed to the bill, did not accord with the strict -constructionists of Virginia. Thus far, the proposed measure included -only commercial insolvents. But on the 12th of March, a member from -Kentucky offered an amendment that included all insolvent debtors, which -was adopted. This, of course, changed the aspect of the whole subject, -and whether so intended or not, finally defeated the bill. Mr. Buchanan -spoke in opposition to the bill on the day the amendment was adopted. He -did not question the power of Congress to pass a bankrupt law. Nor did -he contend that the “bankruptcy” referred to in the Constitution, -necessarily included only commercial insolvents. But there is very -perceptible in his speech on this occasion a tendency to that line of -politics which he afterwards adopted and always adhered to, and which -may be described as a forbearance from exercising Federal powers of -acknowledged constitutional validity, in modes and upon occasions which -may lead to an absorption of State jurisdictions. Thus he said: “The -bill, as it stood before the amendment, went far enough. It would, even -then, have brought the operation of the law and the jurisdiction of the -Federal Courts into the bosom of every community. The bill as it now -stands will entirely destroy the symmetry of our system, and make those -courts the arbiters, in almost every case, of contracts to which any -member of society who thinks proper to become a bankrupt may be a party. -It will at once be, in a great degree, a judicial consolidation of the -Union. This was never intended by the friends of the Constitution...... -The jurisdiction of Federal Courts is now chiefly confined to -controversies existing between the citizens of different States. This -bill, if it should become a law, will amount to a judicial consolidation -of the Union.” - -Of the general tenor of this sweeping measure, Mr. Buchanan said: - -“Let a bankrupt be presented to the view of society, who has become -wealthy since his discharge, and who, after having ruined a number of -his creditors, shields himself from the payment of his honest debts by -his certificate, and what effects would such a spectacle be calculated -to produce? Examples of this nature must at length demoralize any -people. The contagion introduced by the laws of the country would, for -that very reason, spread like a pestilence, until honesty, honor, and -faith will at length be swept from the intercourse of society. Leave the -agricultural interest pure and uncorrupted, and they will forever form -the basis on which the Constitution and liberties of your country may -safely repose. Do not, I beseech you, teach them to think lightly of the -solemn obligation of contracts. No government on earth, however corrupt, -has ever enacted a bankrupt law for farmers; it would be a perfect -monster in this country, where our institutions depend altogether upon -the virtue of the people. We have no constitutional power to pass the -amendment proposed by the gentleman from Kentucky; and if we had, we -never should do so, because such a provision would spread a moral taint -through society which would corrupt it to its very core.” - -The next important discussion in which Mr. Buchanan took part was on a -bill relating to the Cumberland Road. Before he entered Congress, a -national turnpike had been built by the Federal Government, extending -from Cumberland in the State of Maryland to Wheeling in the State of -Virginia. It crossed a narrow part of Maryland, passed through a corner -of Pennsylvania, and touched but a small part of Virginia. The principal -interest felt in this work was in the Western States. It encountered -much opposition in Pennsylvania, where a turnpike road had been built, -under State authority, from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, which was kept -in repair by tolls, and which paid a small dividend to its stockholders. -A national road, supported by the Federal Government, and taking the -travel from the Pennsylvania road was considered in that State as a -grievance. Moreover, whenever the question of appropriating money for -the continued support of this national road, or the alternative of -imposing tolls, arose in Congress, the question of constitutional power -to establish such means of communication necessarily arose at every -stage of the legislation. That legislation is of interest now, inasmuch -as the course taken by Mr. Buchanan illustrates the development of his -opinions upon the constitutional question. - -Of the last appropriation for continuing the Cumberland Road, there -remained a balance in the Treasury of less than $10,000. In the General -Appropriation Bill of this session (1822), provision was made for the -repair of the road. A member from New Jersey moved to increase the -amount. On this amendment there was an animated discussion, in which Mr. -Buchanan appears to have considered that this public work was so -beneficial to the general prosperity of the Union, that Congress might -well appropriate the money needed for its support. “The truth is,” he -said, “we are all so connected together by our interests, as to place us -in a state of mutual dependence upon each other, and to make that which -is for the interest of any one member of the Federal family beneficial, -in most instances, to all the rest. We never can be divided without -first being guilty of political suicide. The prosperity of all the -States depends as much upon their Union, as human life depends upon that -of the soul and body.” It is quite obvious that this kind of reasoning -was, however true in the general, too broad and sweeping to justify the -appropriation of money from the Federal Treasury for a public work which -could claim no other than an incidental and remote relation to the -prosperity of all the States. Every appropriation of money by Congress -must rest upon some specific power of the Federal Constitution; and -although Congress has a specific power “to regulate commerce among the -several States,” and while it may be admitted that commerce includes -intercourse, it has been from the first, and still is, a serious -question whether this grant of the power of commercial regulation -includes a power to establish and maintain the means by which commerce -is carried on, and by which intercourse may be facilitated, unless such -means fall within the designation of “post-roads,” and are established, -primarily at least, for the transmission of mails. The appropriation -proposed for the continued support of the Cumberland Road failed, and -then came the question, in a separate bill, of imposing tolls for the -support of the road. Mr. Buchanan voted for this bill, as did most of -his colleagues from Pennsylvania, and it passed both Houses. But on the -4th of May (1822), the President, Mr. Monroe, returned the bill with a -very long message, stating his objections to it. From this voluminous -message, we may extract, although with some difficulty, two positions; -first, that in Mr. Monroe’s opinion, Congress had no power to raise -money by erecting toll-gates and collecting tolls, and that the States -cannot individually grant such a power to Congress by their votes in -Congress, or by any special compact with the United States; secondly, -that Congress having an unlimited power to raise money by taxation -general and uniform throughout the United States, its absolute -discretion in the appropriation of the money so raised is restricted -only by the duty of appropriating to the purposes of the common defence, -and of general, not local, benefit. The first of these positions will be -conceded by every one. The second admits of some doubt. Its soundness -depends upon the true interpretation of the first of the enumerated -powers of the Federal Constitution, that which contains the grant of the -taxing power.[10] This is not the place to enter upon the discussion of -controverted questions of constitutional interpretation. But all -students of the Federal Constitution are aware that the grammatical -construction of the clause to which Mr. Monroe referred, admits of, and -has been claimed to admit of, two interpretations. Read by itself, and -without reference to the other enumerated powers, this clause has been -supposed by some persons to grant an unlimited power to tax for any -purpose that in the judgment of Congress will promote the general -welfare of the United States, provided only that the taxation is -uniform. On the other hand, it has been contended that the clause is not -a broad, independent, and specific power to tax for any object that will -promote the general welfare of the United States, but that it is limited -to the promotion of the general welfare through the exercise of some one -or more of the other enumerated powers of the Constitution, each of -which must receive its own scope from a just interpretation before the -people of the United States can be taxed for the means of exercising -that power. Viewed in the latter sense, the clause contains a grant of -the power of taxation, general and universal in its nature, but limited -as to its objects by the objects of each of the other enumerated powers. -Viewed in the former sense, it becomes a separate and independent power -to tax for any object that will promote the general welfare, without -reference to the exercise of any of the specific powers of the -Constitution which form the objects for which the Federal Government was -created. - -Mr. Monroe’s veto message on this occasion was sustained in the House by -a vote of 68 to 72, and the bill consequently failed. The vote of the -House, however, is to be considered as a concurrence in Mr. Monroe’s -objection that Congress cannot establish toll-gates and collect tolls, -and not as an affirmance of the general views which he expressed on the -taxing power. But upon Mr. Buchanan this message produced a strong -effect. It was the first time that his mind had been brought sharply to -the consideration of the questions in what mode “Internal Improvements,” -as they were called, can be effected by the General Government, and -consequently he began to perceive the dividing line between the Federal -and the State powers. Although he had voted for the bill imposing tolls -upon the Cumberland Road, influenced probably by the desire to diminish -its injurious competition with the Pennsylvania road, he took occasion -at the next session to retract the error of which he had been convinced -by Mr. Monroe’s message. When a bill was introduced at the next session, -making an appropriation for the preservation and repair of the -Cumberland Road, he moved as an amendment that the United States -retrocede the road to the three States through which it passed, on -condition that they would keep it in repair and collect no more tolls -than such as would be necessary for that purpose. Being now convinced -that Congress could not impose the tolls, he thought the only -alternative was to cede the road to the States, since it could not be -supported from the Federal Treasury without producing inequality and -injustice. His amendment was rejected and the bill was passed.[11] A -precedent was thus established for the support of the road by Congress. -The subject will again recur in 1829 and 1836. In Mr. Buchanan’s speech -in 1829 will be found the expression of his more matured constitutional -views on the whole subject of Internal Improvements.[12] - -The 17th Congress, which commenced its session in December, 1822, and -terminated in March, 1823, witnessed a protracted discussion on the -doctrine of “protection,” which extended into the 18th Congress. The -tariff of 1823–4 was the second measure of that kind after the war. At -that period the prevalent doctrine in the New England States was -Anti-protectionist. The city of Boston was represented by Mr. Benjamin -Gorham, a lawyer of remarkable ability, the immediate predecessor of Mr. -Webster. His speech against the new tariff was replied to by Mr. -Buchanan; and if the reply is a fair indication of the speech against -which it was directed, Mr. Gorham’s language must have been -vehement.[13] Mr. Buchanan said: - -“The gentleman from Massachusetts has declared this bill to be an -attempt, by one portion of the Union for its own peculiar advantage, to -impose ruinous taxes on another. He has represented it as an effort to -compel the agriculturists of the South to pay tribute to the -manufacturers of the North; he has proclaimed it to be a tyrannical -measure. He has gone further, and boldly declared that the people of the -South should resist such a law, and that they ought to resist it. The -gentlemen from Massachusetts and Georgia (Mr. Tattnall) have proclaimed -it tyranny, and tyranny which ought to be resisted. I confess I never -expected to hear inflammatory speeches of this kind within these walls -which ought to be sacred to union; I never expected to hear the East -counselling the South to resistance, that we might thus be deterred from -prosecuting a measure of policy, urged upon us by the necessities of the -country. It was by a combination between the cotton-growers of the South -and the manufacturers of the North, that the introduction of coarse -cottons from abroad has been in effect prohibited by the high rates of -duties. It is ungenerous, then, for the South and the East to sound the -tocsin of alarm and resistance when we wish indirectly to benefit the -agriculturists and manufacturers of the Middle and Western States by the -imposition of necessary duties. If I know myself, I am a politician -neither of the East nor of the West, of the North nor of the South; I, -therefore, shall forever avoid any expressions, the direct tendency of -which must be to create sectional jealousies, sectional divisions, and, -at length, disunion—that worst and last of all political calamities. I -will never consent to adopt a general restrictive system, because the -agricultural class of the community would then be left at the mercy of -the manufacturers. The interest of the many would thus be sacrificed to -promote the wealth of the few. The farmer, in addition to the premium -which he would be compelled to pay the manufacturer, would have also to -sustain the expenses of the Government. If this bill proposed a system -which leads to such abuses, it should not receive my support. If I -could, for a single moment, believe in the language of the gentleman -from Georgia—that this bill would compel the agricultural to bow down -before the manufacturing interest—I should consider myself a traitor to -my country in giving it any support.” - -In the subsequent Congress, Mr. Buchanan spoke twice on the subject of -the tariff, namely, March 23d and April 9th, 1824. But the foregoing -extract from his speech in February, 1823, is sufficient to show how -moderate and just his views were on the subject of protection. - -When Mr. Buchanan entered Congress in December, 1821, his professional -income was the largest that he ever received. He had then been eight -years at the bar, and his emoluments from his profession, which were -less than $1,000 for the first year, had become more than $11,000 for -the year 1821–2. They then fell off somewhat rapidly, and in the year -1828 they amounted to only a little more than $2,000. - ------ - -Footnote 6: - - Mr. Thompson, Secretary of the Navy, was appointed to the Bench of the - Supreme Court in December, 1823, and Mr. Southard, of New Jersey, took - his place. - -Footnote 7: - - These notes were written by Mr. Buchanan in 1867. - -Footnote 8: - - Benton’s Thirty Years in the Senate, Vol. I, p. 19. - -Footnote 9: - - In the debate on Chilton’s Resolutions, in 1825, Mr. Sergeant said: - - “At the head of the Committee of Ways and Means in 1816, was one who - could not be remembered without feelings of deep regret at the public - loss occasioned by his early death. He possessed, in an uncommon - degree, the confidence of this House, and he well deserved it. With so - much accurate knowledge, and with powers which enabled him to delight - and instruct the House, there was united so much gentleness and - kindness, and such real, unaffected modesty, that you were prepared to - be subdued before he exerted his commanding powers of argument. I mean - William Lowndes of South Carolina.”—_Benton’s Debates_, Vol. IX, 730. - -Footnote 10: - - Art. I., § 8.—“To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, - to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general - welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises - shall be uniform throughout the United States.” - -Footnote 11: - - February 21, 1823. - -Footnote 12: - - _Post._ - -Footnote 13: - - Mr. Gorham’s speech has not been preserved. - ------ - - - - - CHAPTER III. - 1824–1825. - -ELECTION OF JOHN QUINCY ADAMS—THE “BARGAIN AND CORRUPTION”—UNFOUNDED - CHARGE—GENERAL JACKSON’S ERRONEOUS IMPRESSION—HIS CORRESPONDENCE - WITH MR. BUCHANAN. - - -I now approach one of those periods of intense political excitement -which it becomes every one who has to write of them to treat in an -entirely impartial and judicial spirit. The subject of this chapter is -the Presidential election of 1824,[14] and Mr. Buchanan’s connection -with it. The famous “coalition” between Mr. John Quincy Adams and Mr. -Clay, is a topic that involves so much that is personal, that one must -needs divest one’s self of all preconceived opinions, and must regard -the whole matter with that indifference which the present age already -feels, and which is solicitous only to do no injustice to individual -reputations. At the same time, the whole case should be plainly stated; -for it touches a provision of the Constitution, by which its framers -supplied a means for filling the office of President, in the event of -there being no choice through the electoral colleges. - -In the year 1824, there were 261 electoral votes in the Union, a -majority being 131. The candidates at the popular election were General -Jackson, Mr. John Quincy Adams, Mr. Crawford, and Mr. Clay. Neither of -them was the candidate of a distinctively organized political party. -General Jackson was a member of the Senate, from the State of Tennessee. -Mr. Adams was Secretary of State, under President Monroe. Mr. Crawford, -who had formerly been a Senator from Georgia, was not in any public -position. Mr. Clay was a Representative from Kentucky, and was chosen -Speaker of the House at the beginning of the session. Neither of these -candidates having received a majority of the electoral votes, the -election of a President devolved on the House of Representatives, in -which body each State would have one vote. But as the Constitution -required that the choice of the House be confined to the three highest -candidates on the list of those voted for by the electors, and as Mr. -Clay was not one of the three, he was excluded. He and his friends, -however, had it in their power to make either General Jackson or Mr. -Adams President; and Mr. Clay at all times had great control over his -friends. How he would cast his vote, and how he would lead his followers -who were members of the House to cast theirs, became therefore an -intensely exciting subject of speculation both in Washington and -throughout the country. For a short time it was supposed that Mr. Clay -and the other members from Kentucky would be governed by a resolution -adopted by both branches of the Legislature of that State, requesting -their members of Congress to vote for General Jackson. This resolution -had been adopted in the Kentucky House of Representatives on the 31st of -December (1824), by a majority of 73 to 11; and in the Senate of the -State it was adopted by a vote of 18 to 12. It spoke what was the -undoubted wish of the people of Kentucky, whose first choice for the -office of President was Mr. Clay himself, but whose preference for -General Jackson to Mr. Adams was explicitly declared by their -Legislature.[15] General Jackson had received the unanimous electoral -votes of eight States: New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, South -Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi, Indiana, and Alabama. Mr. Adams had -received the unanimous electoral votes of the six New England States. If -the Representatives of these various States in Congress should vote as -their States had voted, it would require but five additional States to -elect General Jackson, while seven would be needed to elect Mr. Adams. -Of the remaining States which had not unanimously given their electoral -votes to General Jackson or to Mr. Adams, it appears that General -Jackson received one of the electoral votes of New York, Mr. Adams -received twenty-six, and Mr. Crawford five. Delaware had given one of -its electoral votes to Mr. Adams and two to Mr. Crawford. General -Jackson had seven of the electoral votes of Maryland, Mr. Adams three, -and Mr. Crawford one. Virginia had given all of her electoral votes, -twenty-four, to Mr. Crawford. Louisiana had given three of her electoral -votes to General Jackson, and two to Mr. Adams. The electoral votes of -Illinois had gone two for General Jackson, and one for Mr. Adams. Which -of these doubtful States would be won in the great contest for General -Jackson, and which for Mr. Adams, was now the all-absorbing topic, and -the result depended very much upon the course of Mr. Clay. - -Among the scandals which hung around this election, it was afterward -said that Mr. Buchanan, while the matter was pending before the House of -Representatives in the winter of 1824–5, had, as an agent or friend of -Mr. Clay, approached General Jackson and sought to secure his promise to -make Mr. Clay Secretary of State, in consideration of his receiving Mr. -Clay’s vote and influence in the House. There was not much intrinsic -probability in this imputation, for the relations between Mr. Clay and -Mr. Buchanan were not such as would naturally have led to the selection -of the latter as Mr. Clay’s agent in such a negotiation, even if Mr. -Clay had been capable of making such an attempt to obtain from General -Jackson a promise to make him Secretary of State, while the election of -a President was pending in the House. But inasmuch as General Jackson, -nearly twenty years afterward, was quoted in support of this statement, -it is proper that I should lay before the reader Mr. Buchanan’s own -explicit account of what actually took place. It will be seen hereafter -that General Jackson, who always believed that there had been a corrupt -political bargain between Mr. Clay and Mr. Adams, was led afterwards to -think that Mr. Buchanan had at the time of the election entertained the -same belief, and yet that Mr. Buchanan had refrained from denouncing the -bargain as he should have done, because he had himself made the same -kind of attempt for Mr. Clay, in the conversation which he had with -General Jackson before the election took place. Mr. Buchanan’s own -account of his interview with General Jackson shows very clearly that, -instead of seeking an interview with General Jackson for the purpose of -proposing to him to make a bargain with Mr. Clay about the office of -Secretary of State, his sole object was to obtain from General Jackson a -denial of a prevailing rumor that he had said he would continue Mr. -Adams in that office, if elected President. - -At the time of this occurrence, Mr. Buchanan was a comparatively young -member of Congress, in the beginning of his fourth session. Speaking of -himself in the third person, he says in a memorandum now before me, “He -[Buchanan] had never personally known either General Jackson or Mr. Clay -until about the opening of this Congress, when the one took his seat as -a Senator from Tennessee, and the other was elected Speaker of the -House. Having great confidence in the sound political principles and -exalted character of General Jackson, and greatly preferring him to any -of the other candidates, he [Buchanan] had taken a very active part -before the people of Pennsylvania in securing for him their electoral -vote. Still, he was at the same time a warm admirer of Mr. Clay.” - -The prevalent rumor that General Jackson had said he would continue Mr. -Adams in the office of Secretary of State, in case of his election to -the Presidency, was supposed to derive some color of probability from -their known friendly relations, and from the defence which Mr. Adams had -made of the General’s conduct in the Seminole war. It was a rumor that -greatly disturbed General Jackson’s friends and supporters in -Pennsylvania. They regarded Mr. Adams’ constitutional views as much too -latitudinarian for the leading position in General Jackson’s cabinet; -and they feared that the General’s announcement of such a purpose would -stand in the way of his election by the House of Representatives. Mr. -Buchanan fully shared this anxiety of his Pennsylvania constituents and -political friends; and with the approbation and advice of a leading -gentleman among this class of General Jackson’s supporters, Mr. Buchanan -determined to ascertain from the General himself whether there was any -foundation for the rumor.[16] He first endeavored to obtain the -information from Major Eaton, the colleague of General Jackson in the -Senate, and his most intimate friend. Major Eaton declined to make the -inquiry. Mr. Buchanan then determined to make it himself. What follows -is from Mr. Buchanan’s own account of the interview, which lies before -me in his handwriting: - -Calling at the General’s lodgings in “the Seven Buildings,” Mr. Buchanan -accompanied him, on his own invitation, in a walk as far as the War -Department, where the General had to call on public business. After a -suitable introduction and reference to the rumor afloat, Mr. Buchanan -requested him to state whether he had ever declared that in case he -should be elected President he would appoint Mr. Adams Secretary of -State. To this he replied by saying that whilst he thought well of Mr. -Adams, he had never said or intimated that he would or would not make -this appointment. With this answer, Mr. Buchanan was entirely satisfied, -and so expressed himself. The object of his mission was thus -accomplished. The General’s answer was positive and emphatic. It made a -deep and lasting impression on his only auditor, who requested -permission to repeat it, and he gave it without reserve. - -This, however, was not the whole of the conversation; and in order to -explain how this conversation became afterwards distorted into the -appearance of an application by Mr. Buchanan to General Jackson on -behalf of Mr. Clay, it is necessary to advert to something which took -place between Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Philip S. Markley, another -Representative from the State of Pennsylvania, before Mr. Buchanan spoke -to General Jackson. Mr. Markley had been a devoted advocate of Mr. Clay -for the Presidency. He urged Mr. Buchanan to see General Jackson, and to -persuade him either to say that Mr. Clay should be Secretary of State, -or to remain absolutely silent as between Mr. Clay and Mr. Adams; “for -then,” as he remarked, “the friends of Mr. Clay would be placed upon the -same footing with the friends of Mr. Adams, and fight them with their -own weapons.” If Mr. Buchanan had made any proposition to General -Jackson respecting Mr. Clay, there might have been some foundation for -the subsequent charge that Mr. Buchanan approached the General as an -emissary of Mr. Clay. But, in point of fact, Mr. Buchanan did nothing of -the kind. After the General had given him the assurance that he had -never said he would or would not appoint Mr. Adams Secretary of State, -and before they parted, Mr. Buchanan mentioned, as an item of current -news, what he had heard Mr. Markley say. It does not appear to have -produced upon General Jackson, at the time, any impression that Mr. -Buchanan wished him to hold out any encouragement to the friends of Mr. -Clay that in the event of his election he would make Mr. Clay Secretary -of State. On the contrary, from what General Jackson said in answer to -Mr. Buchanan’s sole inquiry, it is apparent that Mr. Buchanan obtained -the only answer that he sought to obtain, namely, that the General had -not said that he would or would not appoint Mr. Adams as his Secretary -of State. Mr. Buchanan continues his account of the interview as -follows: - -“When I parted from the General, I felt conscious that I had done my -duty, and no more than my duty, towards him and my party, as one of his -most ardent and consistent political friends. Indeed the idea did not -enter my imagination at the time that the General could have afterwards -inferred from any thing I said, that I had approached him as the -emissary of Mr. Clay, to propose to elect him President, provided that -he (the General) would agree to appoint him Secretary of State. It is -but justice to observe that the General stated, in his subsequent -publication, that I did not represent myself to be the friend and agent -of Mr. Clay. Surely, if Mr. Clay had desired or intended to have made -such a bargain, he would have selected as his agent an old political and -personal friend. Events passed on,” Mr. Buchanan continues; “then came -the letter of Mr. George Kremer to the Columbian _Observer_, of the 25th -of January, 1825, charging the existence of a corrupt bargain between -Messrs. Adams and Clay; his avowal of its authorship, the appeal of Mr. -Clay to the House of Representatives against the charges it contained, -the report of the Committee on the subject, and, on the same day, the -election of Mr. Adams as President of the United States by the House of -Representatives; Mr. Adams receiving the vote of thirteen States, -including that of Kentucky, General Jackson of seven States, and Mr. -Crawford of four States. During all the debates and proceedings of the -House, on Mr. Clay’s appeal against the charges of Mr. Kremer, it was -never intimated to me, in the most distant manner, by any human being, -that I was expected to be a witness to sustain this charge, or had any -connection with the subject more than any other member of the House. - -“The conduct of General Jackson, after his defeat, was admirable. He -bore it with so much dignity and magnanimity, and perfect self-control, -as to elicit strong commendations, even from his political opponents. At -President Monroe’s levee, on the evening of the election, where he and -Mr. Adams were both present, it was repeatedly remarked, from the -courtesy and kindness of his manner and conversation, contrasted with -the coldness and reserve of Mr. Adams, that a stranger might have -inferred he had been the successful and Mr. Adams the defeated -candidate.” - -The election of Mr. Adams by the House of Representatives was followed -after the adjournment of Congress by a correspondence between Mr. -Buchanan and General Jackson, commencing in the spring of 1825 and -extending to August, 1827. This correspondence shows, first, the terms -on which General Jackson and Mr. Buchanan parted in Washington in the -spring of 1825; and in the next place it fixes the time and mode in -which the idea was first presented to the mind of General Jackson that -Mr. Buchanan came to him in December, 1824, as a friend of Mr. Clay. The -reader will observe that, while the election of Mr. Adams was a recent -event, while the country was ringing with the charge of a “corrupt -coalition” between Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay, and down to the 29th of -January, 1827, during the whole of which period General Jackson’s mind -was peculiarly excited by what he may have believed concerning the means -by which his rival had become President, there is no trace in this -correspondence of any feeling on his part that Mr. Buchanan had ever -been in any way connected with the supposed bargain, or with any effort -to make a similar bargain between General Jackson and Mr. Clay, or that -Mr. Buchanan knew of any important fact that would tend to support the -charge of a bargain between Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay. It was not until the -summer of 1827, nearly three years after the conversation between -General Jackson and Mr. Buchanan, that the General appears to have had -an erroneous impression of Mr. Buchanan’s purpose in seeking that -interview. - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO GENERAL JACKSON.] - - MAY 29, 1825. - -MY DEAR GENERAL:— - -I write this letter from Mercersburg, being now on a visit to my mother -and the family. I have no news of any importance to communicate, but -both inclination and duty conspire to induce me to trouble you -occasionally with a few lines, whilst you must be gratefully remembered -by every American citizen who feels an interest in the character of his -country’s glory. - -You have imposed additional obligations upon me by the uniform kindness -and courtesy with which you have honored me. - -In Pennsylvania, amongst a vast majority of the people, there is but one -sentiment concerning the late Presidential election. Although they -submit patiently, as is their duty, to the legally constituted powers, -yet there is a fixed and determined resolution to change them as soon as -they have the constitutional power to do so. In my opinion, your -popularity in Pennsylvania is now more firmly established than ever. -Many persons who heretofore supported you did it cheerfully from a sense -of gratitude, and because they thought it would be disgraceful to the -people not to elevate that candidate to the Presidential Chair, who had -been so great a benefactor of the country. The slanders which had been -so industriously circulated against your character had, nevertheless, in -some degree affected their minds, although they never doubted either -your ability or patriotism, yet they expressed fears concerning your -temper. These have been all dissipated by the mild prudence and dignity -of your conduct last winter, before and after the Presidential election. -The majority is so immense in your favor that there is little or no -newspaper discussion on the subject. I most sincerely and fervently -trust and hope that the Almighty will preserve your health until the -period shall again arrive when the sovereign people shall have the power -of electing a President. - -There never was a weaker attempt made than that to conciliate the good -opinion of Pennsylvania in favor of the administration by the -appointment of Mr. Rush, although no appointment could have produced the -effect desired; yet, if the President had selected Mr. Sergeant, he -would have chosen a man who had been his early and consistent friend, -and one whose character for talents and integrity stands high with all -parties in this State. Mr. Rush was a candidate for the office of -elector on the Crawford ticket. I verily believe his appointment will -not procure for the administration, out of the city of Philadelphia, -twenty new friends throughout the State. In that city their additional -strength is limited to John Binns and a few of his devoted followers. - -I hope Mrs. Jackson, ere this, has been restored to her accustomed -health. When I left her, I felt some apprehensions in relation to the -issue of her disease. Please to present to her my kindest and best -respects, and believe me to be ever your sincere friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - [GENERAL JACKSON TO MR. BUCHANAN.] - - HERMITAGE, June 25, 1825. - -DEAR SIR:— - -I have the pleasure to acknowledge the receipt of your kind letter of -the 29th ult., which has just reached me. - -That respect which I formed for your character on our first acquaintance -increased with our friendly intercourse, and to you was only extended -what I viewed a debt due to your merit as a gentleman of intelligence -and urbanity. It is, therefore, a source of much gratification to me to -receive a letter from you, detailing the friendly feelings of the -citizens of Pennsylvania toward me. - -It is gratifying to hear, through you, that the confidence and support -which the majority of the citizens of Pennsylvania expressed for me, by -their vote on the Presidential question, will not be withdrawn by the -artful and insidious efforts of my enemies. This is another evidence of -the firmness and indulgence of the freemen of Pennsylvania. This -organized plan of calumny and slander, levelled against me by the -unprincipled and wicked, will not owe its defeat to any effort of mine, -unless it be that which always attends truth and a conscious rectitude -of conduct, when submitted to an untrammelled and honest public. The -continued good opinion, therefore, of my fellow-citizens of -Pennsylvania, lays me under additional obligations, whilst it connects -my name with another guaranty of the wisdom of our government—I mean in -furnishing to posterity another example of the weakness of demagogues -when endeavoring to advance to power upon the destruction of innocence. - -It is much to the honor of the good citizens of Pennsylvania that they -calmly submit to the legally constituted power; this all good citizens -will do, who love a government of laws, although they show much -disapprobation at the means by which that power was obtained, and are -determined to oppose the men who obtained power by what they believe -illicit means. The great constitutional corrective in the hands of the -people against usurpation of power, or corruption by their agents, is -the right of suffrage; and this, when used with calmness and -deliberation, will prove strong enough. It will perpetuate their -liberties and rights, and will compel their representatives to discharge -their duties with an eye single to the public interest, for whose -security and advancement government is constituted. - -I have not yet been so fortunate as to fall in with Mr. Frazer, although -I have made inquiry for him. Should I meet with him, be assured it will -be a gratification to me to extend to him those attentions due to any of -your friends. - -I regret very much that the bad health of Mrs. J. prevented me from -passing through your hospitable town. I assure you, could we have done -so, it would have afforded Mrs. J. and myself much pleasure. Mrs. J.’s -health is perfectly restored. So soon as I got her to breathe the -mountain air of Pennsylvania, she mended by the hour. - -We are also blessed, in this section of the country, with the promise of -fine crops. Our cotton promises a good crop. This is six days earlier -than ever known in this section of country. - -Mrs. J. joins me in kind salutations to you, with our best wishes for -your happiness. - - Your friend, - - ANDREW JACKSON. - - [GENERAL JACKSON TO MR. BUCHANAN.] - - HERMITAGE, April 8, 1826. - -DEAR SIR:— - -I received, by due course of mail, your friendly letter of the 8th ult., -transmitting a resolution passed by the Convention at Harrisburg, in -which it is declared “that their confidence in me is unimpaired.” This -resolution adds another to the many obligations which I owe to the -Republicans of Pennsylvania, and which shall be cherished as long as the -feelings of gratitude and the sentiments of patriotism have a place in -my heart. What greater consolation could be offered to my declining -years than the reflection that my public conduct, notwithstanding the -difficulties through which it has led me, can still be honored with -testimonials so distinguished as this from the enlightened and patriotic -Pennsylvanians; I desire no greater. - -I have noted your remarks relative to Mr. Molton C. Rogers—every -information I have received concerning him corroborates your account of -him, and I have no doubt he fully merits the high character he sustains. - -We have received the result of the Panama question in the Senate. From -the whole view of the subject I have been compelled to believe that it -is a hasty, unadvised measure, calculated to involve us in difficulties, -perhaps war, without receiving in return any real benefit. The maxim -that it is easier to avoid difficulties than to remove them when they -have reached us, is too old not to be true; but perhaps this and many -other good sayings, are becoming inapplicable in the present stage of -our public measures, which seem to be so far removed from our -(_illegible_) that even the language of Washington must be transposed in -order to be reconciled to the councils of wisdom. I hope I may be -wrong—it is my sincere wish that this Panama movement may advance the -happiness and glory of the country—but if it be not a commitment of our -neutrality with Spain, and indirectly with other powers, as, for -example, Brazil, I have misconstrued very much the signification of the -anathemas which have been pronounced upon the Assembly at Verona, as -well as the true sense of the principles which form international law. -Let the primary interests of Europe be what they may, or let our -situation vary as far as you please from that which we occupied when the -immortal Washington retired from the councils of his country, I cannot -see, for my part, how it follows that the primary interests of the -United States will be safer in the hands of others than in her own; or, -in other words, that it can ever become necessary to form treaties, -alliances, or any connections with the governments of South America, -which may infringe upon the principles of equality among nations which -is the basis of their independence, as well as all their international -rights. The doctrine of Washington is as applicable to the present, as -to the then primary interests of Europe, so far as our own peace and -happiness are concerned, and I have no hesitation in saying, so far as -the true interests of South America are concerned—maugre the discovery -of Mr. Adams, that if Washington was now with us, he would unite with -him in sending this mission to Panama. No one feels more for the cause -of the South Americans than I do, and if the proper time had arrived, I -trust that none would more willingly march to their defence. But there -is a wide difference between relieving them from a combination of league -powers, and aiding them in forming a confederation which can do no good, -as far as I am apprised of its objects, and which we all know, let its -objects be the best, will contain evil tendencies. - - Believe me to be, with great respect, - - Your obedient servant, - - ANDREW JACKSON. - - [GENERAL JACKSON TO MR. BUCHANAN.] - - HERMITAGE, Oct. 15, 1826. - -MR DEAR SIR:— - -I was very much gratified on the receipt of your letter of the 21st -ult., which reached me yesterday, and thank you for the information it -contains. I want language to express the gratitude I feel for the -unsolicited, but generous support of the great Republican State of -Pennsylvania—did I lack a stimulus to exert all my faculties to promote -the best interests of my country, this alone would be sufficient. Who -could abandon the path of Republican virtue when thus supported by the -voluntary approbation of the enlightened and virtuous citizens of such a -State as Pennsylvania? I answer, none whose minds have been matured in -the schools of virtue, religion and morality. - -I am happy to learn that Mr. Cheves has become your neighbor and a -citizen—he is a great blessing to any society—he has a well-stored mind -of useful information, which he will employ to the benefit of his -country and the happiness of the society to which he belongs. Please -present me to him respectfully. - -I regret to learn that the drought has visited your section of country, -and your crops are not abundant; still, so long as we have a supply of -breadstuffs and other substantials, we ought to be thankful and happy. -When we contrast our situation with Ireland and England, we ought to -view ourselves as the chosen people of God, who has given us such a -happy government of laws and placed us in such a climate and fertile -soil. We ought not only to be thankful, but we ought to cherish and -foster this heavenly boon with vestal vigilance. - -Mrs. J. joins me in kind salutations and respects to you. - - I am, very respectfully, your friend, - - ANDREW JACKSON. - - [GENERAL JACKSON TO MR. BUCHANAN.] - - HERMITAGE, Jan. 29, 1827. - -DEAR SIR:— - -Your favor of the 19th has been before me for some time, but observing -in the papers the obituary notice of your brother, whose illness took -you from the city, I have delayed acknowledging its receipt until -advised of your return. I pray you to accept my sincere condolence for -the serious loss you have sustained in the death of your brother. - -I suspect the Administration begins to perceive the necessity of public -confidence, without which it is an arduous undertaking to execute the -solemn duties confided by the Constitution to the Chief Magistrate. The -Panama “bubble” and the loss of the trade with the British West Indies -are the result of this defect in the Cabinet, for it cannot be supposed -that such reputed diplomatists would have committed errors so obvious, -had not some influence stronger than the public good operated upon their -minds. My hope, however, is that the wisdom of Congress may remedy these -blunders, and that my friends the “factious opposition” may, in your own -language, never forget the support due to the country. - -I had predicted, from the movements of (_illegible_) and Rochester, that -the Panama subject was done with, and that the charge of “factious -opposition” would be hushed, but it appears I was mistaken. —— is to be -the theatre on which these mighty projects are to be unfolded. Alas! -what folly and weakness! - -Present me to my friend Mr. Kremer, and believe me, - - Very respectfully, your obedient servant, - - ANDREW JACKSON. - -In the spring of 1827, Mr. Carter Beverley, of Virginia, was on a visit -to General Jackson at the “Hermitage.” The conversation turned on the -incidents which preceded the election of Mr. Adams, and General Jackson -gave some account of his interview with Mr. Buchanan in December, 1824, -speaking of Mr. Buchanan, however, not by name, but as “a leading member -of Congress.” Mr. Beverley wrote an account of this conversation to a -friend in North Carolina, who published his letter. Mr. Beverley -afterward wrote to General Jackson, saying that his letter was not -intended for publication, but asking if its statements were correct. -General Jackson, without seeing Mr. Beverley’s published letter, then -wrote an answer to Mr. Beverley, which was published, and in which he -stated that “a leading member of Congress” had, as the agent or -confidential friend of Mr. Clay, proposed to him to engage to make Mr. -Clay Secretary of State, and that he emphatically declined to do so. -Subsequently, in another publication, General Jackson gave the name of -Mr. Buchanan as the member who had thus approached him. The public was -thus (in 1827) electrified by a statement, coming from General Jackson -himself, that Mr. Clay, who had been charged with purchasing his -appointment by Mr. Adams as Secretary of State, by his promise to make -Mr. Adams President, had attempted, through Mr. Buchanan, to negotiate -the same kind of corrupt bargain with General Jackson, on the like -promise to make General Jackson President. It is very easy to see how -this mistake first arose in the General’s mind. Recollecting the -information which Mr. Buchanan had given him of the over-zealous and -imprudent conversation of Mr. Markley, who was a known partisan of Mr. -Clay,—information which Mr. Buchanan assigned as a reason why the -General should disavow the rumor that he had promised to appoint Mr. -Adams Secretary,—General Jackson had evidently come to misunderstand the -object of Mr. Buchanan in mentioning what Mr. Markley had said. It must -be remembered that at this time (1827) there was an angry and excited -controversy going on, respecting the supposed bargain between Mr. Clay -and Mr. Adams; that Mr. Clay was publishing, and that General Jackson -was publishing; that General Jackson undoubtedly believed that there had -been an improper understanding between Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay, and it -was very natural for him to take up the idea that Mr. Buchanan, by -mentioning what Mr. Markley had said, stood ready, as a friend of Mr. -Clay, to propose and carry out a similar bargain with himself. Apart -from Mr. Buchanan’s denial, there seems to be an intrinsic improbability -that one who had been an earnest supporter of General Jackson in the -popular election, and who feared that even a rumor of his intended -appointment of Mr. Adams would injure the General in the House of -Representatives, and who knew that it would greatly injure him in -Pennsylvania, if it were not contradicted, should have exerted himself -to get from the General a promise to make Mr. Clay Secretary of State. -Promises, or rumors of promises, in regard to this appointment, were the -very things which Mr. Buchanan was interested to prevent. It was very -unfortunate that General Jackson did not afterwards and always see, that -the mention by Mr. Buchanan of Mr. Markley’s wishes, was intended to -present to his (the General’s) mind the importance of his denial of the -rumor that he had said he would appoint Mr. Adams. In all that scene of -intrigue—and apart from any thing said or done by the principal persons -concerned in that great struggle, there was intrigue—General Jackson -acted with the rigid integrity that belonged to his character. Mr. -Buchanan acted with no less integrity. He wished to prevent General -Jackson’s cause from being injured in the House and in the country, by -unfounded rumors with which the heated atmosphere of Washington was -filled; and he could have had no motive for seeking to make Mr. Clay -Secretary of State, at the expense of exposing General Jackson to the -same kind of rumor in regard to Mr. Clay which he was anxious to -counteract in regard to Mr. Adams. - -After the publication of General Jackson’s letter to Mr. Beverley, Mr. -Buchanan wrote to a friend as follows: - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO MR. INGHAM.] - - LANCASTER, July 12, 1827. - -DEAR SIR:— - -I received yours yesterday evening, and hasten to give it an immediate -answer. With you, I regret the publication of General Jackson’s letter -to Mr. Beverley. It may do harm, but cannot do good. The conversation -which I held with the General will not sustain his letter, although it -may furnish a sufficient reason for his apprehensions. My single purpose -was to ascertain from him whether he had ever declared he would appoint -Mr. Adams Secretary of State in case he were elected President. As to -the propriety and policy of propounding this question to him, I had -reflected much, and had taken the advice of a distinguished Jackson man, -then high in office in Pennsylvania. I had no doubt at the time that my -question, if answered at all, would be answered in the negative; but I -wished it to come from himself that he stood uncommitted upon this -subject. - -In my interview with the General (which, by the way, was in the street), -I stated the particulars of a conversation between Philip S. Markley and -myself, as one reason why he should answer the question which I had -propounded. Out of my repetition of this conversation the mistake must -have arisen. This conversation would be one link in the chain of -testimony, but of itself it is altogether incomplete. - -How General Jackson could have believed I came to him as an emissary -from Mr. Clay or his friends to make a corrupt bargain with him in their -behalf, I am at a loss to determine. He could not have received the -impression until after Mr. Clay and his friends had actually elected Mr. -Adams, and Adams had appointed Clay Secretary of State. Although I -continued to be upon terms of the strictest intimacy with General -Jackson whilst he continued at Washington, and have corresponded with -him occasionally since, he has never adverted to the subject. From the -terms of his letters to me, I never could have suspected that he for a -moment supposed me capable of becoming the agent in such a negotiation. -The idea that such was his impression never once flitted across my mind. - -When regularly called upon, I need not tell you that I shall speak the -truth. If the matter be properly managed, it will not injure General -Jackson; but I can readily conceive that such a course may be taken in -relation to it by some of our friends, as will materially injure his -prospects. - - From your friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - -At about this time, Mr. Clay publicly disclaimed all knowledge -respecting the interview between Mr. Buchanan and General Jackson, and -the latter then wrote to Mr. Buchanan the following explanatory letter: - - [GENERAL JACKSON TO MR. BUCHANAN.] - - HERMITAGE, July 15, 1827. - -DEAR SIR:— - -You will see from the enclosed publication of Mr. Clay repelling the -statement made by me respecting the propositions said to have been made -by his friends to mine and to me, and intended to operate upon the last -election for President, that it becomes necessary for the public to be -put in possession of the facts. In doing this you are aware of the -position which you occupy, and which, I trust, you will sustain when -properly called on. Ever since the publication, and the inquiry before -the House of Representatives in January and February, 1825, questions -have been propounded from various sources calculated to draw from me the -information I had upon that unpleasant subject. Many, no doubt with -sinister views, placing me in selfish connection with the facts from my -accustomed silence, have sought to fortify the character of Mr. Clay. -But in a number of cases, where inquiry seemed to be prompted by a frank -and generous desire to obtain the truth, I felt myself bound to answer -in a corresponding spirit, and accordingly the statement made by you to -me has been on several occasions repeated, as it was to Mr. Beverley, -who visited me at my house, where he found a number of his friends and -relatives. - -Having remained all night, in the morning, conversing on politics, the -question so often put to me before was asked by Mr. Beverley. It was -answered. Mr. Beverley went to Nashville and wrote to his friend in -North Carolina, who it appears published his letter. On the 15th of May -last, he wrote me from Louisville, requesting to be informed whether the -statement made by him was correct, and observing that his letter was not -intended for publication. Not having seen the letter, as published, -there was no safe alternative for me but that adopted, of making the -statement, as you will see in the enclosed paper. - -I shall now, in reply to Mr. Clay’s appeal, give my authority, -accompanied by the statement you made to Major John H. Eaton and to Mr. -Kremer, and leave Mr. Clay to his further inquiries. He cannot be -indulged by me in a paper war, or newspaper discussion. Had his friends -not voted out Mr. McDuffie’s resolutions when Mr. Clay threw himself -upon the House, the truth or falsehood of these statements would have -been made manifest, and the public mind now at rest upon the subject. -That they did, will appear, reference being had to the _National -Journal_ of the 5th of February, 1825. You will recollect that Mr. -McDuffie moved to instruct the Committee to inquire whether the friends -of Mr. Clay had hinted that they would fight for those who paid best, -and whether overtures were said to have been made by the friends of Mr. -Clay, offering him the appointment of Secretary of State for his -influence, and to elect Mr. Adams, and whether his friends gave this -information to the friends of General Jackson and hinted that if the -friends of Jackson would close with them, &c., &c., giving the Committee -the power to examine on oath. - -I have no doubt, when properly called on, you will come forth and offer -me the statement made to Major Eaton, then to Mr. Kremer, and then to -me, and give the names of the friends of Mr. Clay who made it to you. - -I will thank you to acknowledge the receipt of this letter on its -reaching you. - -I have the honor to be, with great respect, - - Your obedient servant, - - ANDREW JACKSON. - -Early in August, 1827, Mr. Buchanan published a card in the Lancaster -_Journal_, embodying the recollections which I have given, but which it -is not necessary to reproduce; and after a brief but inconclusive reply -from Mr. Markley, the matter passed out of the public mind. Later in the -same year (1827) Mr. Clay published an elaborate vindication of his -conduct, in the course of which he thus refers to Mr. Buchanan: - -“In General Jackson’s letter to Mr. Beverley, of the 6th of June last, -he admits that in inferring my privity to the proposition which he -describes as borne by Mr. Buchanan, he may have done me injustice; and, -in his address to the public of the 18th of July last, giving up the -name of this gentleman as his only witness, he repeats that he possibly -may have done me injustice, in assuming my authority for that -proposition. He even deigns to honor me with a declaration of the -pleasure which he will experience if I should be able to acquit myself! -Mr. Buchanan has been heard by the public; and I feel justified in -asserting that the first impression of the whole nation was, as it is -yet that of every intelligent mind unbiased by party prejudice, that his -testimony fully exonerated me, and demonstrated that General Jackson, to -say no more, had greatly misconceived the purport of the interview -between them. And further: that so far as any thing improper was -disclosed by Mr. Buchanan touching the late Presidential election, it -affected General Jackson and his friends exclusively. He having -manifestly injured me, speculation was busy, when Mr. Buchanan’s -statement appeared, as to the course which the General would pursue, -after his gratuitous expression of sympathy with me. There were not -wanting many persons who believed that his magnanimity would prompt him -publicly to retract his charge, and to repair the wrong which he had -done me. I did not participate in that just expectation, and therefore -felt no disappointment that it was not realized. Whatever other merits -he may possess, I have not found among them, in the course of my -relations with him, that of forbearing to indulge vindictive passions. -His silent contemplation of, if not his positive acquiescence in, the -most extraordinary interpretation of Mr. Buchanan’s statement that ever -was given to human language, has not surprised me. If it had been -possible for him to render me an act of spontaneous justice by a frank -and manly avowal of his error, the testimony now submitted to the public -might have been unnecessary. - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO MR. INGHAM.] - - LANCASTER, August 9, 1827. - -DEAR SIR:— - -Ere this can reach you, you will have seen General Jackson’s letter to -the public, in which he has given up my name. It will at once strike you -to be a most extraordinary production as far as I am concerned. My -statement will appear in the Lancaster _Journal_ to-morrow, which I -shall send you. I have not suffered my feelings to get the better of my -judgment, but have stated the truth in a calm and temperate manner. If -General Jackson and our editors shall act with discretion, the storm may -blow over without injuring [any one]. Should they, on the contrary, -force me to the wall and make it absolutely necessary for the -preservation of my own character to defend myself, I know not what may -be the consequence. - -I have stated the conversation between Markley and myself in as strong -terms as the truth would justify, but no stronger. It is in your power -to do much to give this matter a proper direction. Indeed I would -suggest to you the propriety of an immediate visit to Philadelphia for -that purpose. My friends are very indignant, but I believe I can keep -them right. - -You will perceive that General Jackson has cited Mr. Eaton as a witness. -I have treated this part of his letter with great mildness. In a letter -to me, which I received day before yesterday, the General intimates that -George Kremer would confirm his statement. This letter is imprudent, -and, in my opinion, an improper one. It is well it has fallen into the -hands of a political friend. - -You will discover that your knowledge concerning my conversation with -General Jackson was nearly correct. The friend who wrote me the letter -of the 27th December, 1824, referred to in my communication, was Judge -Rogers, then Secretary of State [of Pennsylvania]. - - From your sincere friend, - - MR. INGHAM. JAMES BUCHANAN. - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO GENERAL JACKSON.] - - LANCASTER, August 10, 1827. - -DEAR SIR:— - -I received your letter of the 15th ultimo on Tuesday last. Your address -to the public also reached me upon the same day, in the Cincinnati -_Advertiser_. This communication made it necessary for me to publish in -detail the conversation which I held with you concerning the -Presidential election on the 30th December, 1824. I shall enclose to you -in this letter that part of the Lancaster _Journal_ containing it. I -regret, beyond expression, that you believed me to be an emissary from -Mr. Clay, since some time before the first Harrisburg convention which -nominated you, I have ever been your ardent, decided, and, perhaps -without vanity I may say, your efficient friend. Every person in this -part of the State of Pennsylvania is well acquainted with the fact. It -is, therefore, to me a matter of the deepest regret that you should have -supposed me to be the “friend of Mr. Clay.” Had I ever entertained a -suspicion that such was your belief, I should have immediately corrected -your impression. - -I shall annex to this letter a copy of that which I wrote to Duff Green, -on the 16th of October last. The person whom I consulted in Pennsylvania -was the present Judge Rogers of the Supreme Court—then the Secretary of -State of this Commonwealth. - -The friends of the Administration are making great efforts in -Pennsylvania. We have been busily engaged during the summer in -counteracting them. Success has, I think, hitherto attended our efforts. -I do not fear the vote of the State, although it is believed every -member of the State administration, except General Bernard, is hostile -to your election. Your security will be in the gratitude and in the -hearts of the people. - -Please to present my best respects to Mrs. Jackson, and believe me to -be, very respectfully, your friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - -This subject of Mr. Buchanan’s connection with the Presidential election -of 1824–5, and its incidents, passed out of the public mind, after the -publication of the letters which I have quoted. But it was again revived -when Mr. Buchanan became a candidate for the Presidency in 1856. All -that it is needful to say here is, that for nearly three years after the -election of 1824–5, no impression seems to have existed in the mind of -General Jackson that Mr. Buchanan’s interview with him in December, -1824, had any purpose but that which Mr. Buchanan has described; but -that in 1827, General Jackson, in the heat of the renewed controversies -about the supposed bargain between Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay, took up the -erroneous idea that Mr. Buchanan could, if he were to declare the truth, -make it apparent that Mr. Clay or his friends had attempted to effect -the same kind of bargain with General Jackson, which attempt was -indignantly repelled. A candid examination of the facts is all that is -needful to convince any one that the General was in error in 1827, and -that he was equally in error at a much later period. When he became -President, and for a long time thereafter, his confidence in Mr. -Buchanan was manifested in so many ways that one is led to believe that -his view in 1827 of Mr. Buchanan’s conduct in the matter of the -Presidential election of 1824–5 was an exceptional idiosyncrasy, -resulting from the excitement which his mind always felt in regard to -that event, and which was strongly renewed in him in 1827. - -It will be necessary to advert to this subject again, because, when Mr. -Buchanan was a candidate for the Presidency in 1856, the whole story was -revived by persons who were unfriendly to him, and who then made use of -a private letter which was extracted from General Jackson in 1845, in a -somewhat artful manner, when he was laboring under a mortal illness. But -an account of this political intrigue belongs to the period when it was -set on foot. - ------ - -Footnote 14: - - The phrase “Presidential Election” is an awkward and incorrect one. - But it has been sanctioned by long usage, and I adopt it because of - its convenience. - -Footnote 15: - - Mr. Crawford was regarded as out of the question, both because he had - less than one-half of the electoral votes, and because a recent - paralytic affection was supposed to have rendered him incapable of - performing the duties of the office. - -Footnote 16: - - The person here alluded to was the Hon. Molton C. Rogers, Chairman of - the State Central Committee at Harrisburg, and Secretary of the State - of Pennsylvania. He was afterwards a Judge of the Supreme Court of - that State. - ------ - - - - - CHAPTER IV. - 1825–1826. - -BITTER OPPOSITION TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JOHN QUINCY ADAMS—BILL FOR - THE RELIEF OF THE REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS—THE PANAMA - MISSION—INCIDENTAL REFERENCE TO SLAVERY. - - -The circumstances attending the election of Mr. Adams led to the -formation of a most powerful opposition to his administration, as soon -as he was inaugurated. The friends of General Jackson, a numerous and -compact body of public men, representing a much larger number of the -people of the Union than the friends of Mr. Adams could be said to -represent, felt that he had been unfairly deprived of the votes of -States in the House of Representatives which should have been given to -him. Especially was this the case, they said, in regard to the State of -Kentucky, whose Legislature had plainly indicated the wish of a majority -of her people that her vote in the House should be given to General -Jackson; and when it was announced that Mr. Adams, who had received the -unanimous electoral vote of only six States, had obtained the votes of -thirteen States in the House, while General Jackson had obtained but -seven, and when Mr. Clay had been appointed by Mr. Adams Secretary of -State, there was a bitterness of feeling among the supporters of General -Jackson, which evinced at once a fixed determination to elect him -President at the end of the ensuing four years. - -In regard to the state of parties, viewed apart from the merely personal -element of leadership and following, there was not much, in the -beginning of Mr. Adams’s administration, to distinguish its supporters -from its opponents. In the course, however, of that administration, -those who defended it from the fierce assaults of the opposition, began -to take the name of National Republicans, while the opponents of the -administration began to call themselves Democrats. Included in the -opposition were the political friends and followers of Mr. Calhoun, and -the political friends and followers of General Jackson; the latter being -distinctly known and classified as “Jackson men.” In the Senate there -was a number of older men, who were not likely to form an active element -of parliamentary opposition or defence; such as Mr. Silsbee of -Massachusetts, Mr. Dickerson of New Jersey, Mr. Samuel Smith of -Maryland, Mr. William Smith of South Carolina, Mr. Macon of Georgia, Mr. -Rowan of Kentucky, and Mr. Hugh L. White of Tennessee. The opposition in -the Senate was led by a younger class of men: Mr. Van Buren of New York, -Mr. Woodbury of New Hampshire, Mr. Tazewell of Virginia, Mr. Hayne of -South Carolina, Mr. Berrien of Georgia, and Mr. Benton of Missouri.[17] -But it was not in the Senate that the great arena of debate between the -assailants and the defenders of this administration was to be found -during the first year or two of its term. In the House, at the opening -of the 19th Congress, which began its session in December, 1825, there -was an array of combatants—ardent, active and able debaters. Of these, -composing the leaders of the opposition, were Mr. Buchanan, Samuel D. -Ingham, William C. Rives, James K. Polk, John Forsyth, George McDuffie, -Edward Livingston, William Drayton, William S. Archer, Andrew Stevenson, -Mangum, Cambreleng, and Louis McLane. The eccentric John Randolph was -also one of the leaders of the opposition. The leading friends of the -administration were Webster, Sprague, Bartlett, John Davis, Edward -Everett, Burgess, Taylor, Letcher, Wright, Vinton, and Henry L. Storrs. - -Before the opposition had marshalled their forces for an attack upon the -administration, a debate occurred in the House of Representatives upon a -subject that did not involve party divisions. A bill was introduced by a -Pennsylvania member for the relief of the surviving officers of the -Revolution. It proposed an appropriation of only one million of dollars, -and it was confined strictly to the cases of the Revolutionary officers -to whom half-pay for life had been granted by Congress in 1780, who had -afterwards accepted a commutation of five years’ full pay, in lieu of -half-pay for life, and who were paid in certificates that were never -worth more than one-fifth of their nominal value, and which were soon -depreciated to about one-eighth. The passage of this measure depended -upon the prudence and skill of those who favored it. The mover, Mr. -Hemphill of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Dayton, had advocated the bill in -speeches of much discretion, and there was a good prospect of its -adoption. In this state of things, an untoward amendment was offered by -a member from Massachusetts, which proposed to increase the -appropriation. This had a manifest tendency to defeat the bill; and at -this crisis Mr. Buchanan came forward to restate the case of the -officers, and to replace the measure on its true footing. He said: - -“It is with extreme reluctance I rise at this time to address you. I -have made no preparation to speak, except that of carefully reading the -documents which have been laid upon our tables; but a crisis seems to -have arrived in this debate, when the friends of the bill, if ever, must -come forward in its support. I do not consider that the claim of the -officers of the Revolution rests upon gratitude alone. It is not an -appeal to your generosity only, but to your justice. You owe them a -debt, in the strictest sense of the word; and of a nature so -meritorious, that, if you shall refuse to pay it, the nation will be -disgraced. Formerly, when their claim was presented to Congress, we had, -at least, an apology for rejecting it. The country was not then in a -condition to discharge this debt without inconvenience. But now, after -forty years have elapsed since its creation, with a treasury -overflowing, and a national debt so diminished, that, with ordinary -economy, it must, in a very few years, be discharged, these officers, -the relics of that band which achieved your independence, again present -themselves before you, and again ask you for justice. They do not ask -you to be generous—they do not ask you to be grateful—but they ask you -to pay the debt which was the price of your independence. I term it a -debt; and it is one founded upon a most solemn contract, with which -these officers have complied, both in its letter and in its spirit, -whilst you have violated all its obligations. - -“Let us spend a few moments in tracing the history of this claim. It -arose out of the distresses of the Continental Army, during the -Revolutionary War; and the utter inability of the government, at that -time, to relieve them. What, sir, was the situation of that army, when -it lay encamped at the Valley Forge? They were naked, and hungry, and -barefoot. Pestilence and famine stalked abroad throughout the camp. The -first blaze of patriotism which had animated the country, and furnished -the army with its officers, had begun to die away. These officers -perceived that the contest would be long, and bloody, and doubtful. They -had felt, by sad experience, that the depreciated pay which they -received, so far from enabling them to impart assistance to their wives -and children, or hoard up anything for futurity, was not sufficient to -supply their own absolute and immediate wants. Placed in this situation, -they were daily sending in their resignations, and abandoning the cause -of their country. In this alarming crisis, Washington earnestly -recommended to Congress to grant the officers half-pay, to commence -after the close of the contest, as the only remedy for these evils, -within their power. The country was not then able to remunerate the -officers for the immense and unequal sacrifices which they were making -in its cause. All that it could then do was to present them a prospect -of happier days to come, on which hope might rest. With this view, -Congress, in May, 1778, adopted a resolution allowing the officers who -should continue in service until the end of the war, half-pay for seven -years. This resolution produced but a partial effect upon the army. The -time of its continuance was to be but short; and there were conditions -annexed to it, which, in many cases, would have rendered it entirely -inoperative. - -“In August, 1779, Congress again acted upon this subject, and resolved, -‘That it be recommended to the several States to grant half-pay for life -to the officers who should continue in the service to the end of the -war.’ This recommendation was disregarded by every State in the Union, -with one exception; and I feel proud that Pennsylvania was that State. -She not only granted half-pay for life to the officers of her own line, -but she furnished them with clothing and with provisions. Thus, when the -General Government became unable to discharge its duty to her officers -and soldiers, she voluntarily interposed and relieved their distresses. -General Washington, when urging upon Congress the necessity of granting -to the officers half-pay for life, pointed to those of the Pennsylvania -line as an example of the beneficial consequences which had resulted -from that measure.[18] - -“Congress at length became convinced of the necessity of granting to the -Continental officers half-pay for life. Without pay and without -clothing, they had become disheartened and were about abandoning the -service. The darkest period of the Revolution had arrived, and there was -but one ray of hope left to penetrate the impending gloom which hung -over the army. The officers were willing still to endure privations and -sufferings, if they could obtain an assurance that they would be -remembered by their country, after it should be blessed with peace and -independence. They well knew Congress could not relieve their present -wants; all, therefore, they asked was the promise of a future provision. -Congress, at length, in October, 1780, resolved, ‘That half-pay for life -be granted to the officers in the army of the United States who shall -continue in service to the end of the war.’ - -“Before the adoption of this resolution, so desperate had been our -condition, that even Washington apprehended a dissolution of the army, -and had begun to despair of the success of our cause. We have his -authority for declaring that, immediately after its adoption, our -prospects brightened and it produced the most happy effects. The state -of the army was instantly changed. The officers became satisfied with -their condition, and, under their command, the army marched to victory -and independence. They faithfully and patriotically performed every -obligation imposed upon them by the solemn contract into which they had -entered with their country. - -“How did you perform this contract on your part? No sooner had the -dangers of war ceased to threaten our existence—no sooner had peace -returned to bless our shores, than we forgot those benefactors to whom, -under Providence, we owed our independence. We then began to discover -that it was contrary to the genius of our Republican institutions to -grant pensions for life. The jealousy of the people was roused, and -their fears excited. They dreaded the creation of a privileged order. I -do not mean to censure them for this feeling of ill-directed jealousy, -because jealousy is the natural guardian of liberty. - -“In this emergency, how did the Continental officers act? In such a -manner as no other officers of a victorious army had ever acted before. -For the purpose of allaying the apprehensions of their fellow-citizens, -and complying with the wishes of Congress, they consented to accept five -years’ full-pay in commutation for their half-pay for life. This -commutation was to be paid in money, or securities were to be given on -interest at six per cent., as Congress should find most convenient. - -“Did the government ever perform this their second stipulation to the -officers? I answer, no. The gentleman from Tennessee was entirely -mistaken in the history of the times, when he asserted that the -commutation certificates of the officers enabled them to purchase farms, -or commence trade, upon leaving the army. Congress had not any funds to -pledge for their redemption. They made requisitions upon the States, -which shared the same fate with many others, and were entirely -disregarded. The faith and the honor of the country, whilst they were -intrusted to thirteen independent and jealous State sovereignties, were -almost always forfeited. We then had a General Government which had not -the power of enforcing its own edicts. The consequence was that, when -the officers received their certificates, they were not worth more than -about one-fifth of their nominal value, and they very soon fell to -one-eighth of that amount. - -“Let gentlemen for a moment realize what must then have been the -situation and the feelings of these officers. They had spent their best -days in the service of their country. They had endured hardships and -privations without an example in history. Destitute of everything but -patriotism, they had lived for years upon the mere promise of Congress. -At the call of their country, they had relinquished half-pay for life, -and accepted a new promise of five years’ full-pay. When they had -confidently expected to receive this recompense, it vanished from their -grasp. Instead of money, or securities equal to money, which would have -enabled them to embark with advantage in civil employments, they -obtained certificates which necessity compelled most of them to sell at -the rate of eight for one. The government proved faithless, but they -had, what we have not, the plea of necessity, to justify their conduct. - -“In 1790, the provision which was made by law for the payment of the -public debt, embraced these commutation certificates. They were funded, -and the owner of each of them received three certificates; the first for -two-thirds of the original amount, bearing an interest immediately of -six per cent.; the second for the remaining third, but without interest -for ten years; and the third for the interest which had accumulated, -bearing an interest of only three per cent. - -“What does this bill propose? Not to indemnify the officers of the -Revolution for the loss which they sustained in consequence of the -inability of the government, at the close of the war, to comply with its -solemn contract. Not, after a lapse of more than forty years, to place -them in the situation in which they would have been placed had the -government been able to do them justice. It proposes to allow them even -less than the difference between what the owners of the commutation -certificates received under the funding system, and what these -certificates when funded were worth upon their face. My colleague has -clearly shown, by a fair calculation, that the allowance will fall -considerably short of this difference. If the question now before the -committee were to be decided by the people of the United States instead -of their Representatives, could any man, for a moment, doubt what would -be their determination? - -“I hope my friend from Massachusetts will not urge the amendment he has -proposed. Judging from past experience, I fear, if it should prevail, -the bill will be defeated. Let other classes of persons who think -themselves entitled to the bounty of their country present their claims -to this House, and they will be fairly investigated. This is what the -surviving officers of the Revolution have done. Their case has been -thoroughly examined by a committee, who have reported in its favor; and -all the information necessary to enable us to decide correctly is now in -our possession. I trust their claim will be permitted to rest upon its -own foundation. They are old, and for the most part in poverty; it is -necessary, if we act at all, that we act speedily, and do them justice -without delay. In my opinion, they have a better claim to what this bill -contemplates giving them, than any of us have to our eight dollars per -day. Gentlemen need apprehend no danger from the precedent; we shall -never have another Revolutionary war for independence. We have no reason -to apprehend we shall ever again be unable to pay our just debts. Even -if that should again be our unfortunate condition, we shall never have -another army so patient and so devoted as to sacrifice every selfish -consideration for the glory, the happiness, and the independence of -their country. I shall vote against the proposed amendment because I -will do no act which may have a tendency to defeat this bill.” - -Mr. Buchanan used to relate, in after years, that at this juncture, the -friends of the bill were dismayed by the course of Mr. Everett, who was -then a young member from Massachusetts, and who wished to make and -insisted upon making a rhetorical speech. The friends of the bill -remonstrated with him, that all had been said that needed to be said; -and that the only thing to be done was to vote down the amendment, after -which the bill was almost certain to be passed. But Mr. Everett -persisted, and made his speech while the amendment was pending.[19] He -“demanded” of the House to pass the bill, and by passing it as proposed -to be amended by his colleague to give the survivors of the Revolution -“all they ask and _more_ than they ask.” The consequence was that the -appropriation was increased. Then a member from New York moved to extend -its provisions to every militia-man who had served for a certain time. -Then other amendments embraced widows and orphans, artificers and -musicians, the troops who fought at Bunker Hill, the troops raised in -Vermont, those of the battles of Saratoga and Bennington, and of the -Southern battles. The enemies of the original measure promoted this -method of dealing with it, and finally, when thus loaded down with -provisions not at all germane to its real principle, it was recommitted -to the Committee and was therefore lost. - -The first important subject of contention on which the opposition put -forth their strength against the administration of Mr. Adams related to -what was called “The Panama Mission.” In his Message of December, 1825, -the President made the following announcement: - -“Among the measures which have been suggested to the Spanish-American -Republics by the new relations with one another resulting from the -recent changes of their condition, is that of assembling at the Isthmus -of Panama, a Congress at which each of them should be represented, to -deliberate upon objects important to the welfare of all. The republics -of Colombia, of Mexico, and of Central America, have already deputed -plenipotentiaries to such a meeting, and they have invited the United -States to be also represented there by their ministers. The invitation -has been accepted, and ministers on the part of the United States will -be commissioned to attend at those deliberations, and to take part in -them, so far as may be compatible with that neutrality from which it is -neither our intention nor the desire of the other American States that -we should depart.” - -It was, beyond controversy, the constitutional prerogative of the -President, as the organ of all intercourse with foreign nations, to -accept this invitation, and to name Ministers to the proposed Congress. -The Senate might or might not concur with him in this step, and might or -might not confirm the nominations of the proposed Ministers. He sent to -the Senate the names of John Sergeant of Philadelphia, and Richard C. -Anderson of Kentucky, as the Ministers of the United States to the -proposed Congress at Panama. The Senatorial opposition, led by Mr. -Benton and Mr. Tazewell, after a long discussion in secret session, took -a vote upon a resolution that it was inexpedient to send Ministers to -Panama. This was rejected by a vote of 24 to 19; and the nominations -were then confirmed by a vote of 27 to 17 in the case of Mr. Anderson, -and by a vote of 26 to 18 in the case of Mr. Sergeant. The diplomatic -department having thus fully acted upon and confirmed the proposed -measure, it remained for the House of Representatives to initiate and -pass the necessary appropriation. The turn that was given to the subject -in the House gave rise to an animated debate on a very important -constitutional topic, in which Mr. Buchanan, although opposed to the -Mission, asserted it to be the duty of the House to make the -appropriation, now that the Senate had confirmed the appointment of the -Ministers. This debate began upon a resolution reported by the Committee -on Foreign Affairs, that “in the opinion of the House it is expedient to -appropriate the funds necessary to enable the President of the United -States to send Ministers to the Congress of Panama.” To this resolution, -Mr. McLane of Delaware had moved an amendment, which, if it had been -adopted, would have placed the House of Representatives in the anomalous -attitude of annexing, as a condition of its grant, instructions as to -the mode in which the diplomatic agents of the United States were to act -in carrying out a foreign mission. Mr. Buchanan, who was in favor of the -amendments, was also in favor of making the appropriation necessary to -enable the President to send the Mission; and in support of this -constitutional duty of the House, he made an argument on the 11th of -April (1826) which drew from Mr. Webster the compliment that he had -placed this part of the subject in a point of view which could not be -improved.[20] Mr. Buchanan said: - -“I know there are several gentlemen on this floor, who approve of the -policy of the amendments proposed, and wish to express an opinion in -their favor; and who yet feel reluctant to vote for them, because it is -their intention finally to support the appropriation bill. They think, -if the amendments should be rejected, consistency would require them to -refuse any grant of money to carry this mission into effect. I shall, -therefore, ask the attention of the committee, whilst I endeavor to -prove that there would not, in any event, be the slightest inconsistency -in this course. - -“I assert it to be a position susceptible of the clearest proof, that -the House of Representatives is morally bound, unless in extreme cases, -to vote the salaries of Ministers who have been constitutionally created -by the President and Senate. The expediency of establishing the mission -was one question, which has already been decided by the competent -authority; when the appropriation bill shall come before us, we will be -called upon to decide another and a very different question. Richard C. -Anderson and John Sergeant have been regularly nominated by the -President of United States to be Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers -Plenipotentiary ‘to the Assembly of American nations at Panama.’ The -Senate, after long and solemn deliberation, have advised and consented -to their appointment. These Ministers have been created—they have been -called into existence under the authority of the Constitution of the -United States. That venerated instrument declares, that the President -‘shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to -make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur: and -he shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the -Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, -Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United -States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and -which shall be established by Law.’ What, then, will be the question -upon the appropriation bill? In order to enable our Ministers to proceed -upon their mission, the President has asked us to grant the necessary -appropriation. Shall we incur the responsibility of refusing? Shall we -thus defeat the mission which has already been established by the only -competent constitutional authorities? This House has, without doubt, the -physical power to refuse the appropriation, and it possesses the same -power to withhold his salary from the President of the United States. -The true question is, what is the nature of our constitutional -obligation? Are we not morally bound to pay the salaries given by -existing laws to every officer of the Government? By the act of the -first May, 1810, the outfit and salary to be allowed by the President to -Foreign Ministers are established. Such Ministers have been regularly -appointed to attend the Congress at Panama. What right then have we to -refuse to appropriate the salaries which they have a right to receive, -under the existing laws of the land? - -“I admit there may be extreme cases, in which this House would be -justified in withholding such an appropriation. ‘The safety of the -people is the supreme law.’ If, therefore, we should believe any mission -to be dangerous, either to the existence or to the liberties of this -country, necessity would justify us in breaking the letter to preserve -the spirit of the Constitution. The same necessity would equally justify -us in refusing to grant to the President his salary, in certain extreme -cases, which might easily be imagined. - -“But how far would your utmost power extend? Can you re-judge the -determination of the President and Senate, and destroy the officers -which they have created? Might not the President immediately send these -Ministers to Panama; and, if he did, would not their acts be valid? It -is certain, if they should go, they run the risk of never receiving a -salary; but still they might act as Plenipotentiaries. By withholding -the salary of the President, you cannot withhold from him the power; -neither can you, by refusing to appropriate for this mission, deprive -the Ministers of their authority. It is beyond your control to make them -cease to be Ministers. - -“The constitutional obligation to provide for a Minister, is equally -strong as that to carry into effect a treaty. It is true, the evils -which may flow from your refusal may be greater in the one case than the -other. If you refuse to appropriate for a treaty, you violate the faith -of the country to a foreign nation. You do no more, however, than omit -to provide for the execution of an instrument which is declared by the -Constitution to be the supreme law of the land. In the case which will -be presented to you by the appropriation bill, is the nature of your -obligation different? I think not. The power to create the Minister is -contained in the same clause of the Constitution with that to make the -treaty. They are powers of the same nature. The one is absolutely -necessary to carry the other into effect. You cannot negotiate treaties -without Ministers. They are the means by which the treaty-making power -is brought into action. You are, therefore, under the same moral -obligation to appropriate money to discharge the salary of a Minister, -that you would be to carry a treaty into effect. - -“If you ask me for authority to establish these principles, I can refer -you to the opinion of the first President of the United States—the -immortal Father of his Country—who, in my humble judgment, possessed -more practical wisdom, more political foresight, and more useful -constitutional knowledge, than all his successors. - -“I have thus, I think, established the position, that gentlemen who vote -for the amendments now before the committee, even if they should not -prevail, may, without inconsistency, give their support to the -appropriation bill.” - -Sound as this was, it is a little remarkable that Mr. Buchanan should -not have considered that the duty of voting the necessary appropriation -precluded the House of Representatives from dictating what subjects the -Ministers were to discuss or not to discuss. Those who favored the -proposed amendments founded themselves on the legal maxim that he who -has the power to give may annex to the gift whatever condition he -chooses. This was well answered by Mr. Webster, that in making -appropriations for such purposes the House did not make gifts, but -performed a duty. The amendments were rejected on the 21st of April, and -on the following day the Panama Appropriation Bill was passed, Mr. -Buchanan voting with the majority.[21] - -Some of the topics incidentally touched upon in the discursive debate on -this Panama Mission are of little interest now. But one may be referred -to, because it related to the dangerous topic of slavery. An -apprehension was felt by those who were opposed to this measure, and by -Mr. Buchanan, among others, that the Spanish-American Republics, more -particularly Mexico and Colombia, might concert measures at this -proposed Congress to seize the West India Islands, and raise there the -standard of emancipation and social revolution. Those who entertained -this apprehension, therefore, did not wish to see the moral and -political influence of this proposed Congress increased by the -participation of the United States in its proceedings. It may have been -an unfounded fear; but in truth, excepting in so far as the objects of -this assembly were understood and explained by the American -Administration itself, very little was known of the purposes entertained -by its original projectors. It was certainly not unnatural, in the then -condition of our own country, and of the West Indies, in regard to the -matter of slavery, that public men in the United States should have been -cautious in regard to this exciting topic. At all events, it was -introduced incidentally, in the discussion on the proposed Mission, and -Mr. Buchanan thus expressed himself upon it: - -“Permit me here, for a moment, to speak upon a subject to which I have -never before adverted upon this floor, and to which, I trust, I may -never again have occasion to advert. I mean the subject of slavery. I -believe it to be a great political and a great moral evil. I thank God, -my lot has been cast in a State where it does not exist. But, while I -entertain these opinions, I know it is an evil at present without a -remedy. It has been a curse entailed upon us by that nation which now -makes it a subject of reproach to our institutions. It is, however, one -of those moral evils, from which it is impossible for us to escape, -without the introduction of evils infinitely greater. There are portions -of this Union, in which, if you emancipate your slaves, they will become -masters. There can be no middle course. Is there any man in this Union -who could, for a moment, indulge in the horrible idea of abolishing -slavery by the massacre of the high-minded, and the chivalrous race of -men in the South. I trust there is not one. For my own part I would, -without hesitation, buckle on my knapsack, and march in company with my -friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Everett) in defence of their cause.”[22] - ------ - -Footnote 17: - - At a little later period, Mr. Webster was transferred from the House - to the Senate, and became there one of the strongest and most - conspicuous of the friends of the administration. - -Footnote 18: - - Joint Resolutions of 13th and 24th March, 1779. See Journals, pages - 335, 336, 342. 1 Smith’s Laws, 487. Life of Joseph Reed, President of - the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania, Vol. II, p. 65. - -Footnote 19: - - The peroration of Mr. Everett’s speech was as follows: - - “The present year completes the half century since the Declaration of - Independence; and most devoutly do I hope, that, when the silver - trumpet of our political jubilee sounds, it may be with a note of - comfort and joy to the withered heart of the war-worn veteran of the - Revolution. Our tardy provision will, indeed, come too late to help - him through the hard journey of life; it will not come too late to - alleviate the sorrows of age, and smooth the pillow of decline. It is - the fiftieth year of our Independence. How much shall we read, how - much shall we hear, how much, perhaps, we shall say this year, about - the glorious exploits of our fathers, and the debt of gratitude we owe - them. I do not wish this to be all talk. I want to do something. I - want a substantial tribute to be paid them. Praise is sweet music, - both to old and young; but I honestly confess that my mind relucts and - revolts, by anticipation, at the thought of the compliments with which - we are going to fill the ears of these poor veterans, while we leave - their pockets empty, and their backs cold. If we cast out this bill, I - do hope that some member of this House, possessing an influence to - which I cannot aspire, will introduce another, to make it penal to say - a word on the fourth of July, about the debt of gratitude which we owe - to the heroes of the Revolution. Let the day and the topic pass in - decent silence. I hate all gag-laws; but there is one thing I am - willing to gag—the vaporing tongue of a bankrupt, who has grown rich, - and talks sentiment, about the obligation he feels to his needy - creditor, whom he paid off at 2s. 6d. in the pound.” - -Footnote 20: - - In the course of his speech on the 14th of April, Mr. Webster said: - “The gentleman from Pennsylvania, with whom I have great pleasure in - concurring on this part of the case, while I regret that I differ with - him on others, has placed this question in a point of view which can - not be improved. These officers do indeed already exist. They are - public ministers. If they were to negotiate a treaty, and the Senate - should ratify it, it would become a law of the land, whether we voted - their salaries or not. This shows that the Constitution never - contemplated that the House of Representatives should act a part in - originating negotiations or concluding treaties.” Mr. Webster made - further observations, in confirmation of the views expressed by Mr. - Buchanan on the duty of making the appropriation. (_Works of Daniel - Webster_, Vol. III, p. 181.) - -Footnote 21: - - The subsequent fate of this measure can be related very briefly. Mr. - Anderson died at Carthagena, on his way to the isthmus of Panama. The - “Congress” adjourned to meet at Tacuboya, a village near the city of - Mexico. Mr. Poinsett was appointed in the place of Mr. Anderson, and - Mr. Sargeant sailed for Vera Cruz on the 2d of December, 1826. He - arrived in Mexico in January, 1827, and found a few fragments of the - “Congress” floating about, without action or organization. Bolivar, - who was supposed to have originated the project, had changed his mind. - Mr. Sargeant remained for six months in Mexico, and in the summer of - 1827 returned home. - -Footnote 22: - - This allusion to Mr. Everett requires some explanation. On the 9th of - March, 1826, he made a speech on the proposed Constitutional - Amendment, in the course of which he said: - - “I am not one of those citizens of the North who think it immoral and - irreligious to join in putting down a servile insurrection at the - South. I am no soldier, my habits and education are very un-military; - but there is no cause in which I would sooner buckle a knapsack to my - back, and put a musket on my shoulder, than that. I would cede the - whole continent to any one who would take it—to England, to France, to - Spain; I would see it sunk in the bottom of the ocean, before I would - see any part of this fair America converted into a Continental Hayti, - by that awful process of bloodshed and desolation, by which alone such - a catastrophe could be brought on. The great relation of servitude, in - some form or other, with greater or less departures from the theoretic - equality of man, is inseparable from our nature. I know no way by - which the form of this servitude shall be fixed, but by political - institution. Domestic slavery, though, I confess, not that form of - servitude which seems to be most beneficial to the master—certainly - not that which is most beneficial to the servant—is not, in my - judgment, to be set down as an immoral and irreligious relation. I - cannot admit that Religion has but one voice to the slave, and that - this voice is, ‘Rise against your master.’ No, Sir, the New Testament - says, ‘Slaves obey your masters,’ and though I know full well that, in - the benignant operations of Christianity, which gathered master and - slave around the same communion table, this unfortunate institution - disappeared in Europe, yet I cannot admit that, while it subsists, and - where it subsists, its duties are not pre-supposed and sanctioned by - religion. I certainly am not called upon to meet the charges brought - against this institution, yet truth obliges me to say a word more on - the subject. I know the condition of the working classes in other - countries, and I have no hesitation in saying that I believe the - slaves of this country are better clothed and fed, and less hardly - worked, than the peasantry of some of the most prosperous States of - the continent of Europe.” - ------ - - - - - CHAPTER V. - 1827–1829. - -GREAT INCREASE OF GENERAL JACKSON’S POPULARITY—“RETRENCHMENT” MADE A - POLITICAL CRY—DEBATE ON THE TARIFF—BUCHANAN ON INTERNAL - IMPROVEMENTS—THE INTERESTS OF NAVIGATION—THE CUMBERLAND ROAD AGAIN - DISCUSSED—INELIGIBILITY OF A PRESIDENT. - - -The 20th Congress, which assembled in December, 1827, opened with a -great increase in the forces of the opposition. The elections in the -autumn of 1826 evinced an extraordinary growth of General Jackson’s -popularity. Mr. Adams found himself in a minority in both branches of -Congress. In the House, the opponents of his administration numbered 111 -members, its friends 94. It is quite probable, however, that but for the -indiscretion of certain members who have ranked as friends of the -administration, the angry and criminating discussion of the subject of -“retrenchment,” which was deprecated by the wisest men of the -opposition, but into which they were forced, would not have occurred. It -was precipitated by the defiant attitude of two or three members who -should have allowed the cool leaders of the opposition to strangle it, -as they were at first disposed to do. But once commenced, it drew into -bitter strife the excited elements of party and personal warfare, and -went on through nearly a whole session with little credit to some who -participated in it, but in the end to the great and not altogether just -damage of the administration. - -It happened that on the 22d of January (1828) a member from Kentucky, -Mr. Chilton, an earnest “Jackson man,” who had formerly been a clergyman -but was now a politician, introduced in the House certain resolutions -instructing the Committee of Ways and Means to report what offices could -be abolished, what salaries reduced, and other modes of curtailing the -expenses of the government. It is apparent that this could not have been -a step taken by concert with the leaders of the opposition. A party that -was daily growing in strength, and that was almost morally certain to -overthrow the party of the administration, and to elect the next -President, could have had no motive for shackling themselves with a -legislative measure reducing the number of offices or the salaries of -the officers that must be retained. They could not know in advance how -they could carry on the government, and it would be mere folly for them -to put laws on the statute-book framed while they were not charged with -the duties of administration, and suggested only as a topic for exciting -popular discontent against those who were responsible neither for the -existing number of offices nor for the salaries paid to them. -“Retrenchment,” as a popular cry, was not a movement which the leading -men of the opposition in the House of Representatives either needed or -desired to initiate. Mr. McDuffie, the chairman of the Committee of Ways -and Means, and a vehement opponent of the administration, objected to -Mr. Chilton’s resolutions at the outset. So did Mr. Buchanan; and the -latter often said, in subsequent years, that they would have been -crushed out of all consideration, if the friends of the administration -had left them in the hands of its opponents. They were moved by an -inconsiderable member, who was one of the stragglers of the opposition -forces, and they were met by administration members who were about -equally inconsiderable, in a tone of challenge and defiance. In vain did -Mr. McDuffie and Mr. Buchanan contend that the present was no time to -discuss the expenditures of the government. In vain did the most -considerable and important friends of the administration deprecate an -unprofitable, intolerant, and useless debate. The mover of the -resolutions would not be silenced, and the few indiscreet supporters of -the administration, who demanded that their discussion should go on, -would not permit them to receive their proper quietus by the application -of “the previous question.” Never was a deliberative body drawn, in -spite of the unwillingness of its best members on both sides, into a -more unseemly and profitless discussion. - -Among the friends of General Jackson who deprecated and endeavored to -put a stop to this discussion was Mr. Edward Livingston of Louisiana, -the oldest member of the House, and a person of great distinction. He -made an earnest appeal to the House to end the whole matter by referring -the resolutions to a committee without further debate. This was not -acceded to by the friends of the administration, who wished to continue -the discussion. Mr. Edward Everett, then a young member from -Massachusetts, moved an adjournment after Mr. Livingston’s effort to -terminate the whole discussion, in order to make a speech, which he -delivered on the 1st of February. Mr. Buchanan said in reply to him: -“This debate would have ended on Thursday last, after the solemn appeal -for that purpose, which was made to the House by the venerable gentleman -from Louisiana, had not the gentleman from Massachusetts himself -prevented it by moving an adjournment. That gentleman ought to know that -he can never throw himself into any debate without giving it fresh vigor -and importance.” - -In the course of this speech, Mr. Buchanan made some allusion to the -alleged “bargain and corruption” by which Mr. Adams had been made -President; and he thus touched upon the only important consideration -that could be said to belong to the circumstances of that election: - -“Before, however, I commence my reply to that gentleman, I beg leave to -make a few observations on the last Presidential election. I shall -purposely pass over every charge which has been made, that it was -accomplished by bargain and sale or by actual corruption. If that were -the case, I have no knowledge of the fact, and shall therefore say -nothing about it. I shall argue this question as though no such charges -had ever been made. So far as it regards the conduct which the people of -the United States ought to pursue, at the approaching election, I agree -entirely with the eloquent gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Randolph] (I -cannot with propriety call him my friend), that it can make no -difference whether a bargain existed or not. Nay, in some aspects in -which the subject may be viewed, the danger to the people would be the -greater, if no corruption had existed. It is true, that this -circumstance ought greatly to influence our individual opinions of the -men who now wield the destinies of the Republic; but yet the precedent -would be at least equally dangerous in the one case as in the other. If -flagrant and gross corruption had existed, every honest man would start -from it with instinctive horror, and the people would indignantly hurl -those men from the seats of power, who had thus betrayed their dearest -interests. If the election were pure, there is, therefore, the greater -danger in the precedent. I believe, in my soul, that the precedent which -was established at the last Presidential election, ought to be reversed -by the people, and this is one of my principal reasons for opposing the -re-election of the present Chief Magistrate. - -“Let us examine this subject more closely. General Jackson was returned -by the people of this country to the House of Representatives, with a -plurality of electoral votes. The distinguished individual who is now -the Secretary of State, was then the Speaker of this House. It is -perfectly well known, that, without his vote and influence, Mr. Adams -could not have been elected President. After the election, we beheld -that distinguished individual, and no man in the United States witnessed -the spectacle with more regret than I did, descending—yes, Sir, I say -descending—from the elevated station which you now occupy, into the -cabinet of the President whom he had elected. - - “‘Quantum mutatus ab illo.’ - -“In the midnight of danger, during the darkest period of the late war, -‘his thrilling trump had cheered the land.’ Although among the great men -of that day there was no acknowledged leader upon this floor, yet I have -been informed, upon the best authority, that he was ‘primus inter -pares.’ I did wish, at a future time, to see him elevated still higher. -I am one of the last men in the country who could triumph over his -fallen fortunes. Should he ever return to what I believe to be correct -political principles, I shall willingly fight in the same ranks with him -as a companion—nay, after a short probation, I should willingly -acknowledge him as a leader. What brilliant prospects has that man not -sacrificed! - -“This precedent, should it be confirmed by the people at the next -election, will be one of most dangerous character to the Republic. The -election of President must, I fear, often devolve upon this House. We -have but little reason to expect that any amendment, in relation to this -subject, will be made to the Constitution in our day. There are so many -conflicting interests to reconcile, so many powers to balance, that, -when we consider the large majority in each branch of Congress, and the -still larger majority of States, required to amend the Constitution, the -prospect of any change is almost hopeless. I believe it will long remain -just as it is. What an example, then, will this precedent, in the pure -age of the Republic, present to future times! The people owe it to -themselves, if the election must devolve upon this House, never to -sanction the principle that one of its members may accept, from the -person whom he has elected, any high office, much less the highest in -his gift. Such a principle, if once established, must, in the end, -destroy the purity of this House, and convert it into a corrupt -electoral vote. If the individual to whom I have alluded, could elect a -President and receive from him the office of Secretary of State from the -purest motives, other men may, and hereafter will, pursue the same -policy from the most corrupt. ‘If they do these things in the green -tree, what shall be done in the dry?’ - -“This precedent will become a cover under which future bargains and -corrupt combinations will be sanctioned, under which the spirit of the -Constitution will be sacrificed to its letter.” - -It is not needful to describe the topics of this discussion. Mr. -Chilton’s resolutions, after being somewhat amended, were sent to a -Select Committee on Retrenchment. The result was a majority and a -minority report, of which six thousand copies were printed and -circulated through the country. I turn from this subject to matters of -more importance. - -Mr. Buchanan’s position in this Congress required him to exert his -powers as a debater more than ever before. The House of Representatives -was at this time a body in which real debate was carried on upon some -subjects, however the discussion on “retrenchment” may be characterized. -Its discussions on the tariff, commencing on the 4th of March and -terminating on the 15th of May, were conducted with great ability. Among -the best speeches on the tariff bill of this session, there is one by -Mr. Peleg Sprague of Maine, and one by Mr. Buchanan. Both exhibit a -great deal of research. Mr. Buchanan’s speech, begun in Committee of the -Whole on the 2d of April, in answer to Mr. Sprague, is an excellent -specimen of business debate. The details on which these two gentlemen -differed, and on which the debate between them and others chiefly -turned, are of little interest now; nor does any tariff debate afford -much development of permanent principles. So varying are the -circumstances which from time to time give rise to an application of the -doctrines that are indicated by the terms “free-trade” and “protection.” -Still there may be found in this tariff speech of Mr. Buchanan, matter -which is of some interest in his personal history as an American -statesman, because it shows that he had now risen to the rank of a -statesman, and because it gives his general views of what had at this -time become known as “the American System.” - -Mr. Buchanan, on this occasion, felt that he was combating a disposition -to favor certain interests at the expense of others. In the debate on -the tariff of 1824, when Mr. Clay developed his views on the subject of -protection, and Mr. Webster found fault with the details of a measure -which he said could not be properly characterized as an American System, -Mr. Buchanan had shown that while he was ready to accede to a tariff for -the incidental protection of our own manufactures, he was not disposed -to carry the doctrines of protection so far as to injure the -agricultural classes; but that in imposing the duties necessary to -defray the expenses of the government, he should take care to benefit -indirectly both the manufacturing and the producing interests. In 1828 -the proposed alterations of the tariff aimed at a more uniform operation -of the customs duties upon all the great interests of the country. A -motion made by Mr. Sprague, to strike from the bill an additional duty -of five cents per gallon on molasses, and twenty-five dollars per ton on -hemp, led to a discussion on the navigating interests, as affected by -such an amendment, and the whole subject of what was meant by protection -and “the American system” came up afresh. The following extracts from -Mr. Buchanan’s speech afford fair specimens of his manner of dealing -with this subject: - -I shall cheerfully submit to the public judgment whether the bill, -although I dislike the minimum principle which it contains, does not -afford sufficient protection to the manufacturers of woolens. I think it -does; but I wish to be distinctly understood, in relation to myself, -that I always stand ready, in a fair spirit, to do everything in my -power to promote the passage of a just and judicious tariff, which shall -be adequate for their protection; and that, for the sake of -conciliation, and to effect this purpose, I am willing to sacrifice -individual opinion to a considerable extent. - -What, Sir, is the American System? Is it the system advocated by the -gentleman from Maine, which would build up one species of domestic -industry at the expense of all the rest, which would establish a -prohibition and consequent monopoly in favor of the woolen manufacturer -whilst it denied all protection to the farmer? Certainly not. The -American System consists in affording equal and just legislative -protection to all the great interests of the country. It is no respecter -of persons. It does not distinguish between the farmer who plows the -soil in Pennsylvania and the manufacturer of wool in New England. Being -impartial, it embraces all. There is, in one respect, a striking -difference between the farmer, the merchant, and the manufacturer. The -farmer eating the bread of toil, but of independence, scarcely ever -complains. If he suffers, he suffers in silence; you rarely hear him, -upon this floor, asking redress for his grievances. He relies with that -confidence which belongs to his character upon the justice of his -country, and does not come here with importunate demands. The case is -different in regard to the manufacturer and the merchant. When they feel -themselves aggrieved—when they require the aid of your legislation, then -complaints ring throughout the country, from Georgia to Maine. They -never cease to ask, until they obtain. And shall this contented and -uncomplaining disposition of the great agricultural interest, be used as -an argument upon this floor against affording it relief? I trust not. - -The gentleman from Maine has shown himself to be a true disciple of the -Harrisburg Convention School. Even that convention, although the chief -objects of their regard appeared to be wool and woolens, recommended -further protection to iron, hemp, flax, and the articles manufactured -from them, and to domestic distilled spirits. The gentleman from Maine -has moved to strike from the bill additional duties which it proposes -upon the importation of foreign hemp and molasses; and in his speech, he -has argued against any additional duties either upon iron, or steel, or -flax, or foreign spirits. In his opinion, therefore, the American System -can embrace no other interest except that of the growers and -manufacturers of wool. - -[Here Mr. Sprague explained. He said his observations upon the other -items, besides those he had moved to strike from the bill, were only -intended to illustrate what would be their effect on the navigating -interest.] - -Mr. Buchanan resumed. I perceive, from the gentleman’s explanation, I -did not misunderstand his argument. If this be the American System, I -should like to know it as soon as possible; for then I shall be opposed -to it. I venture to assert that, if those with whom the gentleman from -Maine usually acts upon this floor have embraced the opinions which he -has avowed, it is a vain, a culpable waste of time to proceed further -with this discussion. Let the bill at once go to the tomb of all the -Capulets. If the New England manufacturer must be protected, whilst the -Pennsylvania farmer is abandoned—if this be the American System, instead -of being a mourner at its funeral, I shall rejoice that it has met the -fate which it deserved, and has been consigned to an early grave. - -The Legislature of Pennsylvania has given us what, in my opinion, is the -correct version of the American System. They have declared that “the -best interests of our country demand that every possible exertion should -be made to procure the passage of an act of Congress imposing such -duties as will enable our manufacturers to enter into fair competition -with foreign manufacturers, and protect the farmer, the growers of hemp -and wool, and the distiller of spirits from domestic materials, against -foreign competition. The people of Pennsylvania do not ask for such a -tariff as would secure to any one class, or to any section of the -country, a monopoly. They want a system of protection which will extend -its blessings, as well as its burdens, as equally as possible over every -part of the Union; to be uniform in its operation upon the rich as well -as the poor.” They have therefore instructed their Senators, and -requested their Representatives, “to procure, if practicable, the -establishment of such a tariff as will afford additional protection to -our domestic manufactures, especially of woolen and fine cotton goods, -glass, and such other articles as, in their opinion, require the -attention of Congress, so as to enable our citizens fairly to compete -with foreign enterprise, capital, and experience, and give encouragement -to the citizens of the grain-growing States, by laying an additional -duty upon the importation of foreign spirits, flax, china ware, hemp, -wool, and bar iron.” - -This resolution speaks a language which I am proud to hear from the -Legislature of my native State. - -If it be the disposition of a majority of the members of this committee -to strike out of the bill iron, hemp, foreign spirits and molasses, no -Representative from the State of Pennsylvania, who regards either the -interest or the wishes of his constituents, will dare to vote for what -would then remain. The time has forever past when such a measure could -have received our sanction. We shall have no more exclusive tariffs for -the benefit of any one portion of the Union. The tariff of 1824 partook -much of this character; it contained no additional duty on foreign -spirits or molasses, and only added five dollars per ton to the duty on -foreign hemp. So far as the grain-growing States expected to derive -peculiar benefits from that measure, they have been, in a great degree, -disappointed. - -What was the course which gentlemen pursued in relation to the woolen -bill of the last session? I endeavored to introduce into it a small -protection for our hemp and domestic spirits. We were then told that my -attempt would endanger the fate of the bill; that the period of the -session was too late to introduce amendments; and that if we would then -extend protection to the manufacturers of wool, a similar protection -should, at a future time, be extended to the agricultural interest of -the grain-growing States. My respectable colleague [Mr. Forward] has -informed the committee that he voted for the bill of the last session -under that delusion. How sadly the picture is now reversed! When an -interest in New England, which has been estimated at 40,000,000 of -dollars, is at stake, and is now about to sink, as has been alleged, for -want of adequate protection, it seems that gentlemen from that portion -of the Union would rather consign it to inevitable destruction than -yield the protection which the present bill will afford to the -productions of the Middle and Western States. If they are prepared to -act upon a policy so selfish, let them at once declare it, and not waste -weeks upon a bill which can never become a law. - -The gentleman from Maine endeavored to sustain his motives by attempting -to prove that, if the duties proposed by the bill should be imposed upon -hemp and molasses, it would injure, nay, probably destroy the navigation -of the country. Indeed he pronounced its epitaph. It is gone! Five cents -per gallon upon molasses, and twenty-five dollars per ton upon hemp will -sink our navigating interest; will sweep our vessels from the ocean! -When I compare the storm of eloquence and of argument which the -gentleman has employed to strike out hemp and molasses from this bill, -with the object to be attained, he reminded me— - - “Of ocean into tempest tost - To waft a feather or to drown a fly.” - -An additional duty of five cents per gallon on molasses and twenty-five -dollars per ton upon hemp will consign the navigation of the country to -inevitable and almost immediate destruction! This is the kind of -argument which the gentleman has thought proper to address to the -committee. - -The gentleman from Maine has said that our navigation goes abroad -unprotected to struggle against the world; and he has expatiated at -length upon this part of the subject. I trust I shall be able to prove, -without fatiguing the committee, that no interest belonging to this or -any other country ever received a more continued or a more efficient -protection than the navigation of the United States. I heartily approve -this policy. I would not, if I could, withdraw from it an atom of the -protection which it now enjoys. I shall never attempt to array the great -and leading interests of the country against each other. I am neither -the exclusive advocate of commerce, of manufactures, or of agriculture. -The American System embraces them all. I am the advocate of all. When, -therefore, I attempt to show to the committee the protection which has -been extended by this government to its navigation, I do it in reply to -the argument of the gentleman from Maine, and not in a spirit of -hostility to that important interest. - -Mr. Buchanan then entered upon an elaborate historical examination of -the care for the interests of our navigation that had been exerted by -Congress from 1789 to the time when he was speaking.[23] On the subject -of the navy, as likely to be affected by measures that were complained -of for a tendency to depress the commercial marine, he said: - -“The gentleman from Maine has used a most astonishing argument against -any further protection to hemp and flax and iron. We ought not further -to encourage our farmers to grow flax and hemp, nor our manufacturers to -produce iron. And why? Because you will thus deprive the navigating -interest of the freight which they earn, by carrying these articles from -Russia to this country. Can the gentleman be serious in contending that, -for the sake of affording freight to the ship-owners, we ought to depend -upon a foreign country for a supply of these articles? This argument -strikes at the root of the whole American System. Upon the same -principle we ought not to manufacture any article whatever at home, -because this will deprive our ships of the carriage of it from abroad. -This principle, had it been adopted in practice, would have left us -where we were at the close of the American Revolution. We should still -have been dependent upon foreign nations for articles of the first -necessity. This argument amounts to a proclamation of war, by our -navigation, against the agriculture and manufactures of the country. You -must not produce, because we will then lose the carriage, is the sum and -substance of the argument. Am I then to be seriously told, that for the -purpose of encouraging our ship-owners, our farmers ought to be deprived -of the markets of their own country, for those agricultural productions -which they can supply in abundance? I did not expect to have heard such -an argument upon this floor. - -“By encouraging domestic industry, whether it be applied to agriculture -or manufactures, you promote the best interests of your navigation. You -furnish it with domestic exports to scatter over the world. This is the -true American System. It protects all interests; it abandons none. It -never arrays one against another. Upon the principles of the gentleman, -we ought to sacrifice all the other interests of the country to promote -our navigation. This is asking too much. - -“The gentleman from Maine seems to apprehend great danger to the navy -from the passage of this bill. He appears to think it will fall with so -much oppression upon our navigation and fisheries, that these nurseries -of seamen for the navy may be greatly injured, if not altogether -destroyed. - -“In regard to the value and importance of a navy to this country, I -cordially agree with the gentleman from Maine. Every prejudice of my -youth was enlisted in its favor, and the judgment of riper years has -strengthened and confirmed those early impressions. It is the surest -bond of our Union. The Western States have a right to demand from this -government that the mouth of the Mississippi shall be kept open, both in -war and in peace. If you should not afford them a free passage to the -ocean, you cannot expect to retain them in the Union; they are, -therefore, as much, if not more, interested in cherishing the navy than -any other portion of the Republic. The feeling in its favor contains in -it nothing sectional—it is general. We are all interested in its -preservation and extension. Unlike standing armies, a navy never did, -nor ever will, destroy the liberties of any country. It is our most -efficient and least dangerous arm of defence. - -“To what, then, does the argument of the gentleman lead? Although iron, -and hemp, and flax, and their manufactures, are essential to the very -existence of a navy, yet he would make us dependent for them upon the -will of the Emperor of Russia, or the King of Sweden. A statesman would -as soon think of being dependent on a foreign nation for gunpowder, or -cannon, or cannon-balls, or muskets, as he would for the supply of iron, -or flax, or hemp, for our navy. Even if these articles could not be -produced as cheaply in this as in other countries, upon great national -principles, then domestic production ought to be encouraged, even if it -did tax the community. They are absolutely necessary for our defence. -Without them, what would become of you, if engaged in war with a great -naval power? You would then be as helpless as if you were deprived of -gunpowder or of cannon. Without them, your navy would be perfectly -useless. Shall we, then, in a country calculated by nature above all -others for their production, refuse to lend them a helping hand? I trust -not. - -“The gentleman from Maine has said much about our fisheries, and the -injurious effects which the present bill will have upon them. From this -argument, I was induced again to read the bill, supposing that it might -possibly contain some latent provision, hostile to the fisheries, which -I had not been able to detect. Indeed, one might have supposed, judging -merely from the remarks of the gentleman, without a reference to the -bill, that it aimed a deadly blow against this valuable branch of our -national industry. I could find nothing in it, which even touched the -fisheries. They have ever been special favorites of our legislation. I -shall not pretend to enumerate, because the task might seem invidious, -the different acts of Congress affording them protection. They are -numerous. The gentleman has, in my opinion, been very unfortunate in his -complaints that they have not been sufficiently protected. From the -origin of this government, they have been cherished, in every possible -manner, by our legislation. For their benefit we have adopted a system -of prohibitions, of drawbacks, and of bounties, unknown to our laws in -relation to any other subject. They have grown into national importance, -and have become a great interest of the country. They should continue to -be cherished, because they are the best nurseries of our seamen. I would -not withdraw from them an atom of the protection which they have -received; on the contrary, I should cheerfully vote them new bounties, -if new bounties were necessary to sustain them. They are the very last -interest in the country which ought to complain. - -“The gentleman, whilst he strenuously opposed any additional protection -to domestic iron, and domestic hemp, surely could not have remembered, -that the productions of the fisheries enjoy a monopoly of the home -market. The duties in their favor are so high as to exclude foreign -competition. We do not ask such prohibitory duties upon foreign iron, -flax, or hemp. We demand but a moderate increase; and yet the fisheries, -which are protected by prohibitory duties, meet us and deny to us this -reasonable request.” - -That Mr. Buchanan’s opposition to the administration of Mr. John Quincy -Adams was not carried on in the spirit of a partisan is evinced by his -action on an appropriation asked for to enable the Executive to continue -and complete a system of surveys, preparatory to a general plan of -internal improvements. There was much opposition to this appropriation, -especially on the part of those who denied the power of the General -Government to make such public works as were then classed as “internal -improvements.” Mr. Buchanan met their objections as follows: - -Mr. Buchanan expressed his dissent from the opinions avowed by the two -gentlemen who had preceded him. The true question ought to be distinctly -stated. The act of 1824 sanctioned the policy, not of immediately -entering upon a plan of internal improvement, but of preparing for it, -by obtaining surveys, plans, and estimates in relation to the various -roads and canals that were required throughout the country. The sum of -$30,000 had been appropriated, not for a single year, but for a specific -purpose, which purpose had not yet been accomplished. Many surveys were -now in progress, which were not more than half completed, and the -question was whether the House would withdraw the means of completing -them. A discussion of the general policy of the plan was out of place on -an appropriation bill. Whatever might be decided as to carrying such a -system of internal improvement into effect, these surveys were of great -advantage to the American people. Should that system never be adopted, -this mass of information could not fail to be useful. The constitutional -question of power did not fairly arise on a proposal to employ the -engineers already at the disposal of the War Department, in a particular -manner. - -Should the time ever arrive when we have more in the Treasury than we -know what to do with, the argument of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. -Barbour] might have some force. But the question now was, whether the -House would arrest these surveys? Mr. B., for one, would not do it. He -would give the administration the sum now asked, and would hold them -responsible for its application. - -There is no more interesting part of Mr. Buchanan’s early Congressional -career than his course on the subject of the Cumberland Road. We have -seen that when he first had occasion to act on this subject as a member -of Congress, he was inclined to accept the doctrine that Congress had -power to establish this road, and to levy tolls for its support. But he -had not then closely examined this subject. Mr. Monroe’s message vetoing -the Cumberland Road bill of 1822 produced in Mr. Buchanan’s mind a -decided change. At a subsequent session, he endeavored, but without -success, to have the road retroceded to the States through which it -passed, on condition that they would support it by levying tolls.[24] In -1828–29 he renewed this effort, and on the 29th of January, 1829, he -made an elaborate speech upon the whole subject, which is of sufficient -interest and importance to warrant its reproduction entire. As a -constitutional argument it is valuable; and for its independent attitude -towards the people of his own State, it is exceedingly creditable to him -as a public man. - -Mr. Buchanan said that the bill and the amendment now before the -committee presented a subject for discussion of the deepest interest to -the American people. It is not a question (said Mr. B.) whether we shall -keep the road in repair by appropriations; nor whether we shall expend -other millions in constructing other Cumberland roads—these would be -comparatively unimportant; but it is a question upon the determination -of which, in my humble judgment, depend the continued existence of the -Federal Constitution in anything like its native purity. Let it once be -established that the Federal Government can enter the dominion of the -States; interfere with their domestic concerns; erect toll-gates over -all the military, commercial, and post-roads within their territories, -and define and punish, by laws of Congress, in the courts of the United -States, offences committed upon these roads,—and the barriers which were -erected by our ancestors with so much care, between Federal and State -power, are entirely prostrated. This single act would, in itself, be a -longer stride towards consolidation than the Federal Government have -ever made; and it would be a precedent for establishing a construction -for the Federal Constitution so vague and so indefinite, that it might -be made to mean anything or nothing. - -It is not my purpose, upon the present occasion, again to agitate the -questions which have so often been discussed in this House, as to the -powers of Congress in regard to internal improvements. For my own part, -I cheerfully accord to the Federal Government the power of subscribing -stock, in companies incorporated by the State, for the purpose of making -roads and canals; and I entertain no doubt whatever but that we can, -under the Constitution, appropriate the money of our constituents -directly to the construction of internal improvements, with the consent -of the States through which they may pass. These powers I shall ever be -willing to exercise, upon all proper occasions. But I shall never be -driven to support any road, or any canal, which my judgment disapproves, -by a fear of the senseless clamor which is always attempted to be raised -against members upon this floor, as enemies to internal improvement, who -dare to vote against any measure which the Committee on Roads and Canals -think proper to bring before this House. It was my intention to discuss -the power of Congress to pass the bill, and its policy, separately. Upon -reflection I find these subjects are so intimately blended, they cannot -be separated. I shall therefore consider them together. - -“Before, however, I enter upon the subject, it will be necessary to -present a short historical sketch of the Cumberland Road. It owes its -origin to a compact between the State of Ohio and the United States. In -1802, Congress proposed to the convention which formed the constitution -of Ohio, that they would grant to that State one section of land to each -township, for the use of schools; that they would also grant to it -several tracts of land on which there were salt springs; and that five -per cent. of the net proceeds of the future sale of public lands within -its territory should be applied to the purpose of making public roads, -‘leading from the navigable waters emptying into the Atlantic to the -Ohio, to the said State, and through the same.’ The act, however, -distinctly declares that such roads shall be laid out under the -authority of Congress, ‘with the consent of the several States through -which the road shall pass.’ These terms were offered by Congress, to the -State of Ohio, provided she would exempt, by an irrevocable ordinance, -all the land which should be sold by the United States within her -territory, from every species of taxation, for the space of five years, -after the day of sale. This proposition of Congress was accepted by the -State of Ohio, and it thus became a compact, the terms of which could -not be changed without the consent of both the contracting parties. By -the terms of the compact, this five per cent. of the net proceeds of the -sales of the public land was applicable to two objects; the first, the -construction of roads leading from the Atlantic to the State of Ohio; -and the second, the construction of roads within that State. In 1803, -Congress, at the request of Ohio, apportioned this fund between these -two objects. Three of the five per cent. was appropriated to the -construction of roads within the State, leaving only two per cent. -applicable to roads leading from the navigable waters of the Atlantic to -it. - -“In March, 1806, Congress determined to apply this two per cent. fund to -the object for which it was destined, and passed ‘an act to regulate the -laying out and making of a road from Cumberland, in the State of -Maryland, to the State of Ohio.’ Under the provisions of this act, -before the President could proceed to cut a single tree upon the route -of the road, it was made necessary to obtain the consent of the States -through which it passed. The Federal Government asked Maryland, -Pennsylvania and Virginia for permission to make it, and each of them -granted this privilege in the same manner that they would have done to a -private individual, or to a corporation created by their own laws. -Congress, at that day, asserted no other right than a mere power to -appropriate the money of their constituents to the construction of this -road, after the consent of these States should be obtained. The idea of -a sovereign power in this government to make the road, and to exercise -jurisdiction over it, for the purpose of keeping it in repair, does not, -then, appear to have ever entered the imagination of the warmest -advocate for Federal power. The federalism of that day would have shrunk -with horror from such a spectre. There is a circumstance worthy of -remark in the act of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, which was passed -in April, 1807, authorizing the President of the United States to open -this road. It grants this power upon condition that the road should pass -through Uniontown and Washington, if practicable. The grant was accepted -upon this condition, and the road was constructed. Its length is one -hundred and thirty miles, and its construction and repairs have cost the -United States one million seven hundred and sixty-six thousand one -hundred and sixty-six dollars and thirty-eight cents; whilst the two per -cent. fund which we had bound ourselves to apply to this purpose, -amounted, on the 30th of June, 1822, the date of the last official -statement within my knowledge, only to the sum of one hundred and -eighty-seven thousand seven hundred and eighty-six dollars and -thirty-one cents, less than one-ninth of the cost of the road. This road -has cost the United States more than thirteen thousand five hundred -dollars per mile. This extravagant expenditure shows conclusively that -it is much more politic for us to enlist individual interest in the -cause of Internal Improvement, by subscribing stock, than to become -ourselves sole proprietors. Any government, unless under extraordinary -circumstances, will pay one-third more for constructing a road or canal, -than would be expended by individuals in accomplishing the same object. - -“I shall now proceed to the argument. Upon a review of this brief -history, what is the conclusion at which we must arrive? That this road -was made by the United States, as a mere proprietor, to carry into -effect a contract with the State of Ohio, and not as a sovereign. In its -construction, the Federal Government proceeded as any corporation or -private individual would have done. We asked the States for permission -to make the road through the territories over which their sovereign -authority extended. After that permission had been obtained, we -appropriated the money and constructed the road. The State of -Pennsylvania even annexed a condition to her grant, with which the -United States complied. She also conferred upon the agents of the United -States the power of taking materials for the construction and repair of -this road, without the consent of the owner, making a just compensation -therefor. This compensation was to be ascertained under the laws of the -State, and not under those of the United States. The mode of proceeding -to assess damages in such cases against the United States was precisely -the same as it is against corporations, created by her own laws, for the -purpose of constructing roads. - -“What, then, does this precedent establish? Simply, that the United -States may appropriate money for the construction of a road through the -territories of a State, with its consent; and I do not entertain the -least doubt but that we possess this power. What does the present bill -propose? To change the character which the United States has hitherto -sustained, in relation to this road, from that of a simple proprietor to -a sovereign. To declare to the nation, that, although they had to ask -the States of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia, for permission to -make the road, now, after it is completed, they will exercise -jurisdiction over it, and collect tolls upon it, under the authority of -their own laws, for the purpose of keeping it in repair. We will not ask -the States to erect toll-gates for us. We are determined to exercise -that power ourselves. The Federal Government first introduced itself -into the States as a friend, by permission; it now wishes to hold -possession as a sovereign, by power. This road was made in the manner -that one independent sovereign would construct a road through the -territories of another. Had Virginia been a party to the compact with -Ohio, instead of the United States, she would have asked the permission -of Maryland and Pennsylvania to construct the Cumberland Road through -their territories, and it would have been granted. But what would have -been our astonishment, after this permission, had Virginia attempted to -assume jurisdiction over the road in Pennsylvania, to erect toll-gates -upon it under the authority of her own laws, and to punish offenders -against these laws in her own courts. Yet the two cases are nearly -parallel. - -The right to demand toll, and to stop and punish passengers for refusing -to pay it, is emphatically a sovereign right, and has ever been so -considered amongst civilized nations. The power to erect toll-gates -necessarily implies, 1st, The stoppage of the passenger until he shall -pay the toll; 2d, His trial and punishment, if he should, either by -force or by fraud, evade, or attempt to evade, its payment; 3d, A -discretionary power as to the amount of toll; 4th, The trial and -punishment of persons who may wilfully injure the road, or violate the -police established upon it. These powers are necessarily implied. -Without the exercise of them, you could not proceed with safety to -collect the toll for a single day. Other powers will soon be exercised. -If you compel passengers to pay toll, the power of protecting them -whilst travelling along your road is almost a necessary incident. The -sovereign, who receives the toll, ought naturally to possess the power -of protecting him who pays it. To vest the power of demanding toll in -one sovereign, and the protection of the traveller’s person in another, -would be almost an absurdity. The Federal Government would probably, ere -long, exercise the power of trying and punishing murders and robberies, -and all other offences committed upon the road. To what jurisdiction -would the trial and punishment of these offences necessarily belong? To -the courts of the United States, and to them alone. In Ohio, in New -York, in Virginia, and in Maryland, it has been determined that State -courts, even if Congress should confer it, have no jurisdiction over any -penal action, or criminal offence, against the laws of the United -States. Even if these decisions were incorrect, still it has never been -seriously contended that State courts were bound to take jurisdiction in -such cases. It must be admitted, by all, that Congress have not the -power to compel an execution of their criminal or penal laws by the -courts of the States. This is sufficient for my argument. Even if the -power existed, in State courts, they never ought, unless upon -extraordinary occasions, to try and to punish offences committed against -the United States. The peace and the harmony of the people of this -country require that the powers of the two governments should never be -blended. The dividing line between their separate jurisdictions should -be clearly marked; otherwise dangerous collisions between them must be -the inevitable consequence. In two of the States through which this road -passes, it has already been determined that their courts cannot take -jurisdiction over offences committed against the laws of Congress. What, -then, is the inevitable consequence? All the penal enactments of this -bill, or of the future bills which it will become necessary to pass to -supply its defects, must be carried into execution by the Federal -courts. Any citizen of the United States, charged with the most trifling -offence against the police of this road, must be dragged for trial to -the Federal court of that State within whose jurisdiction it is alleged -to have been committed. If committed in Maryland, the trial must take -place in Baltimore; if in Pennsylvania, at Clarksburg. - -The distance of one hundred or two hundred miles, which he would be -compelled to travel to take his trial, and the expenses which he must -necessarily incur, would, in themselves, be a severe punishment for a -more aggravated offence. Besides, the people of the neighborhood would -be harassed in attending as witnesses at such a great distance from -their places of abode. These, and many other inconveniences, which I -shall not enumerate, would soon compel Congress to authorize the -appointment of justices of the peace, or some other inferior tribunals, -along the whole extent of the Cumberland Road. - -Can any man lay his hand upon his heart and say that, in his conscience, -he believes the Federal Constitution ever intended to bestow such powers -on Congress? The great divisions of power, distinctly marked in that -instrument, are external and internal. The first are conferred upon the -General Government—the last, with but few exceptions, and those -distinctly defined, remain in possession of the States. It never—never -was intended that the vast and mighty machinery of this Government -should be introduced into the domestic, the local, the interior concerns -of the States, or that it should spend its power in collecting toll at a -turnpike gate. I have not been presenting possible cases to the -committee. I have confined myself to what must be the necessary effects -of the passage of the bill now before us. By what authority is such a -tremendous power claimed? That it is not expressly given by the -Constitution, is certain. If it exists at all, it must, therefore, be -incidental to some express power; and in the language of the -Constitution, “be necessary and proper for carrying that power into -execution.” From the very nature of incidental power, it cannot -transcend the specific power which calls it into existence. The stream -cannot flow higher than its fountain. This principle applies, with -peculiar force, to the construction of the Constitution. For the purpose -of carrying into effect any of its specific powers, it would be absurd -to contend that you might exercise another power, greater and more -dangerous than that expressly given. The means must be subordinate to -the end. Were any other construction to prevail, this Government would -no longer be one of limited powers. - -The present case affords a striking and forcible illustration of this -principle. Let it be granted that you have a right, as proprietor, by -the permission of the States, to make a road through their territories, -can it ever follow, as an incident to this mere power of appropriating -the public money, that you may exercise jurisdiction over this very -road, as a sovereign? If you could, the incident is as much greater than -the principal, as sovereign is superior to individual power. It does -follow that you can keep the road in repair, by appropriations, in the -same manner that you have made it; but this is the utmost limit of your -power. What, Sir? Exclusive jurisdiction over the road, for its -preservation, and for the punishment of all offenders who travel upon -it, and that as an incident to the mere power of expending your money -upon its construction! The idea is absurd. - -Under the power given to Congress “to establish post offices and post -roads,” the Federal Government possess the undoubted right of converting -any road already constructed, within any State of this Union, into a -post road. - -Let it also be granted, for the sake of the argument, that they possess -the power, independently of the will of the States, to construct as many -post roads throughout the Union as they think proper, and to keep them -in repair; does it follow that they can establish toll-gates upon such -roads? Certainly not. What is the nature of the powder conferred upon -Congress? It is a mere right to carry and to protect the mails. It is -confined to a single purpose—to the transportation of the mail, and the -punishment of offences which violate that right. This is the sole object -of the power—the sole purpose for which it was called into existence. -Over some post roads, the mail is carried once per day, and over others -once per week. With what justice can it be contended that this right of -passage for a single purpose—this occasional use of the roads within the -different States for post roads—vests in Congress the power of closing -up these roads against all the citizens of those States, at all times, -until they have paid such a toll as we think proper to impose. Let me -present the naked argument of gentlemen before their own eyes. Congress -have the right, under the Constitution, “to establish post offices and -post roads.” As an incident they possess the power of constructing post -roads. As another incident to this right of passage for a single purpose -they possess the power to assume jurisdiction over all post roads in the -different States, and prevent any person from passing over them, unless -upon such terms as they may prescribe. This would, indeed, be -construction construed. I would like the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. -Mercer) to furnish the committee with an answer to this argument. If I -were to grant to that gentleman a right of passage, for a particular -purpose only, over a road which belonged to me, what would be my -surprise and my indignation, were he to shut it up, by the erection of -toll-gates, and prohibited me from passing unless I paid him toll. - -Should Congress act upon the precedent which the passage of this bill -would establish, it is impossible to foresee the dangers which must -follow, to the States and to the people of this country. Upon this -branch of the question, permit me to quote the language of Mr. Monroe, -in his celebrated message of May, 1822, denying the constitutional power -of Congress to erect toll-gates on the Cumberland Road. “If,” said he, -“the United States possessed the power contended for under this grant, -might they not, on adopting the roads of the individual States for the -carriage of the mail, as has been done, assume jurisdiction over them, -and preclude a right to interfere with, or alter them? Might they not -establish turnpikes, and exercise all the other acts of sovereignty -above stated, over such roads, necessary to protect them from injury, -and defray the expense of repairing them? Surely, if the right exists, -these consequences necessarily followed, as soon as the road was -established. The absurdity of such a pretension must be apparent to all -who examine it. In this way, a large portion of the territory of every -State might be taken from it; for there is scarcely a road in any State -which will not be used for the transportation of the mail. A new field -for legislation and internal government would thus be opened.” Arguments -of the same nature would apply with equal, if not greater force, to -those roads which might be used by the United States for the -transportation of military stores, or as the medium of commerce between -the different States. I shall not now enlarge upon this branch of the -subject, believing it, as I do, to be wholly unnecessary. - -There is another view of this subject, which I deem to be conclusive. -The Constitution of the United States provides that “Congress shall have -power to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over -such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of -particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of -the Government of the United States, and to exercise the like authority -over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State -in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, -arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings.” This is the only -clause in the Constitution which authorizes the Federal Government to -acquire jurisdiction over any portion of the territory of the States; -and this power is expressly confined to such forts, magazines, arsenals, -dockyards, and other needful buildings, as the States may consider -necessary for the defence of the country. You will thus, Sir, perceive -with what jealousy our ancestors conferred jurisdiction upon this -Government—even over such places as were absolutely necessary for the -exercise of the power of war. This power,—which is the power of -self-defence—of self-preservation—the power given to this Government of -wielding the whole physical force of the country for the preservation of -its existence and its liberties—does not confer any implied jurisdiction -over the smallest portion of territory. An express authority is given to -acquire jurisdiction, for military and for naval purposes, and for them -alone, with the consent of the States. Unless that consent has been -first obtained, the vast power of war confers no incidental -jurisdiction, even over the cannon in your national fortifications. How, -then, can it be contended, with the least hope of success, that the same -Constitution, which thus expressly limits our power of acquiring -jurisdiction, to particular spots, necessary for the purpose of national -defence, should, by implication, as an incident to the power to -establish post offices and post roads, authorize us to assume -jurisdiction over a road one hundred and thirty miles in length, and -over all the other post roads in the country. If this construction be -correct, all the limitations upon Federal power, contained in the -Constitution, are idle and vain. There is no power which this Government -shall ever wish to usurp, which cannot, by ingenuity, be found lurking -in some of the express powers granted by the Constitution. In my humble -judgment, the argument in favor of the constructive power to pass the -sedition law is much more plausible than any that can be urged by the -advocates of this bill, in favor of its passage. I beg gentlemen to -reflect, before they vote in its favor. - -I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Vance) for having reminded me of -the resolution passed by the Legislature of Pennsylvania, at their last -session, which authorizes the Federal Government to erect toll-gates -upon this road, within that Commonwealth; to “enforce the collection of -tolls, and, generally, to do and perform any and every other act and -thing which may be deemed necessary, to ensure the permanent repair and -preservation of the said road.” - -I feel the most unfeigned respect for the Legislature of my native -State. Their deliberate opinion, upon any subject, will always have a -powerful influence over my judgment. It is fairly entitled to as much -consideration as the opinion of this or any other legislative body in -the Union. This resolution, however, was adopted, as I have been -informed, without much deliberation and without debate. It owes its -passage to the anxious desire which that body feel to preserve the -Cumberland Road from ruin. The constitutional question was not brought -into discussion. Had it been fairly submitted to that Republican -Legislature, I most solemnly believe they would have been the last in -this Union to sanction the assumption, by this Government, of a -jurisdiction so ultra-Federal in its nature, and so well calculated to -destroy the rights of the States. - -But this resolution can have no influence upon the present discussion. -The people of the State of Pennsylvania never conferred upon their -Legislature the power to cede jurisdiction over any portion of their -territory to the United States, or to any other sovereign. If the -Legislatures of the different States could exercise such a power, the -road to consolidation would be direct. If they can cede jurisdiction to -this Government over any portion of their territories, they can cede the -whole, and thus altogether destroy the Federal system. - -Even if the States possessed the power to cede, the United States have -no power to accept such cessions. Their authority to accept cessions of -jurisdiction is confined to places “for the erection of forts, -magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings.” Mr. Monroe, -in the message to which I have already referred, declares his opinion -“that Congress do not possess this power; that the States, individually, -cannot grant it; for, although they may assent to the appropriation of -money, within their limits, for such purposes, they can grant no power -of jurisdiction, or sovereignty, by special compacts with the United -States.” - -I think it is thus rendered abundantly clear that, if Congress do not -possess the power, under the Federal Constitution, to pass this bill, -the States through which the road passes cannot confer it upon them. I -feel convinced that even the gentleman who reported this bill (Mr. -Mercer) will not contend that the resolution of the Legislature of -Pennsylvania could bestow any jurisdiction upon the Government. I am -justified in this reference, because that resolution is, in its nature, -conditional, and requires that the amount of tolls collected in -Pennsylvania shall be applied, exclusively, to the repair of the road -within that State; and the present bill contains no provision to carry -this condition into effect. The gentleman cannot, therefore, derive his -authority to pass this bill from a grant the provisions of which he has -disregarded. - -This question has already been settled, so far as a solemn legislative -precedent can settle any question. During the session of 1821–2, a bill, -similar in its provisions to the one now before the committee, passed -both Houses of Congress. The vote, on its passage in this House, was -eighty-seven in the affirmative, and sixty-eight in the negative. Mr. -Monroe, then President of the United States, returned this bill to the -House of Representatives, with his objections. So powerful, and so -convincing, were his arguments, that, upon its reconsideration, but -sixty-eight members voted in the affirmative, whilst seventy-two voted -in the negative. Thus, Sir, you perceive, that this House have already -solemnly declared, in accordance with the deliberate opinion of the late -President of the United States, that Congress do not possess the power -to erect toll-gates upon the Cumberland Road. That distinguished -individual was the last of the race of Revolutionary Presidents, and, -from the soundness of his judgment and the elevated stations which he -has occupied, his opinion is entitled to the utmost respect. He was an -actor in many of the political scenes of that day when the Constitution -was framed, and when it went into operation, under the auspices of -Washington—“all which he saw, and part of which he was.” He is, -therefore, one of the few surviving statesmen who, from actual -knowledge, can inform the present generation what were the opinions of -the past. The solemnity and the ability with which he has resisted the -exercise of the power of Congress to pass this bill prove, conclusively, -the great importance which he attached to the subject. - -During that session, I first had the honor of a seat in this House; I -voted for the passage of that bill. I had not reflected upon the -constitutional question, and I was an advocate of the policy of keeping -the road in repair by collecting tolls from those who travelled upon it. -After I read the constitutional objections of Mr. Monroe my opinion was -changed, and I have ever since been endeavoring, upon all proper -occasions, to atone for my vote, by advocating a cession of the road to -the respective States through which it passes, that they may erect -toll-gates upon it and keep it in repair. - -There was a time in the history of this country—I refer to the days of -the first President of the United States—when the Government was feeble, -and when, in addition to its own powers, the weight of his personal -character was necessary fairly to put it in motion. Jealousy of Federal -power was then the order of the day. The gulf of consolidation then -yawned before the imagination of many of our wisest and best patriots, -ready to swallow up the rights of the States and the liberties of the -people. In those days, this vast machine had scarcely got into regular -motion. Its power and its patronage were then in their infancy, and -there was, perhaps, more danger that the jealousy of the States should -destroy efficiency of the Federal Government than that it should crush -their power. Times have changed. The days of its feebleness and of -childhood have passed away. It is now a giant—a Briareus—stretching -forth its hundred arms, dispensing its patronage, and increasing its -power over every portion of the Union. What patronage and what power -have the States to oppose to this increasing influence? Glance your eye -over the extent of the Union; compare State offices with those of the -United States; and whether avarice or ambition be consulted, those which -belong to the General Government are greatly to be preferred to the -offices which the States can bestow. Jealousy of Federal power—not of a -narrow and mean character, but a watchful and uncompromising jealousy—is -now the dictate of the soundest patriotism. The General Government -possesses the exclusive right to impose duties upon imports—by far the -most productive and the most popular source of revenue. United and -powerful efforts are now making to destroy the revenue which the States -derive from sales at auction. This Government is now asked to interpose -its power between the buyer and seller, and put down public sales of -merchandise within the different States—a subject heretofore believed to -be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State sovereignties. Whilst -the Federal Government has been advancing with rapid strides, the people -of the States have seldom been awakened to a sense of their danger. In -the late political struggle, they were aroused, and they nobly -maintained their own rights. This, I trust, will always be the case -hereafter. Thank Heaven! whilst the people continue true to themselves, -the Constitution contains within itself those principles which must ever -preserve it. From its very nature—from a difference of opinion as to the -constructive powers which may be necessary and proper to carry those -which are enumerated into effect—it must ever call into existence two -parties, the one jealous of Federal, the other of State power; the one -anxious to extend Federal influence, the other wedded to State rights; -the one desirous to limit, the other to extend, the power and the -patronage of the General Government. In the intermediate space there -will be much debatable ground; but a general outline will still remain -sufficiently distinct to mark the division between the political parties -which have divided, and which will probably continue to divide, the -people of this country. Jealousy of Federal power had long been -slumbering. The voice of Virginia sounding the alarm has at length -awakened several of her sister States; and, although they believe her to -be too strict in her construction of the Constitution and her doctrines -concerning State rights, yet, they are now willing to do justice to the -steadiness and patriotism of her political character. She has kept alive -a wholesome jealousy of Federal power. If, then, there be a party in -this country friendly to the rights of the States and of the people, I -call upon them to oppose the passage of this bill. Should it become a -law, it will establish a precedent under the authority of which the -sovereign power of this Government can be brought home into the domestic -concerns of every State in the Union. We may then take under our own -jurisdiction every road over which the mail is carried; every road over -which our soldiers and warlike munitions may pass; and every road used -for the purpose of carrying on commerce between the several States. Once -establish this strained construction of the Federal Constitution, and I -would ask gentlemen to point out the limit where this splendid -government shall be compelled to stay its chariot wheels. Might it not -then drive on to consolidation, under the sanction of the Constitution? - -Is there any necessity for venturing upon this dangerous and doubtful -measure? I appeal to those gentlemen who suppose the power to be clear, -what motive they can have for forcing this measure upon us, who are of a -different opinion? Can it make any difference to them whether those -toll-gates shall be erected under a law of the United States, or under -State authority? Cannot the Legislature of Pennsylvania enact this bill -into a law as well as the Congress of the United States? Nobody will -doubt their right. I trust no gentleman upon this floor will question -the fidelity of that State in complying with all her engagements. She -has ever been true to every trust. If she should accept of the cession, -as I have no doubt she would, I will pledge myself that you shall never -again hear of the road, unless it be that she has kept it in good -repair, and that under her care it has answered every purpose for which -it was intended. - -I know that some popular feeling has been excited against myself in that -portion of Pennsylvania though which the road passes. I have been -represented as one of its greatest enemies. I now take occasion thus -publicly to deny this allegation. It is true that I cannot vote in favor -of the passage of this bill, and thus, in my judgment, violate the oath -which I have taken to support the Constitution of the United States. No -man can expect this from me. But it is equally true that I have -heretofore supported appropriations for the repair of this road; and -should my amendment prevail, I shall vote in favor of the appropriation -of one hundred thousand dollars for that purpose which is contained in -this bill. - -At a late period in the second session of this Congress, February 6, -1829, a resolution was introduced by Mr. Smyth of Virginia, proposing to -amend the Constitution so as to make every President ineligible to the -office a second time. Whether this was aimed at General Jackson, who had -been elected President in the autumn of 1828, and was to be inaugurated -in about thirty days, or whether it had no special object, it was -generally regarded as a subject for the discussion of which the -remaining time of this Congress was entirely insufficient. Upon a motion -to postpone the resolution to the 3d of March, Mr. Buchanan said: - -He should vote in favor of the postponement of this resolution until the -3d of March. He did not think that the great constitutional question -which it presented ought to be decided, without more time and more -reflection than it would be possible to bestow upon it at this late -period of the session. We had heard the able and ingenious argument of -the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Smyth) in favor of the proposition, -whilst no argument had been urged upon the other side of the question. -He said that a more important question could not be presented in a -republic, than a proposition to change the Constitution in regard to the -election of the Supreme Executive Magistrate. “It is better to bear the -ills we have, than fly to others that we know not of,” unless the -existing evils are great, and we have a moral certainty that the change -will not be productive of still greater evils. The Constitution has been -once changed since its adoption, and it is now generally admitted that -the alteration was for the worse, and not for the better. This change -grew out of the excitement of the moment. It provided against the -existence of an evil which, probably, would not again have occurred for -a long period of time; but in doing so, it has rendered it almost -certain that the election of a President shall often devolve upon the -House of Representatives. Had the Constitution remained in its original -form; had each elector continued to vote for two persons, instead of -one; it could rarely, if ever, have occurred that some one candidate -would not have received a majority of all the electoral votes. By this -change, we have thus entailed a great evil upon the country. - -The example of Washington, which has been followed by Jefferson, Madison -and Monroe, has forever determined that no President shall be more than -once re-elected. This principle is now become as sacred as if it were -written in the Constitution. I would incline to leave to the people of -the United States, without incorporating it in the Constitution, to -decide whether a President should serve longer than one term. The day -may come, when dangers shall lower over us, and when we may have a -President at the helm of State who possesses the confidence of the -country, and is better able to weather the storm than any other pilot; -shall we, then, under such circumstances, deprive the people of the -United States of the power of obtaining his services for a second term? -Shall we pass a decree, as fixed as fate, to bind the American people, -and prevent them from ever re-electing such a man? I am not afraid to -trust them with this power. - -There is another reason why the House should not be called upon to -decide this question hastily. It is a great evil to keep the public mind -excited, as it would be, by the election of a new President at the end -of each term of four years. Under the existing system, it is probable -that, as a general rule, a President, elected by the people, will once -be re-elected, unless he shall by his conduct have deprived himself of -public confidence. This will, in many instances, prevent the recurrence -of a political storm more than once in eight years. These are some of -the suggestions which induce me to vote for the postponement of this -resolution to a day that will render it impossible for us to act upon it -during the present session of Congress. We ought to have ample time to -consider this subject before we act. - - - - - CHAPTER VI. - 1829–1831. - -THE FIRST ELECTION OF GENERAL JACKSON—BUCHANAN AGAIN ELECTED TO THE - HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—HE BECOMES CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY - COMMITTEE—IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE PECK—BUCHANAN DEFEATS A REPEAL OF THE - 25TH SECTION OF THE JUDICIARY ACT—PROPOSED IN PENNSYLVANIA AS A - CANDIDATE FOR THE VICE-PRESIDENCY—WISHES TO RETIRE FROM PUBLIC - LIFE—FITNESS FOR GREAT SUCCESS AT THE BAR. - - -General Jackson was elected President of the United States in the autumn -of 1828, by a majority of forty-eight electoral votes over Mr. John -Quincy Adams, and was inaugurated March 4, 1829. Mr. Calhoun became -Vice-President by a majority of forty-one electoral votes. Mr. Buchanan -had entered into the popular canvass in favor of General Jackson with -much zeal and activity. His efforts to secure for the General the -popular vote of Pennsylvania, which were begun in the summer of 1827, -were in danger of being embarrassed at that time by the General’s -misconception of the purpose of Mr. Buchanan’s interview with him, which -took place in 1824, while the election of a President was pending in the -House of Representatives. But Mr. Buchanan conducted himself in that -matter with so much discretion and forbearance that his influence with -General Jackson’s Pennsylvania friends was not seriously impaired. When -the canvass of 1828 came on, he was in a position to be regarded as one -of the most efficient political supporters of General Jackson in the -State; and indeed it was mainly through his influence that the whole of -her twenty-eight electoral votes was secured for the candidate whose -election he desired. Yet this commanding position did not lead him to -expect office of any kind in the new administration, nor does he appear -to have desired any. He was re-elected to his old seat in Congress, and -was in attendance at the opening of the first session of the 21st -Congress in December, 1829. He now became Chairman of the Judiciary -Committee of the House, and as such had very weighty duties to perform. - -One of the first of these duties, and one that he discharged with signal -ability, required him to introduce and advocate a bill to amend and -extend the judicial system of the United States, by including in the -circuit court system the States of Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, -Illinois, Alabama, and Missouri, which had hitherto had only district -courts, and by increasing the number of judges of the Supreme Court to -nine. Mr. Buchanan’s speech in explanation of this measure, delivered -January 14, 1830, was as important a one as has been made upon the -subject. The measure which he advocated was not adopted at that time; -but his speech may be resorted to at all times for its valuable -discussion of a question that has not yet lost its interest,—the -question of releasing the judges of the Supreme Court entirely from the -performance of circuit duties. Until I read this speech, I was not aware -how wisely and comprehensively Mr. Buchanan could deal with such a -question. The following passages seem to me to justify a very high -estimate of his powers, as they certainly contain much wisdom: - -Having thus given a hasty sketch of the history of the Judiciary of the -United States, and of the jurisdiction of the circuit courts which this -bill proposes to extend to the six new States of the Union, I shall now -proceed to present the views of the Committee on the Judiciary in -relation to this important subject. In doing this, I feel that, before I -can expect the passage of the bill, I must satisfy the committee, first, -that such a change or modification of the present judiciary system ought -to be adopted, as will place the Western States on an equal footing with -the other States of the Union; and, second, that the present bill -contains the best provisions which, under all the circumstances, can be -devised for accomplishing this purpose. - -And first, in regard to the States of Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. It -may be said that the existing law has already established circuit courts -in these three States, and why then should they complain? In answer to -this question, I ask gentlemen to look at a map of the United States, -and examine the extent of this circuit. The distance which the judge is -compelled to travel, by land, for the purpose of attending the different -circuit courts, is, of itself, almost sufficient, in a few years, to -destroy any common constitution. From Columbus, in Ohio, he proceeds to -Frankfort, in Kentucky; from Frankfort to Nashville; and from Nashville, -across the Cumberland mountain, to Knoxville. When we reflect that, in -addition to his attendance of the courts in each of these States, twice -in the year, he is obliged annually to attend the Supreme Court in -Washington, we must all admit that his labors are very severe. - -This circuit is not only too extensive, but there is a great press of -judicial business in each of the States of which it is composed. In -addition to the ordinary sources of litigation for the circuit courts -throughout the Union, particular causes have existed for its -extraordinary accumulation in each of these States. It will be -recollected that, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, -the circuit courts may try land causes between citizens of the same -State, provided they claim under grants from different States. In -Tennessee, grants under that State and the State of North Carolina, for -the same land, often come into conflict in the circuit court. The -interfering grants of Virginia and Kentucky are a fruitful source of -business for the circuit court of Kentucky. These causes, from their -very nature, are difficult and important, and must occupy much time and -attention. Within the Virginia military district of Ohio, there are also -many disputed land titles. - -Another cause has contributed much to swell the business of the circuit -court of Kentucky. The want of confidence of the citizens of other -States in the judicial tribunals of that State, has greatly added to the -number of suits in the circuit court. Many plaintiff’s, who could, with -greater expedition, have recovered their demands in the courts of the -State, were compelled, by the impolitic acts of the State Legislature, -to resort to the courts of the United States. Whilst these laws were -enforced by the State courts, they were disregarded by those of the -Union. In making these remarks, I am confident no representative from -that patriotic State will mistake my meaning. I rejoice that the -difficulties are now at an end, and that the people of Kentucky have -discovered the ruinous policy of interposing the arm of the law to -shield a debtor from the just demands of his creditor. That gallant and -chivalrous people, who possess a finer soil and a finer climate than any -other State of the Union, will now, I trust, improve and enjoy the -bounties which nature has bestowed upon them with a lavish hand. As -their experience has been severe, I trust their reformation will be -complete. Still, however, many of the causes which originated in past -years, are yet depending in the circuit court of that State. - -In 1826, when a similar bill was before this House, we had the most -authentic information that there were nine hundred and fifty causes then -pending in the circuit court of Kentucky, one hundred and sixty in the -circuit court for the western district, and about the same number in -that for the eastern district of Tennessee, and upwards of two hundred -in Ohio. Upon that occasion, a memorial was presented from the bar of -Nashville, signed by G. W. Campbell as chairman, and Felix Grundy, at -present a Senator of the United States, as secretary. These gentlemen -are both well known to this House, and to the country. That memorial -declares that “the seventh circuit, consisting of Kentucky, Ohio, and -Tennessee, is too large for the duties of it to be devolved on one man; -and it was absolutely impossible for the judge assigned to this circuit -to fulfil the letter of the law designating his duties.” Such has been -the delay of justice in the State of Tennessee, “that some of the -important causes now pending in their circuit courts are older than the -professional career of almost every man at the bar.” - -The number of causes depending in the seventh circuit, I am informed, -has been somewhat reduced since 1826; but still the evil is great, and -demands a remedy. If it were possible for one man to transact the -judicial business of that circuit, I should have as much confidence that -it would be accomplished by the justice of the Supreme Court to which it -is assigned, as by any other judge in the Union. His ability and his -perseverance are well known to the nation. The labor, however, both of -body and mind, is too great for any individual. - -Has not the delay of justice in this circuit almost amounted to its -denial? Are the States which compose it placed upon the same footing, in -this respect, with other States of the Union? Have they not a right to -complain? Many evils follow in the train of tardy justice. It deranges -the whole business of society. It tempts the dishonest and the needy to -set up unjust and fraudulent defences against the payment of just debts, -knowing that the day of trial is far distant. It thus ruins the honest -creditor, by depriving him of the funds which he had a right to expect -at or near the appointed time of payment; and it ultimately tends to -destroy all confidence between man and man. - -A greater curse can scarcely be inflicted upon the people of any State, -than to have their land titles unsettled. What, then, must be the -condition of Tennessee, where there are many disputed land titles, when -we are informed, by undoubted authority, “that some of the important -causes now pending in their circuit courts are older than the -professional career of almost every man at the bar.” Instead of being -astonished at the complaints of the people of this circuit, I am -astonished at their forbearance. A judiciary, able and willing to compel -men to perform their contracts, and to decide their controversies, is -one of the greatest political blessings which any people can enjoy; and -it is one which the people of this country have a right to expect from -their Government. The present bill proposes to accomplish this object, -by creating a new circuit out of the States of Kentucky and Tennessee. -This circuit will afford sufficient employment for one justice of the -Supreme Court. - -Without insisting further upon the propriety, nay, the necessity, of -organizing the circuit courts of Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, in such -a manner as to enable them to transact the business of the people, I -shall now proceed to consider the situation of the six new States, -Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, and Missouri. Their -grievances are of a different character. They do not so much complain of -the delay of justice, as that Congress has so long refused to extend to -them the circuit court system, as it exists in all the other States. As -they successively came into the Union, they were each provided with a -district court and a district judge, possessing circuit court powers. -The acts which introduced them into our political family declare that -they shall “be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the -original States, in all respects whatever.” I do not mean to contend -that by virtue of these acts we were bound immediately to extend to them -the circuit court system. Such has not been the practice of Congress, in -regard to other States in a similar situation. I contend, however, that -these acts do impose an obligation upon us to place them “on an equal -footing with the original States,” in regard to the judiciary, as soon -as their wants require it, and the circumstances of the country permit -it to be done. That time has, in my opinion, arrived. Louisiana has now -been nearly eighteen years a member of the Union, and is one of our most -commercial States; and yet, until this day, she has been without a -circuit court. It is more than thirteen years since Indiana was -admitted; and even our youngest sister, Missouri, will soon have been -nine years in the family. Why should not these six States be admitted to -the same judicial privileges which all the others now enjoy? Even if -there were no better reason, they have a right to demand it for the mere -sake of uniformity. I admit this is an argument dictated by State pride; -but is not that a noble feeling? Is it not a feeling which will ever -characterize freemen? Have they not a right to say to us, if the circuit -court system be good for you, it will be good for us? You have no right -to exclusive privileges. If you are sovereign States, so are we. By the -terms of our admission, we are perfectly your equals. We have long -submitted to the want of this system, from deference to your judgment; -but the day has now arrived when we demand it from you as our right. But -there are several other good reasons why the system ought to be extended -to these States. And, in the first place, the justices of the Supreme -Court are selected from the very highest order of the profession. There -is scarcely a lawyer in the United States who would not be proud of an -elevation to that bench. A man ambitious of honest fame ought not to -desire a more exalted theatre for the display of ability and usefulness. -Besides, the salary annexed to this office is sufficient to command the -best talents of the country. I ask you, sir, is it not a serious -grievance for those States to be deprived of the services of such a man -in their courts? I ask you whether it is equal justice, that whilst, in -eighteen States of the Union, no man can be deprived of his life, his -liberty, or his property, by the judgment of a circuit court, without -the concurrence of two judges, and one of them a justice of the Supreme -Court, in the remaining six the fate of the citizen is determined by the -decision of a single district judge? Who are, generally speaking, these -district judges? In asking this question, I mean to treat them with no -disrespect. They receive but small salaries, and their sphere of action -is confined to their own particular districts. There is nothing either -in the salary or in the station which would induce a distinguished -lawyer, unless under peculiar circumstances, to accept the appointment. -And yet the judgment of this individual, in six States of the Union, is -final and conclusive, in all cases of law, of equity, and of admiralty -and maritime jurisdiction, wherein the amount of the controversy does -not exceed two thousand dollars. Nay, the grievance is incomparably -greater. His opinion in all criminal cases, no matter how aggravated may -be their nature, is final and conclusive. A citizen of these States may -be deprived of his life, or of his character, which ought to be dearer -than life, by the sentence of a district judge; against which there is -no redress, and from which there can be no appeal. - -There is another point of view in which the inequality and injustice of -the present system, in the new States, is very striking. In order to -produce a final decision, both the judges of a circuit court must -concur. If they be divided in opinion, the point of difference is -certified to the Supreme Court, for their decision; and this, whether -the amount in controversy be great or small. The same rule applies to -criminal cases. In such a court, no man can be deprived of life, of -liberty, or of property, by a criminal prosecution, without the clear -opinion of the two judges that his conviction is sanctioned by the laws -of the land. If the question be doubtful or important, or if it be one -of the first impression, the judges, even when they do not really -differ, often agree to divide, _pro forma_, so that the point may be -solemnly argued and decided in the Supreme Court. Thus, the citizen of -every State in which a circuit court exists, has a shield of protection -cast over him, of which he cannot be deprived, without the deliberate -opinion of two judges; whilst the district judge of the six new Western -States must alone finally decide every criminal question, and every -civil controversy in which the amount in dispute does not exceed two -thousand dollars. - -In the eastern district of Louisiana, the causes of admiralty and -maritime jurisdiction decided by the district court must be numerous and -important. If a circuit court were established for that State, a party -who considered himself aggrieved might appeal to it from the district -court in every case in which the amount in controversy exceeded fifty -dollars. At present there is no appeal, unless the value of the -controversy exceeds two thousand dollars; and then it must be made -directly to the Supreme Court, a tribunal so far remote from the city of -New Orleans, as to deter suitors from availing themselves of this -privilege. - -I shall not further exhaust the patience of the committee on this branch -of the subject. I flatter myself that I have demonstrated the necessity -for such an alteration of the existing laws as will confer upon the -people of Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, and of the six new Western -States, the same benefits from the judiciary, as those which the people -of the other States now enjoy. - -The great question, then, which remains for discussion is, does the -present bill present the best plan for accomplishing this purpose, -which, under all circumstances, can be devised? It is incumbent upon me -to sustain the affirmative of this proposition. There have been but two -plans proposed to the Committee on the Judiciary, and but two can be -proposed, with the least hope of success. The one an extension of the -present system, which the bill now before the committee contemplates, -and the other a resort to the system which was adopted in the days of -the elder Adams, of detaching the justices of the Supreme Court from the -performance of circuit duties, and appointing circuit judges to take -their places. After much reflection upon this subject I do not think -that the two systems can be compared, without producing a conviction in -favor of that which has long been established. The system of detaching -the judges of the Supreme Court from the circuits has been already -tried, and it has already met the decided hostility of the people of -this country. No act passed during the stormy and turbulent -administration of the elder Adams, which excited more general -indignation among the people. The courts which it established were then, -and have been ever since, branded with the name of the “midnight -judiciary.” I am far from being one of those who believe the people to -be infallible. They are often deceived by the arts of demagogues; but -this deception endures only for a season. They are always honest, and -possess much sagacity. If, therefore, they get wrong, it is almost -certain they will speedily return to correct opinions. They have long -since done justice to other acts of that administration, which at the -time they condemned; but the feeling against the judiciary established -under it remains the same. Indeed, many now condemn that system, who -were formerly its advocates. In 1826, when a bill, similar in its -provisions to the bill now before the committee, was under discussion in -this House, a motion was made by a gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Mercer] -to recommit it to the Committee on the Judiciary, with an instruction so -to amend it, as to discharge the judges of the Supreme Court from -attendance on the circuit courts, and to provide a uniform system for -the administration of justice in the inferior courts of the United -States. Although this motion was sustained with zeal and eloquence and -ability by the mover, and by several other gentlemen, yet, when it came -to the vote, it was placed in a lean minority, and, I believe, was -negatived without a division. It is morally certain that such a bill -could not now be carried. It would, therefore, have been vain and idle -in the Committee on the Judiciary to have reported such a bill. If the -Western States should be doomed to wait for a redress of their -grievances, until public opinion shall change upon this subject, it -will, probably, be a long time before they will obtain relief. - -But, Sir, there are most powerful reasons for believing that public -opinion upon this subject is correct. What would be the natural -consequences of detaching the judges of the Supreme Court from circuit -duties? It would bring them and their families from the circuits in -which they now reside; and this city would become their permanent -residence. They would naturally come here; because here, and nowhere -else, would they then have official business to transact. What would be -the probable effect of such a change of residence? The tendency of -everything within the ten miles square is towards the Executive of the -Union. He is here the centre of attraction. No matter what political -revolutions may take place, no matter who may be up or who may be down, -the proposition is equally true. Human nature is not changed under a -Republican Government. We find that citizens of a republic are -worshippers of power, as well as the subjects of a monarchy. Would you -think it wise to bring the justices of the Supreme Court from their -residence in the States, where they breathe the pure air of the country, -and assemble them here within the very vortex of Executive influence? -Instead of being independent judges, scattered over the surface of the -Union, their feelings identified with the States of which they are -citizens, is there no danger that, in the lapse of time, you would -convert them into minions of the Executive? I am far, very far, from -supposing that any man, who either is or who will be a justice of the -Supreme Court, could be actually corrupted; but if you place them in a -situation where they or their relatives would naturally become -candidates for Executive patronage, you place them, in some degree, -under the control of Executive influence. If there should now exist any -just cause for the complaints against the Supreme Court, that in their -decisions they are partial to Federal rather than to State authority -(and I do not say that there is), that which at present may be but an -imaginary fear might soon become a substantial reality. I would place -them beyond the reach of temptation. I would suffer them to remain, as -they are at present, citizens of their respective States, visiting this -city annually to discharge their high duties, as members of the Supreme -Court. This single view of the subject, if there were no other, ought, -in my judgment, to be conclusive. - -Let us now suppose, for the sake of the argument, that the withdrawal of -the justices of the Supreme Court from their circuit duties, and their -residence in this city, would produce no such effects, as I apprehend, -upon the judges themselves; what would be the probable effect upon -public opinion? It has been said, and wisely said, that the first object -of every judicial tribunal ought to be to do justice; the second, to -satisfy the people that justice has been done. It is of the utmost -importance in this country that the judges of the Supreme Court should -possess the confidence of the public. This they now do in an eminent -degree. How have they acquired it? By travelling over their circuits, -and personally showing themselves to the people of the country, in the -able and honest discharge of their high duties, and by their extensive -intercourse with the members of the profession on the circuits in each -State, who, after all, are the best judges of judicial merit, and whose -opinions upon this subject have a powerful influence upon the community. -Elevated above the storms of faction and of party which have sometimes -lowered over us, like the sun, they have pursued their steady course, -unawed by threats, unseduced by flattery. They have thus acquired that -public confidence which never fails to follow the performance of great -and good actions, when brought home to the personal observation of the -people. - -Would they continue to enjoy this extensive public confidence, should -they no longer be seen by the people of the States, in the discharge of -their high and important duties, but be confined, in the exercise of -them, to the gloomy and vaulted apartment which they now occupy in this -Capitol? Would they not be considered as a distant and dangerous -tribunal? Would the people, when excited by strong feeling, patiently -submit to have the most solemn acts of their State Legislatures swept -from the statute-book, by the decision of judges whom they never saw, -and whom they had been taught to consider with jealousy and suspicion? -At present, even in those States where their decisions have been most -violently opposed, the highest respect has been felt for the judges by -whom they were pronounced, because the people have had an opportunity of -personally knowing that they were both great and good men. Look at the -illustrious individual who is now the Chief Justice of the United -States. His decisions upon constitutional questions have ever been -hostile to the opinions of a vast majority of the people of his own -State; and yet with what respect and veneration has he been viewed by -Virginia? Is there a Virginian, whose heart does not beat with honest -pride when the just fame of the Chief Justice is the subject of -conversation? They consider him, as he truly is, one of the greatest and -best men which this country has ever produced. Think ye that such would -have been the case, had he been confined to the city of Washington, and -never known to the people, except in pronouncing judgments in this -Capitol, annulling their State laws, and calculated to humble their -State pride? Whilst I continue to be a member of this House, I shall -never incur the odium of giving a vote for any change in the judiciary -system the effect of which would, in my opinion, diminish the respect in -which the Supreme Court is now held by the people of this country. - -The judges whom you would appoint to perform the circuit duties, if able -and honest men, would soon take the place which the judges of the -Supreme Court now occupy in the affections of the people; and the -reversal of their judgments, when they happened to be in accordance with -strong public feeling, would naturally increase the mass of discontent -against the Supreme Court. - -There are other reasons, equally powerful, against the withdrawal of the -judges from the circuits. What effect would such a measure probably -produce upon the ability of the judges themselves to perform their -duties? Would it not be very unfortunate? - -No judges upon earth ever had such various and important duties to -perform, as the justices of the Supreme Court. In England, whence we -have derived our laws, they have distinct courts of equity, courts of -common law, courts of admiralty, and courts in which the civil law is -administered. In each of these courts, they have distinct judges; and -perfection in any of these branches is certain to be rewarded by the -honors of that country. The judges of our Supreme Court, both on their -circuits and in banc, are called upon to adjudicate on all these codes. -But this is not all. Our Union consists of twenty-four sovereign States, -in all of which there are different laws and peculiar customs. The -common and equity law have thus been changed and inflected into a -hundred different shapes, and adapted to the various wants and opinions -of the different members of our confederacy. The judicial act of 1789 -declares “that the laws of the several States, except where the -Constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States shall otherwise -require or provide,” shall be regarded as rules of decision in the -courts of the United States. The justices of the Supreme Court ought, -therefore, to be acquainted with the ever-varying codes of the different -States. - -There is still another branch of their jurisdiction, of a grand and -imposing character, which places them far above the celebrated -Amphictyonic council. The Constitution of the United States has made -them the arbiters between conflicting sovereigns. They decide whether -the sovereign power of the States has been exercised in conformity with -the Constitution and laws of the United States; and, if this has not -been done, they declare the laws of the State Legislatures to be void. -Their decisions thus control the exercise of sovereign power. No -tribunal ever existed, possessing the same, or even similar authority. -Now, Sir, suppose you bring these judges to Washington, and employ them -in banc but six weeks or two months in the year, is it not certain that -they will gradually become less and less fit to decide upon these -different codes, and that they will at length nearly lose all -recollection of the peculiar local laws of the different States? Every -judicial duty which each of them would then be required to perform, -would be to prepare and deliver a few opinions annually in banc. - -The judgment, like every other faculty of the mind, requires exercise to -preserve its vigor. That judge who decides the most causes, is likely to -decide them the best. He who is in the daily habit of applying general -principles to the decision of cases, as they arise upon the circuits, is -at the same time qualifying himself in the best manner for the duties of -his station on the bench of the Supreme Court. - -Is it probable that the long literary leisure of the judges in this -city, during ten months of the year, would be devoted to searching the -two hundred volumes of jarring decisions of State courts, or in studying -the acts of twenty-four State Legislatures? The man must have a singular -taste and a firm resolution who, in his closet, could travel over this -barren waste. And even if he should, what would be the consequence? The -truth is, such knowledge cannot be obtained; and after it has been -acquired, it cannot be preserved, except by constant practice. There are -subjects which, when the memory has once grasped, it retains forever. It -has no such attachment for acts of Assembly, acts of Congress, and -reports of adjudged cases, fixing their construction. This species of -knowledge, under the present system, will always be possessed by the -judges of the Supreme Court; because, in the performance of their -circuit duties, they are placed in a situation in which it is daily -expounded to them, and in which they are daily compelled to decide -questions arising upon it. Change this system, make them exclusively -judges of an appellate court, and you render it highly probable that -their knowledge of the general principles of the laws of their country -will become more and more faint, and that they will finally almost lose -the recollection of the peculiar local systems of the different States. -“Practice makes perfect,” is a maxim applicable to every pursuit in -life. It applies with peculiar force to that of a judge. I think I might -appeal for the truth of this position to the long experience of the -distinguished gentleman from New York, now by my side (Mr. Spencer). A -man, by study, may become a profound lawyer in theory, but nothing -except practice can make him an able judge. I call upon every member of -the profession in this House to say whether he does not feel himself to -be a better lawyer at the end of a long term, than at the beginning. It -is the circuit employment, imposed upon the judges of England and the -United States, which has rendered them what they are. In my opinion, -both the usefulness and the character of the Supreme Court depend much -upon its continuance. - -I now approach what I know will be urged as the greatest objection to -the passage of this bill—that it will extend the number of the judges of -the Supreme Court to nine. If the necessities of the country required -that their number should be increased to ten, I would feel no objection -to such a measure. The time has not yet arrived, however, when, in my -opinion, such a necessity exists. Gentlemen, in considering this -subject, ought to take those extended views which belong to statesmen. -When we reflect upon the vast extent of our country, and the various -systems of law under which the people of the different States are -governed, I cannot conceive that nine or even ten judges are too great a -number to compose our appellate tribunal. That number would afford a -judicial representation upon the bench of each large portion of the -Union. Not, Sir, a representation of sectional feelings or of the party -excitements of the day, but of that peculiar species of legal knowledge -necessary to adjudicate wisely upon the laws of the different States. -For example, I ask what judge now upon the bench possesses, or can -possess, a practical knowledge of the laws of Louisiana? Their system is -so peculiar, that it is almost impossible for a man to decide correctly -upon all cases arising under it, who has never been practically -acquainted with the practice of their courts. Increase the number of -judges to nine, and you will then have them scattered throughout all the -various portions of the Union. The streams of legal knowledge peculiar -to the different States will then flow to the bench of the Supreme Court -as to a great reservoir, from whence they will be distributed throughout -the Union. There will then always be sufficient local information upon -the bench, if I may use the expression, to detect all the ingenious -fallacies of the bar, and to enable them to decide correctly upon local -questions. I admit, if the judges were confined to appellate duties -alone, nine or ten would probably be too great a number. Then there -might be danger that some of them would become mere nonentities, -contenting themselves simply with voting aye or no in the majority or -minority. There would then also be danger that the Executive might -select inefficient men for this high station, who were his personal -favorites, expecting their incapacity to be shielded from public -observation by the splendid talents of some of the other judges upon the -bench. Under the present system we have no such danger to apprehend. -Each judge must now feel his own personal responsibility. He is obliged -to preside in the courts throughout his circuit, and to bring home the -law and the justice of his country to his fellow-citizens in each of the -districts of which it is composed. Much is expected from a judge placed -in his exalted station; and he must attain to the high standard of -public opinion by which he is judged, or incur the reproach of holding -an office to which he is not entitled. No man in any station in this -country can place himself above public opinion. - -Upon the subject of judicial appointments, public opinion has always -been correct. No factious demagogue, no man, merely because he has sung -hosannas to the powers that be, can arrive at the bench of the Supreme -Court. The Executive himself will always be constrained by the force of -public sentiment, whilst the present system continues, to select judges -for that court from the ablest and best men of the circuit; and such has -been the course which he has hitherto almost invariably pursued. Were he -to pursue any other, he would inevitably incur popular odium. Under the -existing system, there can be no danger in increasing the number of the -judges to nine. But take them from their circuits, destroy their feeling -of personal responsibility by removing them from the independent courts -over which they now preside, and make them merely an appellate tribunal, -and I admit there would be danger, not only of improper appointments, -but that a portion of them, in the lapse of time, might become -incompetent to discharge the duties of their station. - -But, Sir, have we no examples of appellate courts consisting of a -greater number than either nine or ten judges, which have been approved -by experience? The Senate of the State of New York has always been their -court of appeals; and, notwithstanding they changed their constitution a -few years ago, so much were the people attached to this court, that it -remains unchanged. In England, the twelve judges, in fact, compose the -court of appeals. Whenever the House of Lords sits in a judicial -character, they are summoned to attend, and their opinions are decisive -of almost every question. I do not pretend to speak accurately, but I -doubt whether the House of Lords have decided two cases, in opposition -to the opinion of the judges, for the last fifty years. In England there -is also the court of exchequer chamber, consisting of the twelve judges, -and sometimes of the lord chancellor also, into which such causes may be -adjourned from the three superior courts, as the judges find to be -difficult of decision, before any judgment is given upon them in the -court in which they originated. The court of exchequer chamber is also a -court of appeals, in the strictest sense of the word, in many cases -which I shall not take time to enumerate. - -I cannot avoid believing that the prejudice which exists in the minds of -some gentlemen, against increasing the number of the judges of the -Supreme Court to nine, arises from the circumstance that the appellate -courts of the different States generally consist of a fewer number. But -is there not a striking difference between the cases? It does not follow -that because four or five may be a sufficient number in a single State -where one uniform system of laws prevails, nine or ten would be too many -on the bench of the Supreme Court, which administers the laws of -twenty-four States, and decides questions arising under all the codes in -use in the civilized world. Indeed, if four or five judges be not too -many for the court of appeals in a State, it is a strong argument that -nine or ten are not too great a number for the court of appeals of the -Union. Upon the whole, I ask, would it be wise in this committee, -disregarding the voice of experience, to destroy a system which has -worked well in practice for forty years, and resort to a dangerous and -untried experiment, merely from a vague apprehension that nine judges -will destroy the usefulness and character of that court, which has been -raised by seven to its present exalted elevation. - -It will, no doubt, be objected to this bill, as it has been upon a -former occasion, that the present system cannot be permanent, and that, -ere long, the judges of the Supreme Courts must, from necessity, be -withdrawn from their circuits. To this objection there is a conclusive -answer. We know that the system is now sufficient for the wants of the -country, and let posterity provide for themselves. Let us not establish -courts which are unnecessary in the present day, because we believe that -hereafter they may be required to do the business of the country. - -But, if it were necessary, I believe it might be demonstrated that ten -justices of the Supreme Court will be sufficient to do all the judicial -business of the country which is required of them under the present -system, until the youngest member of this House shall be sleeping with -his fathers. Six judges have done all the business of the States east of -the Alleghany mountains, from the adoption of the Federal Constitution -up till this day; and still their duties are not laborious. If it should -be deemed proper by Congress, these fifteen Eastern States might be -arranged into five circuits instead of six, upon the occurrence of the -next vacancy in any of them, without the least inconvenience either to -the judges or to the people; and thus it would be rendered unnecessary -to increase the bench of the Supreme Court beyond nine, even after the -admission of Michigan and Arkansas into the Union. The business of the -Federal courts, except in a few States, will probably increase but -little for a long time to come. One branch of it must, before many -years, be entirely lopped away. I allude to the controversies between -citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants from different -States. This will greatly diminish their business both in Tennessee and -Kentucky. Besides, the State tribunals will generally be preferred by -aliens and by citizens of other States for the mere recovery of debts, -on account of their superior expedition. - -I should here close my remarks, if it were not necessary to direct the -attention of the committee for a few minutes to the details of the bill. -And here permit me to express my regret that my friend from Kentucky -(Mr. Wickliffe) has thought proper to propose an amendment to add three, -instead of two, judges to the Supreme Court. Had a majority of the -Committee on the Judiciary believed ten judges, instead of nine, to be -necessary, I should have yielded my opinion, as I did upon a former -occasion, and given the bill my support in the House. This I should have -done to prevent division among its friends, believing it to be a mere -question of time: for ten will become necessary in a few years, unless -the number of the Eastern circuits should be reduced to five. - -Another important matter which devolved upon Mr. Buchanan as Chairman -of the Judiciary Committee, related to the impeachment of Judge James -H. Peck, the United States district judge for the district of -Missouri. The facts of this singular case were briefly these: Judge -Peck had decided a land-cause against certain parties who were -represented in his court by an attorney and counsellor named Lawless. -Lawless published in a St. Louis newspaper some comments on the -Judge’s opinion, by no means intemperate in their character. The Judge -thereupon attached Lawless for a contempt, caused him to be imprisoned -twenty-four hours in the common jail, and suspended him from practice -for a period of eighteen months. Upon these facts, when brought before -the House of Representatives by Lawless’ memorial, there could be but -one action. The Judiciary Committee voted an impeachment of the Judge, -and Mr. Buchanan reported their recommendation on the 23d of March, -1830. He said that the committee deemed it most fair towards the -accused not to report at length their reasons for arriving at the -conclusion that the Judge ought to be impeached, but that they thought -it advisable to follow the precedent which had been established in the -case of the impeachment of Judge Chase. A desultory discussion -followed upon a motion to print the report and the documents, and upon -an amendment to include the address which it seems that the Judge had -been allowed to make to the committee. But before any vote was taken, -the Speaker, on the 5th of April, presented a memorial from Judge -Peck, praying the House to allow him to present a written exposition -of the facts and law of the case, and to call witnesses to -substantiate it, or else to vote the impeachment at once on “the -partial evidence” which the committee had heard. In the course of -these proceedings the House, if it had not been better guided, might -have established an unfortunate precedent. While the resolution -reported by the Judiciary Committee for the impeachment of the Judge -was pending in Committee of the Whole, Mr. Everett moved a -counter-resolution that there was not sufficient evidence of evil -intent to authorize the House to impeach Judge Peck of high -misdemeanors in office. This, in effect, would have converted the -grand inquest into a tribunal for the determination of the whole -question of guilt or innocence, upon allegations and proofs on the one -side and the other. It was opposed by Mr. Storrs, Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. -Wickliffe and others, and was negatived. The resolution reported by -Mr. Buchanan for the impeachment of the Judge was then adopted by the -Committee of the Whole, and reported to the House, after which Mr. -Buchanan demanded the yeas and nays, which resulted in a vote of 123 -for the impeachment and 49 against it. An article of impeachment was -prepared by Mr. Buchanan, and was by order of the House presented to -the Senate. The managers appointed to conduct the impeachment on the -part of the House were Mr. Buchanan, Henry R. Storrs of New York, -George McDuffie of South Carolina, Ambrose Spencer of New York, and -Charles Wickliffe of Kentucky. - -The Senate was organized as a court of impeachment on the 25th of May, -1830; but the trial was postponed to the second Monday of the next -session of Congress. It began on that day, December 20, 1830. It was Mr. -Buchanan’s duty to close the case on behalf of the managers, in reply to -Mr. Wirt and Mr. Meredith of Baltimore, the counsel for Judge Peck. Of -Mr. Buchanan’s speech, I have found no adequate report. It was delivered -on the 28th of January, 1831. Contemporary notices of it show that it -was an argument of marked ability. His positions as given in the Annals -of Congress were in substance the following: - -He declared that the usurpation of an authority not legally possessed by -a judge, or the manifest abuse of a power really given, was a -misbehavior in the sense of the Constitution for which he should be -dismissed from office. He contended that the conduct of Judge Peck, in -the case of Mr. Lawless, was in express violation of the Constitution -and the laws of the land; that the circumstances of that case were amply -sufficient to show a criminal intention on his part in the summary -punishment of Mr. Lawless; that in order to prove the criminality of his -intention it was not necessary to demonstrate an actually malicious -intention, or a lurking revenge; that the infliction upon Mr. Lawless of -a summary and cruel punishment, for having written an article decorous -in its language, was itself sufficient to prove the badness of the -motive; that the consequences of the Judge’s actions were indicative of -his intentions; that our courts had no right to punish, as for -contempts, in a summary mode, libels, even in pending causes; and that -if he succeeded, as he believed he should, in establishing these -positions, he should consider that he had a right to demand the judgment -of the court against the respondent. - -He took the further position that the publication of Mr. Lawless, under -the signature of “A Citizen,” could not, in a trial upon an indictment -for libel, be established to be libellous, according to the Constitution -and laws of the land; that the paper was, on its face, perfectly -harmless in itself; and that, so far as it went, it was not an unfair -representation of the opinion of Judge Peck. The honorable manager -critically and legally analyzed the nine last specifications in the -publication, to establish these points. He then proceeded to sum up and -descant upon the testimony produced in the case before the court of -impeachment, in order to show the arbitrary and cruel conduct of Judge -Peck; and in a peroration, marked by its ardent eloquence, he declared -that if this man escaped, the declaration of a distinguished politician -of this country, that the power of impeachment was but the scarecrow of -the Constitution, would be fully verified; that when this trial -commenced, he recoiled with horror from the idea of limiting, and -rendering precarious and dependent, the tenure of the judicial office, -but that the acquittal of the respondent would reconcile him to that -evil, as one less than a hopeless and remediless submission to judicial -usurpation and tyranny, at least so far as respected the inferior -courts. - -God forbid that the limitation should ever be extended to the Supreme -Court. Mercy to the respondent would be cruelty to the American people. - -Judge Peck was acquitted by a vote of 21 for the impeachment and 22 -against it, the constitutional vote of two-thirds requisite for -conviction not being obtained. It is quite apparent that no party -feeling entered into the case. - - [GEO. W. BUCHANAN TO JAMES BUCHANAN] - - PITTSBURGH, November 5, 1830. - -DEAR BROTHER:— - -I had the honor to receive by last night’s mail a letter from Mr. Van -Buren, enclosing me a commission from the President for the district -attorneyship. This day I will acknowledge its receipt. I am sincerely -glad both on your account and my own that the President has appointed -me. It banishes in a moment all those suspicions which some persons -entertained of his coldness towards you. It should be my highest -ambition to justify the appointment by a faithful discharge of official -duty. - -My appointment appears to be received very well in this city. It will -excite some feelings of envy towards me among the young members of the -bar. My path, however, is very plain. It shall not alter my conduct or -manner in any respect. - - I am, in haste, your grateful and affectionate brother, - - GEO. W. BUCHANAN. - -The most signal service rendered by Mr. Buchanan in the 21st Congress, -as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was in a minority report made by -him on the 24th of January, 1831, upon a proposition to repeal the -twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act of 1789, which gave the -Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction, by writ of error to the State -courts, in cases where the Constitution, treaties, and laws of the -United States are drawn in question. A resolution to inquire into the -expediency of repealing this great organic law having been referred to -the committee, a majority of the committee made an elaborate report in -favor of the repeal, through Mr. Smith of South Carolina, accompanied by -a bill to effect the repeal. Mr. Buchanan’s counter-report, which had -the concurrence of two other members, caused the rejection of the bill, -by a vote of 138 to 51. I know of few constitutional discussions which -evince a more thorough knowledge or more accurate views of the nature of -our mixed system of Government than this report from the pen of Mr. -Buchanan. If it be said that the argument is now familiar to us, or that -it could have been drawn from various sources, let it be observed that -this document shows that Mr. Buchanan was, at this comparatively early -period of his life, a well-instructed constitutional jurist; and that -while no one could originate at that day any novel views of this -important subject, it was no small merit to be able to set forth clearly -and cogently the whole substance of such a topic. I think no apology is -needed for the insertion here of this valuable paper. It may be prefaced -by an extract from a letter of Mr. Buchanan’s youngest brother, George -W. Buchanan, which shows how it was received by the public in -Pennsylvania: - - PITTSBURGH, February 4, 1831. - -...... I have read with the highest degree of satisfaction your able -report from the minority of the Judiciary Committee. That document will -identify your name with the most important constitutional question which -has been presented to the consideration of Congress for many years. It -was looked for with much anxiety, and is now spoken of by politicians of -every party as a lucid and powerful appeal to the patriotism of -Congress. If the question was to be started, I am sincerely glad that it -has arisen while you occupied the chair of the Judiciary Committee...... - - HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, January 24, 1831. - -The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred a resolution of -the House of Representatives of the 21st ultimo, instructing them “to -inquire into the expediency of repealing or modifying the twenty-fifth -section of an act entitled ‘An act to establish the judicial courts of -the United States,’ passed the 24th September, 1789,” having made a -report, accompanied by a bill to repeal the same, the minority of that -committee, differing in opinion from their associates upon this -important question, deem it to be their duty to submit to the House the -following report: - -The Constitution of the United States has conferred upon Congress -certain enumerated powers, and expressly authorizes that body “to make -all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying these powers -into execution.” In the construction of this instrument, it has become -an axiom, the truth of which cannot be controverted, that “the General -Government, though limited as to its objects, is supreme with respect to -those objects.” - -The Constitution has also conferred upon the President, “by and with the -advice and consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the Senators -present concur,” the power to make treaties. - -By the second section of the sixth article of this instrument it is -declared, in emphatic language, that “this Constitution, and the laws of -the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all -treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United -States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every -State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of -any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” - -The Constitution having conferred upon Congress the power of legislation -over certain objects, and upon the President and Senate the power of -making treaties with foreign nations, the next question which naturally -presented itself to those who framed it was, in what manner it would be -most proper that the Constitution itself, and the laws and treaties made -under its authority, should be carried into execution. They have decided -this question in the following strong and comprehensive language: “The -judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising -under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties -made, or which shall be made, under their authority.” [Art. 3, Sec. 2.] -This provision is the only one which could have been made in consistency -with the character of the Government established by the Constitution. It -would have been a strange anomaly had that instrument established a -judiciary whose powers did not embrace all the laws and all the treaties -made under its authority. The symmetry of the system would thus have -been destroyed; and, in many cases, Congress would have had to depend -exclusively for the execution of their own laws upon the judiciary of -the States. This principle would have been at war with the spirit which -pervades the whole Constitution. It was clearly the intention of its -framers to create a Government which should have the power of construing -and executing its own laws, without any obstruction from State -authority. Accordingly, we find that the judicial power of the United -States extends, in express terms, “to all cases,” in law and in equity, -arising under the Constitution, the laws, and the treaties of the United -States. This general language comprehends precisely what it ought to -comprehend. - -If the judicial powers of the United States does thus extend to “all -cases” arising under the Constitution, the laws, and treaties of the -Union, how could this power be brought into action over such cases -without a law of Congress investing the Supreme Court with the original -and appellate jurisdiction embraced by the Constitution? - -It was the imperious duty of Congress to make such a law, and it is -equally its duty to continue it; indeed, without it, the judicial power -of the United States is limited and restricted to such cases only as -arise in the Federal courts, and is never brought to bear upon numerous -cases, evidently within its range. - -When Congress, in the year 1789, legislated upon this subject, they knew -that the State courts would often be called upon, in the trial of -causes, to give a construction to the Constitution, the treaties, and -laws of the United States. What, then, was to be done? If the decisions -of the State courts should be final, the Constitution and laws of the -Union might be construed to mean one thing in one State, and another -thing in another State. - -All uniformity in their construction would thus be destroyed. Besides, -we might, if this were the case, get into serious conflicts with foreign -nations, as a treaty might receive one construction in Pennsylvania, -another in Virginia, and a third in New York. Some common and uniform -standard of construction was absolutely necessary. - -To remedy these and other inconveniences, the first Congress of the -United States, composed, in a considerable proportion, of the framers of -the Constitution, passed the 25th section of the judicial act of the -24th September, 1789. It is in the following words: - -“SEC. 25. _And be it further enacted_, That a final judgment or decree -in any suit, in the highest court of law or equity of a State, in which -a decision in the suit could be had, where is drawn in question the -validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the -United States, and the decision is against their validity; or where is -drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority -exercised under, any State, on the ground of their being repugnant to -the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the -decision is in favor of such their validity; or where is drawn in -question the construction of any clause of the Constitution, or of a -treaty or statute of, or commission held under the United States, and -the decision is against the title, right, privilege, or exemption, -specially set up or claimed by either party under such clause of the -said Constitution, treaty, statute, or commission, may be re-examined -and reversed, or affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States upon -a writ of error, the citation being signed by the chief justice, or -judge, or chancellor of the court rendering or passing the judgment or -decree complained of, or by a justice of the Supreme Court of the United -States in the same manner, and under the same regulations, and the writ -shall have the same effect, as if the judgment or decree complained of -had been rendered or passed in a circuit court; and the proceeding upon -the reversal shall also be the same, except that the Supreme Court, -instead of remanding the cause for a final decision, as before provided, -may, at their discretion, if the cause shall have been once remanded -before, proceed to a final decision of the same, and award execution. -But no other error shall be assigned or regarded as a ground of reversal -in any such case as aforesaid, than such as appears on the face of the -record, and immediately respects the before-mentioned questions of -validity, or construction of the said Constitution, treaties, statutes, -commissions, or authorities, in dispute.” - -This section embraces three classes of cases. The first, those in which -a State court should decide a law or treaty of the United States to be -void, either because it violated the Constitution of the United States, -or for any other reason. Ought there not in such cases to be an appeal -to the Supreme Court of the United States? Without such an appeal, the -General Government might be obliged to behold its own laws and its -solemn treaties annulled by the judiciary of every State in the Union, -without the power of redress. - -The second class of cases is of a different character. It embraces those -causes in which the validity of State laws is contested, upon the -principle that they violate the Constitution, the laws, or the treaties -of the United States, and have, therefore, been enacted in opposition to -the authority of the “supreme law of the land.” Cases of this -description have been of frequent occurrence. It has often been drawn -into question before the State courts, whether State laws did or did not -violate the Constitution of the United States. Is it not then essential -to the preservation of the General Government, that the Supreme Court of -the United States should possess the power of reviewing the judgments of -State courts in all cases wherein they have established the validity of -a State law in opposition to the Constitution and laws of the United -States? - -The third class differs essentially from each of the two first. In the -cases embraced by it, neither the validity of acts of Congress, nor of -treaties, nor of State laws is called in question. This clause of the -25th section merely confers upon the Supreme Court the appellate -jurisdiction of construing the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the -United States, when their protection has been invoked by parties to -suits before the State courts, and has been denied by their decision. -Without the exercise of this power, in cases originating in the State -courts, the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States would -be left to be finally construed and executed by a judicial power, over -which Congress has no control. - -This section does not interfere, either directly or indirectly, with the -independence of the State courts in finally deciding all cases arising -exclusively under their own constitution and laws. It leaves them in the -enjoyment of every power which they possessed before the adoption of the -Federal Constitution. It merely declares that, as that Constitution -established a new form of Government, and consequently gave to the State -courts the power of construing, in certain cases, the Constitution, the -laws, and the treaties of the United States, the Supreme Court of the -United States should, to this limited extent, but not beyond it, possess -the power of reviewing their judgments. The section itself declares that -no other error shall be assigned or regarded as a ground of reversal, in -any such case as aforesaid, than such as appears on the face of the -record, and immediately respects the before-mentioned questions of -validity or construction of the said Constitution, treaties, statutes, -commissions, or authorities in dispute. - -The minority of the committee will now proceed to advance, in a more -distinct form, a few of the reasons why, in their opinion, the 25th -section of this act ought not to be repealed. - -And, in the first place, it ought to be the chief object of all -Governments to protect individual rights. In almost every case involving -a question before a State court under this section of the judiciary act, -the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States are interposed -for the protection of individuals. Does a citizen invoke the protection -of an act of Congress upon a trial before a State court which decides -that act to be unconstitutional and void, and renders judgment against -him? This section secures his right of appeal from such a decision to -the Supreme Court of the United States. - -When a citizen, in a suit before a State court, contends that a State -law, by which he is assailed, is a violation of the Constitution of the -United States and therefore void (if his plea should be overruled), he -may bring this question before the Supreme Court of the United States. - -In like manner, when an individual claims any right before a State court -under the Constitution or laws of the United States, and the decision is -against his claim, he may appeal to the Supreme Court of the United -States. - -If this section were repealed, all these important individual rights -would be forfeited. - -The history of our country abundantly proves that individual States are -liable to high excitements and strong prejudices. The judges of these -States would be more or less than men if they did not participate in the -feelings of the community by which they are surrounded. Under the -influence of these excitements, individuals, whose rights happen to -clash with the prevailing feeling of the State, would have but a slender -hope of obtaining justice before a State tribunal. There would be the -power and the influence of the State sovereignty on the one side, and an -individual who had made himself obnoxious to popular odium on the other. -In such cases, ought the liberty or the property of a citizen, so far as -he claims the same under the Constitution or laws of the United States, -to be decided before a State court, without an appeal to the Supreme -Court of the United States, on whom the construction of this very -Constitution and these laws has been conferred, in all cases, by the -Constitution? - -The Supreme Court, considering the elevated character of its judges, and -that they reside in parts of the Union remote from each other, can never -be liable to local excitements and local prejudices. To that tribunal -our citizens can appeal with safety and with confidence (as long as the -25th section of the judicial act shall remain upon the statute book) -whenever they consider that their rights, under the Constitution and -laws of the United States, have been violated by a State court. Besides, -should this section be repealed, it would produce a denial of equal -justice to parties drawing in question the Constitution, laws, or -treaties of the United States. In civil actions, the plaintiff might -then bring his action in a Federal or State court, as he pleased, and as -he thought he should be most likely to succeed; whilst the defendant -would have no option, but must abide the consequences without the power -of removing the cause from a State into a Federal court, except in the -single case of his being sued out of the district in which he resides; -and this, although he might have a conclusive defence under the -Constitution and laws of the United States. - -Another reason for preserving this section is, that without it there -would be no uniformity in the construction and administration of the -Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. If the courts of -twenty-four distinct, sovereign States, each possess the power, in the -last resort, of deciding upon the Constitution and laws of the United -States, their construction may be different in every State of the Union. -That act of Congress which conforms to the Constitution of the United -States, and is valid in the opinion of the supreme court of Georgia, may -be a direct violation of the provisions of that instrument, and be void -in the judgment of the supreme court of South Carolina. A State law in -Virginia might in this manner be declared constitutional, whilst the -same law, if passed by the Legislature of Pennsylvania, would be void. -Nay, what would be still more absurd, a law or treaty of the United -States with a foreign nation, admitted to be constitutionally made, -might secure rights to the citizens of one State, which would be denied -to those of another. Although the same Constitution and laws govern the -Union, yet the rights acquired under them would vary with every degree -of latitude. Surely the framers of the Constitution would have left -their work incomplete, had they established no common tribunal to decide -its own construction, and that of the laws and treaties made under its -authority. They are not liable to this charge, because they have given -express power to the Judiciary of the Union over “all cases, in law and -equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, -and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority.” - -The first Congress of the United States have, to a considerable extent, -carried this power into execution by the passage of the judicial act, -and it contains no provision more important than the 25th section. - -This section ought not to be repealed, because, in the opinion of the -minority of the Committee on the Judiciary, its repeal would seriously -endanger the existence of this Union. The chief evil which existed under -the old confederation, and which gave birth to the present Constitution, -was that the General Government could not act directly upon the people, -but only by requisition upon sovereign States. The consequence was, that -the States either obeyed or disobeyed these requisitions, as they -thought proper. The present Constitution was intended to enable the -Government of the United States to act immediately upon the people of -the States, and to carry its own laws into full execution, by virtue of -its own authority. If this section were repealed, the General Government -would be deprived of the power, by means of its own judiciary, to give -effect either to the Constitution which called it into existence, or to -the laws and treaties made under its authority. It would be compelled to -submit, in many important cases, to the decisions of State courts; and -thus the very evil which the present Constitution was intended to -prevent would be entailed upon the people. The judiciary of the States -might refuse to carry into effect the laws of the United States; and -without that appeal to the Supreme Court which the 25th section -authorizes, these laws would thus be entirely annulled, and could not be -executed without a resort to force. - -This position may be illustrated by a few striking examples. Suppose the -Legislature of one of the States, believing the tariff laws to be -unconstitutional, should determine that they ought not to be executed -within its limits. They accordingly pass a law, imposing the severest -penalties upon the collector and other custom-house officers of the -United States within their territory, if they should collect the duties -on the importation of foreign merchandise. The collector proceeds to -discharge the duties of his office under the laws of the United States, -and he is condemned and punished before a State court for violating this -State law. Repeal this section, and the decision of the State court -would be final and conclusive; and any State could thus nullify any act -of Congress which she deemed to be unconstitutional. - -The Executive of one of the States, in a message to the Legislature, has -declared it to be his opinion, that the land belonging to the United -States within her territory is now the property of the State, by virtue -of her sovereign authority. Should the Legislature be of the same -opinion, and pass a law for the punishment of the land officers of the -United States who should sell any of the public lands within her limits, -this transfer of property might be virtually accomplished by the repeal -of the 25th section of the judicial act. Our land officers might then be -severely punished, and thus prohibited by the courts of that State from -performing their duty under the laws of the Union, without the -possibility of redress in any constitutional or legal form. In this -manner, the title of the United States to a vast domain, which has cost -the nation many millions, and which justly belongs to the people of the -several States, would be defeated or greatly impaired. - -Another illustration might be introduced. Suppose the Legislature of -Pennsylvania, being of opinion that the charter of the Bank of the -United States is unconstitutional, were to declare it to be a nuisance, -and inflict penalties upon all its officers for making discounts or -receiving deposits. Should the courts of that State carry such a law -into effect, without the 25th section there would be no appeal from -their decision; and the Legislature and courts of a single State might -thus prostrate an institution established under the Constitution and -laws of the United States. - -In all such cases, redress can now be peaceably obtained in the ordinary -administration of justice. A writ of error issues from the Supreme -Court, which finally decides the question whether the act of Congress -was constitutional or not; and if they determine in the affirmative, the -judgment of the State court is reversed. The laws are thus substituted -instead of arms, and the States kept within their proper orbits by the -judicial authority. But if no such appeal existed, then, upon the -occurrence of cases of this character, the General Government would be -compelled to determine whether the Union should be dissolved, or whether -there should be a recurrence to force—an awful alternative, which we -trust may never be presented. We will not attempt further to portray the -evils which might result from the abandonment of the present judicial -system. They will strike every reflecting mind. - -It has of late years been contended that this section of the judicial -act was unconstitutional, and that Congress do not possess the power of -investing the Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction in any case -which has been finally decided in the courts of the States. It has also -been contended that, even if they do possess this power, it does not -extend to cases in which a State is a party. On this branch of the -question, we would refer the House to the very able and conclusive -argument of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the cases of -Martin _vs._ Hunter’s Lessee (1st Wheaton, 304) and Cohens vs. the State -of Virginia (6 Wheaton, 264) by which the affirmative of these -propositions is clearly established. It may be proper, however, that we -should make a few observations upon this part of the question. Those who -have argued in favor of these positions, assert that the general words -of the Constitution, extending the judicial power of the Union “to all -cases, in law and equity,” arising under the Constitution and laws of -the United States, ought, by construction, to be restricted to such -cases in law and equity as may originate in the courts of the Union. -They would thus establish a limitation at war with the letter, and, in -our opinion, equally at war with the spirit of the instrument. Had such -been the intention of the framers of the Constitution, they well knew in -what language to express that intention. Had it been their purpose to -restrict the meaning of the general language which they had used in the -first clause of the section, they could have done so with much propriety -in the second. This clause, after providing “that, in all cases -affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in -which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original -jurisdiction,” proceeds to declare “that, in all the other cases before -mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as -to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as -the Congress shall make.” On the supposition contended for, it is wholly -unaccountable that the framers of the Constitution did not limit the -natural effect of the words used in the first clause, by making the -second to read “that, in all the other cases before mentioned,” arising -in the inferior courts of the United States, “the Supreme Court shall -have appellate jurisdiction.” But no such restriction exists; and, from -the fair import of the words used in both clauses, the Supreme Court -possess the power of finally deciding “all cases, in law and equity,” -arising under the Constitution, the laws, and the treaties of the United -States, no matter whether they may have originated in a Federal or in a -State court, and no matter whether States or individuals be the parties. - -But it is not our intention to enter into a protracted constitutional -argument upon the present occasion, because this question has long since -been put at rest, if any constitutional question can ever be considered -as settled in this country. The Federalist, which is now considered a -text-book in regard to the construction of the Constitution, and -deservedly so, as well from the great merit of the work as the high -character of its authors, is clear and explicit on this subject. After -reasoning upon it at some length, the author of the 83d number of that -production arrives at the following conclusion: “To confine, therefore, -the general expressions which gave appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme -Court to appeals from the subordinate Federal courts, instead of -allowing their extension to the State courts, would be to abridge the -latitude of the terms, in subversion of the intent, contrary to every -sound rule of interpretation.” - -The Federalist, it will be recollected, was written between the -formation of the Constitution and its adoption by the States. -Immediately after its adoption, Congress, by passing the 25th section of -the judicial act, now sought to be repealed, fully confirmed this -construction. This appellate jurisdiction has ever since been exercised -by the Supreme Court in a great variety of cases; and we are not aware -that the constitutionality of its exercise has ever been questioned by -the decision of any State court, except in a single instance, which did -not occur until the year 1815. And even in that case (Hunter _vs._ -Fairfax), the judgment of the Supreme Court was carried into effect -according to the existing law, without endangering the peace of the -country. - -The last topic to which we would advert is, the claim which has been set -up to exempt the judgments obtained by the States of this Union, before -their own courts, in civil and criminal suits, prosecuted in their name, -from being reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States upon a -writ of error. Much stress has been laid by those who sustain this -claim, upon the general proposition that a sovereign independent State -cannot be sued, except by its own consent. But does this proposition -apply, in its extent, to the States of this Union. That is the question -for discussion. - -We have in this country an authority much higher than that of sovereign -States. It is the authority of the sovereign people of each State. In -their State conventions they ratified the Constitution of the United -States; and so far as that Constitution has deprived the States of any -of the attributes of sovereignty, they are bound by it, because such was -the will of the people. The Constitution, thus called into existence by -the will of the people of the several States, has declared itself, and -the laws and treaties which should emanate from its authority, to be -“the supreme law of the land;” and the judges in every State shall be -bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the -contrary notwithstanding. - -Why, then, should a State, who has obtained a judgment in her own courts -against an individual, in violation of this “supreme law of the land,” -be protected from having her judgment reversed by the Supreme Court of -the United States? Is there any reason, either in the Constitution or in -natural justice, why judgments obtained by a State in her own courts -should be held sacred, notwithstanding they violated the Constitution -and laws of the Union, which would not apply, at least with equal force, -in favor of individual plaintiffs? The Constitution subjects to the -review of the Supreme Court all cases in law or equity arising under -itself, or the laws of the Union. It excepts no case bearing this -character. Whether the party be a State or an individual, all must alike -bow to the sovereign will of the people, expressed in the Constitution -of the United States. - -In suits brought by a State against an individual in her own courts, -there is much greater danger of oppression, considering the relative -power and influence of the parties, than there would be in controversies -between individuals. And are these to be the only cases selected, in -which the citizen shall not be permitted to protect himself by the -Constitution and laws of the Union before the Supreme Court of the -United States? Is it not sufficient that, under the Constitution, the -States cannot be sued as defendants, without adding to this, by a -strained and unnatural construction, the additional privilege that the -judgments which they may obtain as plaintiffs or prosecutors before -their own courts, whether right or wrong, shall in all cases be -irreversible? - -We will not repeat the considerations which have been already urged to -prove that, unless this provision of the Constitution applies to the -States, the rights of individuals will be sacrificed, all uniformity of -decision abandoned, and each one of the States will have it in her power -to set the Constitution and laws of the United States at defiance. - -The eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States -interferes in no respect with the principles for which we have -contended. It is in these words: - -“The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to -extend to any suit, in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against -one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or -subjects of any foreign State.” - -Chief Justice Marshall, in delivering the opinion of the court in the -case of Cohens vs. Virginia, has given so clear, and in our opinion, so -correct an exposition of the true construction of the amendment, that we -shall, in conclusion, present to the House a few extracts from that -opinion, instead of any argument of our own. He says that “the first -impression made on the mind by this amendment is, that it was intended -for those cases, and for those only, in which some demand against a -State is made by an individual in the courts of the Union. If we -consider the causes to which it is to be traced, we are conducted to the -same conclusion. A general interest might well be felt, in leaving to a -State the full power of consulting its convenience in the adjustment of -its debts, or of other claims upon it; but no interest could be felt in -so changing the relation between the whole and its parts, as to strip -the Government of the means of protecting, by the instrumentality of its -courts, the Constitution and laws from active violation. The words of -the amendment appear to the court to justify and require this -construction. - -“To commence a suit, is to demand something by the institution of -process in a court of justice; and to prosecute the suit is, according -to the common acceptation of language, to continue that demand. By a -suit commenced by an individual against a State, we should understand a -process sued out by that individual against the State, for the purpose -of establishing some claim against it by the judgment of a court; and -the prosecution of that suit is its continuance. Whatever may be the -stages of its progress, the actor is still the same. Suits had been -commenced in the Supreme Court against some of the States before the -amendment was introduced into Congress, and others might be commenced -before it should be adopted by the State Legislatures, and might be -depending at the time of its adoption. The object of the amendment was -not only to prevent the commencement of future suits, but to arrest the -prosecution of those which might be commenced when this article should -form a part of the Constitution. It therefore embraces both objects; and -its meaning is, that the judicial power shall not be construed to extend -to any suit which may be commenced, or which, if already commenced, may -be prosecuted against a State, by the citizens of another State. If a -suit, brought in one court, and carried by legal process to a -supervising court, be a continuation of the same suit, then this suit is -not commenced nor prosecuted against a State. It is clearly, in its -commencement, the suit of a State against an individual, which suit is -transferred to this court, not for the purpose of asserting any claim -against the State, but for the purpose of asserting a constitutional -defence against a claim made by a State. - -“Under the judiciary act, the effect of a writ of error is simply to -bring the record into court, and submit the judgment of the inferior -tribunal to re-examination. It does not, in any manner, act upon the -parties; it acts only on the record. It removes the record into the -supervising tribunal. Where, then, a State obtains a judgment against an -individual, and the court rendering such judgment overrules a defence -set up under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the transfer -of this record into the Supreme Court for the sole purpose of inquiring -whether the judgment violates the Constitution or laws of the United -States can, with no propriety, we think, be denominated a suit commenced -or prosecuted against the State, whose judgment is so far re-examined. -Nothing is demanded from the State. No claim against it, of any -description, is asserted or prosecuted. The party is not to be restored -to the possession of anything. Essentially, it is an appeal on a single -point; and the defendant who appeals from a judgment rendered against -him, is never said to commence or prosecute a suit against the -plaintiff, who has obtained the judgment. The writ of error is given -rather than an appeal, because it is the more usual mode of removing -suits at common law; and because, perhaps, it is more technically -proper, where a single point of law, and not the whole case, is to be -re-examined. But an appeal might be given, and might be so regulated as -to effect every purpose of a writ of error. The mode of removal is form, -not substance. Whether it be by writ of error or appeal, no claim is -asserted, no demand is made by the original defendant; he only asserts -the constitutional right to have his defence examined by that tribunal -whose province it is to construe the Constitution and laws of the Union. - -“The only part of the proceeding which is in any manner personal is the -citation. And what is the citation? It is simply notice to the opposite -party that the record is transferred into another court, where he may -appear, or decline to appear, as his judgment or inclination may -determine. As the party who has obtained a judgment is out of court, and -may, therefore, not know that his cause is removed, common justice -requires that notice of the fact should be given him: but this notice is -not a suit, nor has it the effect of process. If the party does not -choose to appear, he cannot be brought into court, nor is his failure to -appear considered as a default. Judgment cannot be given against him for -his non-appearance; but the judgment is to be re-examined, and reversed -or affirmed, in like manner as if the party had appeared and argued his -cause. - -“The point of view in which this writ of error, with its citation, has -been considered uniformly in the courts of the Union, has been well -illustrated by a reference to the course of this court in suits -instituted by the United States. The universally received opinion is, -that no suit can be commenced or prosecuted against the United States; -that the judiciary act does not authorize such suits; yet writs of -error, accompanied with citations, have uniformly issued for the removal -of judgments in favor of the United States into a superior court, where -they have, like those in favor of an individual, been re-examined, and -affirmed or reversed. It has never been suggested that such writ of -error was a suit against the United States, and therefore not within the -jurisdiction of the appellate court. - -“It is, then, the opinion of the court that the defendant who removes a -judgment rendered against him by a State court into this court, for the -purpose of re-examining the question whether that judgment be in -violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, does not -commence or prosecute a suit against the State, whatever may be its -opinion, where the effect of the writ may be to restore the party to the -possession of a thing which he demands.” - -All which is respectfully submitted. - - JAMES BUCHANAN, WM. W. - ELLSWORTH, E. D. - WHITE. - -It was Mr. Buchanan’s intention to retire from public life at the close -of this session of Congress in March, 1831. But in the early part of -February, without his previous knowledge, a movement was set on foot in -Pennsylvania to bring him forward as the candidate of that State for the -Vice-Presidency at the next election, on the ticket with General -Jackson, whose re-election to the Presidency was already anticipated by -his party. As soon as information of this purpose reached Mr. Buchanan, -he did what he could to discourage it, as will appear from the following -letter to one of his Pennsylvania friends and neighbors: - - [JAMES BUCHANAN TO GEORGE PLITT, ESQ.] - - WASHINGTON, February 18, 1831. - -DEAR SIR:— - -I received your kind letter of the 7th instant and the Chester County -_Democrat_ of the 8th by the same mail; and I confess the information -which they contained was wholly unexpected. I can say nothing upon the -subject to which they refer, unless it be to express a profound and -grateful sense of the kindness and partiality of those of my friends in -Chester County who would elevate me to a station to which I have never -aspired. I cannot flatter myself, for a single moment, that the people -of the State will respond to a nomination which I feel has been dictated -in a great degree by personal friendship; and I shall retire to private -life, after the close of the present session, without casting one -lingering look behind. As a private citizen I shall always remember with -the deepest sensibility the many favors which I have received from the -people of the district whom I have so long represented, perfectly -convinced that they have already bestowed upon me quite as many honors -as I have ever deserved. - -I sent you by yesterday’s mail a copy of the correspondence between the -President and Vice-President. Its publication has not produced the -sensation here which was expected. I think it will not injure General -Jackson in the estimation of his friends in Pennsylvania. Its effect, -however, will be still more to divide the personal friends of Mr. -Crawford and Mr. Calhoun. - -The speech which I made upon Peck’s trial will probably not appear until -a full report of the case shall be published. The commendations which -have been bestowed upon it, both here and elsewhere, have been of a -character so far beyond its merits that I fear the public will be -disappointed upon the appearance in print. - -I would suggest to you the propriety of considering this letter -confidential so far as it regards myself. The subject is of a nature so -delicate, and anything I can say upon it is so liable to -misconstruction, that I should not have answered your letter, had I not -felt that you have always deserved my friendship, and that I might rely -with confidence on your discretion. - - From your friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - -P. S.—What is now the state of anti-masonry in your county? - -The truth is that a longer continuance in public life did not accord -with Mr. Buchanan’s plans. His professional income had fallen to the low -rate of about $2000 per annum, and he determined to restore it to what -it had previously been, and to take his chances for raising it still -higher. - -He had many qualifications for great success at the bar: competent -learning, untiring industry, a ready and pleasing address, an uncommon -reasoning power, and a reputation of perfect integrity. Had he been -impelled by the wants of a family to devote himself exclusively to his -profession, there can be no doubt that he would have risen in it to -great eminence. His talents were not of that order which would have -enabled him to unite in his own person the very different functions of a -statesman and a lawyer; a union which has been exhibited in a very -marked manner by only one person in America, and perhaps by no one in -England. But my estimate of Mr. Buchanan’s abilities leads me to say, -that if he had not at this period of his life been again drawn into a -political career, he would have ranked among the first lawyers of his -time. He must have soon encased in the forensic discussion of -constitutional questions. He had very early imbibed a deep reverence for -the Constitution of the United States, and his turn of mind would have -adapted him to the handling of questions such as were then arising and -are likely long to arise upon its interpretation. As he grew older and -his sphere of professional employment became widened, he must have been -found at the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, if not as -the peer of Webster and Pinkney, at least as the peer of many against -whom those great advocates had to put forth their strength. But from -such a professional career Mr. Buchanan was drawn away, not by the -prospect of the Vice-Presidency, but by the unexpected offer of the -mission to Russia, an account of which will be found in the next -chapter. - - [FROM GEORGE W. BUCHANAN.] - - PITTSBURGH, March 4, 1830. - -DEAR BROTHER:— - -I am much pleased to observe from the _U. S. Telegraph_ of the 25th -ultimo that you have taken a manly stand on the constitutional side of -the Indian question. In this pleasure there is no doubt a spice of -personal vanity, as your sentiments, so far as they can be inferred from -the debate, are in perfect accordance with my own. It is a question -which has produced an unaccountable excitement in our city. Every word -on the subject is devoured with wonderful avidity; and I can assure you -that you did not put too high an estimate on public feeling when you -moved for the printing of _ten thousand_ copies of the report. As public -opinion is yet unsettled, it is important that the report of the -committee, if temperate and decided, should have an extensive -circulation. - -I have read your speech on the Judiciary with great interest and -advantage. The legal gentlemen in our city have highly complimented both -its style and research. The best evidence of its effect is, that all -those with whom I have conversed on the subject are decidedly in favor -of _your bill_. - -Anti-masonry is still flourishing. I do not know the state of feeling in -the eastern section of Pennsylvania, but I am now perfectly convinced -that no western county will return _a mason_ to the next Legislature. -Strong, however, as anti-masonry is, much of its apparent strength is -borrowed from extrinsic circumstances. In this city, for instance, many -persons are anxious to be rid of a set of rulers who have managed with -so much political dexterity as to control the destinies of this county -for many years. _These men happen to be masons._ No other hobby could be -mounted with the same prospect of success. The honest anti-masons, the -old Adams men, and the disappointed office-seekers are easily induced to -unite their influence against the “powers that be.” The motley materials -are thus thrown into one caldron and stirred up into a _dangerous -compound_. These remarks I have made to account for the extraordinary -strength of anti-masonry in this quarter...... - -I am obliged to you for the salutary counsel contained in your last -letter. I believe that a whole volume of advice (both moral and -political) is contained in that single direction, “Be wise as the -serpent, but harmless as the dove.” ...... My health is very good. - - Your grateful and affectionate brother, - - GEO. W. BUCHANAN. - -It appears, however, that a meeting was held at Lancaster in March, at -which he was nominated for the Vice-Presidency, with what effect may be -learned from the following letters written by his brother George from -Pittsburgh: - - [GEORGE W. BUCHANAN TO JAMES BUCHANAN.] - - PITTSBURGH, March 23, 1831. - -DEAR BROTHER:— - -I have just read with great pleasure the proceedings of the Lancaster -meeting which nominated you for the Vice-Presidency. Whether success -shall crown the exertions of your friends or not, no public man can -receive so flattering and precious a testimonial as the unanimous and -unsolicited voice of his neighbors and acquaintances. In this part of -the State, the idea seems to take very well. Both this county and -Washington will, I think, hold meetings in your favor. I saw the editor -of the _Manufacturer_ this morning and ascertained that he will be -disposed to take a prominent part. The _Democrat_ will probably not be -unfavorable. The editor, however, is a very timid creature. - -On Thursday last I was so unfortunate as to fall and break my arm. The -pain has subsided in a great degree, and I think that my arm will be -restored in a short time to its wonted strength and action. I can now -attend to any business that does not require the use of both hands. - -I write under a feeling of great inconvenience, and will therefore -close. - - Your grateful and affectionate brother, - - GEO. W. BUCHANAN. - - PITTSBURGH, April 29, 1831. - -DEAR BROTHER:— - -I have been absent from home in attendance upon a sale of United States -property at Uniontown for a week past. I succeeded in effecting a very -good disposition of the property. The Government, I have no doubt, will -approve my proceedings. - -I find that in every county in which I have been, your nomination for -the Vice-Presidency is very popular. In Fayette and Washington there -will scarcely be a division of sentiment. Still, however, it is thought -proper to suspend all public proceedings in your favor till the time of -holding their regular Democratic meetings in the summer. That course -will also be adopted in this county. Every leading _Jackson politician_ -here, with the exception of one or two Ingham men, is favorable to your -nomination. It will, however, be probably better to wait for a further -expression of public opinion at _the regular meetings of the party -throughout the State_. I observe that in the _Kentucky Gazette_ your -name is placed on the Democratic ticket, under General Jackson’s. - -It is believed here that the appointment of Attorney-General has been -tendered to you. If so, I hope that you will accept it. It is a most -honorable station, and free from that abuse which attaches to the -Secretaryships. Will Van Buren be a candidate for the Vice-Presidency? - -My arm is not yet so far restored as to be of any use. I trust, however, -that the weakness is only of a temporary nature. My health, in other -respects, is good. - - I am your grateful brother, - - GEO. W. BUCHANAN. - -Mr. Buchanan returned to Lancaster after this meeting had been held. His -nomination to the Vice-Presidency continued to be agitated in other -parts of Pennsylvania, and in June a great meeting of the supporters of -General Jackson was held at Williamsport, of which George Buchanan gives -the following account: - - [GEORGE W. BUCHANAN TO JAMES BUCHANAN.] - - PITTSBURGH, June 15, 1831. - -DEAR BROTHER:— - -I arrived here on Thursday. The heat was so oppressive on horseback that -I sold my horse at Bellefonte, and returned in the stage. The journey -has, in a very great degree, restored my health. - -The Jackson meeting at Williamsport was an exceedingly respectable one. -Fifteen counties were represented. There can be no doubt that you were -the Pennsylvanian to whom the resolution respecting the Vice-Presidency -was intended to point. I have every reason to believe that your name -would have been inserted by an almost unanimous vote, if Mr. Potter, -from Centier, had not been detained at home by the illness of his wife. -He would have offered a resolution nominating you; and I can say, _from -information of the most undoubted credit_, that at least two-thirds of -all the jurors would have warmly sustained it. Mr. Ward, editor of the -_Susquehanna Register_, and Mr. Youngman, editor of the _Union Times_, -with both of whom I became intimately acquainted, are decidedly -favorable to your nomination. They are intelligent young men, and have, -in a warm and flattering manner, solicited my correspondence. - -In the Western country, I find that the Ingham faction is extremely -weak. Out of Bradford County, and apart from their family connections, -they appear to have no friends in the West. The people in our district -speak very favorably of Mr. Muhlenburg as _the next Governor_, and, I -assure you, I did nothing to discountenance that feeling. The popularity -of the present Governor has been injured by the appointment of General -McKean, the proposition to tax coal, and the character of certain county -appointments. The resolution adopted at our meeting, and opposing -General Jackson’s course in the Cabinet affair, was intended as a direct -censure upon Messrs. Ingham, &c. Owing to the relation I bore to you and -to General Jackson, I determined to take no active part in the meeting. - -I should like very much to see you and hold a long conversation on -matters and things. In July I shall endeavor to visit Franklin County, -and, if you should be unable to meet me there, I will extend my journey -to Lancaster. - -Governor Wolf left our city this morning for Erie. He was here at the -time of my arrival, and, in company with several ladies and gentleman, I -escorted him to Economy. He was exceedingly well received by the people -of that singular village. His plain manners and German language endeared -him very much to Raff and his whole Society. The Governor treated me -with great attention, and evinced a disposition to be very familiar. His -daughter, however, _pleased my fancy_ much more than the old gentleman -himself. She is a very interesting lady, and has well nigh _stolen my -heart_. - -I observe that the newspapers are determined to give you some office. -They now make you Minister to Russia. Is this report true? If so, it -will then become your duty to consider _what sort of a Secretary your -brother George would make_. It would be a very interesting time to visit -Europe.[25] - - I remain your grateful and affectionate brother, - - GEO. W. BUCHANAN. - ------ - -Footnote 23: - - Mr. Buchanan’s speech extended through two sessions of the Committee - of the Whole. After some amendments by the Senate, the bill was - finally passed, and was approved by the President May 19, 1828. The - speech may be found in Gales & Seaton’s Register of Debates, Vol. IV, - Part 2, page 2089, _et seq._ - -Footnote 24: - - Mr. Buchanan’s proposal was not adopted, and on the 2d of March, 1829, - the President, Mr. Adams, approved “An act for the continuation of the - Cumberland Road.” Mr. Buchanan voted against this bill, saying that he - did so reluctantly, but that now the House had voted to keep the - Cumberland Road in repair, by erecting toll-gates upon it under the - authority of the Federal Government, and so long as this pretension - continued to be set up, he would not vote for the construction of any - road intended, after its completion, to be thus placed under the - jurisdiction of the United States, as he believed it to be entirely - unconstitutional. - -Footnote 25: - - This allusion to the Secretaryship of the Russian Mission was, of - course, merely playful. George Buchanan had no thought of seeking this - appointment, nor would his brother have asked for it. - ------ - - - - - CHAPTER VII. - 1831–1833. - -JOHN RANDOLPH OF ROANOKE MADE MINISTER TO RUSSIA—FAILURE OF MR. - RANDOLPH’S HEALTH—THE MISSION OFFERED TO MR. BUCHANAN—HIS - MOTHER’S OPPOSITION TO HIS ACCEPTANCE—EMBARKS AT NEW YORK AND - ARRIVES AT LIVERPOOL—LETTERS FROM ENGLAND—JOURNEY TO ST. - PETERSBURG—CORRESPONDENCE WITH FRIENDS AT HOME. - - -After General Jackson became President in March, 1829, he determined to -offer the Mission to Russia to “John Randolph of Roanoke.” This offer -was made in September of that year, and was then accepted; but the -nomination was not submitted to the Senate until the following May. It -was confirmed without opposition from any quarter.[26] Before he sailed, -Mr. Randolph had leave granted him by the President to spend the -following winter in the south of Europe, if the state of his health -should require it. He remained at St. Petersburg only long enough to be -accredited. His constitution was too far impaired to admit of his -encountering the rigors of a Russian winter. He left the affairs of the -legation in the hands of Mr. Clay, the Secretary, and went to England. - -In his annual message in December (1830), the President communicated to -Congress the fact of Mr. Randolph’s necessary absence from his post, on -leave, and said that the public interests in that quarter would still be -attended to by the Minister, through the Secretary. When the annual -appropriation bill came before the House of Representatives in January -(1831), a long and acrimonious discussion took place upon a motion to -strike out the salary of the Minister to Russia. It was contended that -the Mission was actually, if not technically, vacant; and it was charged -that the appointment of Mr. Randolph, with the understanding that he -might leave his post at his own discretion, was a “job.” To this it was -answered by the friends of the Administration that the responsibility -for his appointment lay with the President and the Senate; that in the -Senate the opposition entirely approved of the appointment; and that for -the House to refuse to pay the salary of a Minister because he was -absent from his post on leave given by the President, would be highly -improper. In the course of this debate, Mr. Buchanan made a temperate -and judicious speech, in which he defended the appointment. The result -was that the appropriation was retained in the bill and the bill was -passed.[27] - -It became necessary, however, in the spring of this year, for the -President to recall Mr. Randolph and to select his successor. In those -days, the public men of the country did not propose themselves for such -appointments. The first intimation that reached Mr. Buchanan of the -President’s wish to make him Minister to Russia, came to him in a letter -from a confidential friend of the President. - - [MAJOR EATON TO MR. BUCHANAN.] - - (Private.) WASHINGTON, May 31, 1831. - -DEAR SIR:— - -Where are you, and what doing? I cannot tell, having heard nothing from -you since the adjournment of Congress. That you are doing well, though, -I have no doubt and earnestly hope. - -I introduce myself to you now at the request and by the direction of the -President. The Mission to St. Petersburg is expected shortly to become -vacant. It will afford the President pleasure to confide this trust to -you, if it shall suit your convenience to accept it. He desires me to -make known his wishes to you and to solicit an answer. It is at the -present an important and a highly interesting part of the world. For -reasons not material now to be explained, the President desires that you -will consider this communication entirely of a confidential character. - - With great respect, - - J. H. EATON. - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO MAJOR EATON.] - - LANCASTER, June 4, 1831. - -DEAR SIR:— - -I received your letter last evening, offering me, “by the direction of -the President,” the Mission to St. Petersburg. I feel with the deepest -sensibility this pledge of the kindness of the President, and the -recollection of it shall ever be engraven on my grateful memory. My -attachment for him, both personal and political, has been of the warmest -character, and he has now engrafted upon that feeling a strong sense of -individual gratitude. - -There is but a single circumstance which induces me to doubt whether I -ought to accept the Mission. I wish to be placed in no public station in -which I cannot discharge my duty with usefulness to the country and -honor to the administration of General Jackson. Ignorant as I now am of -the French language, I doubt whether I could acquire a sufficient -knowledge of it in proper time to enable me to hold that free communion -with the political circles in St. Petersburg which I consider essential -to the able discharge of the duties of a foreign minister. I have much -business now on hand which I could not immediately leave without doing -serious injury to individuals who have confided in me. Will you be so -kind as to inform me at what time the President would think the public -interest required me to leave the country in case I should accept the -Mission? - -Please to remember me to the President in the strongest terms. Accept my -thanks for your uniform kindness, and present my respects to Mrs. Eaton. -I remain - - Sincerely your friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - [EATON TO BUCHANAN.] - - (Private.) WASHINGTON CITY, June 7, 1831. - -DEAR SIR:— - -I have just received your letter, and will show it to the President, -whom I shall see during the day. The difficulty you suggest can no doubt -be remedied. Mr. R. is not expected to return before July or August; it -would then be too late in the season to reach St. Petersburg by water -transportation. To depart in September would create the necessity of -travelling over land from Hamburg or Havre. This, I am confident, the -President would not ask of you. I feel satisfied that he will grant the -indulgence asked and defer your departure until next spring. But I will -see him, and if I be wrong in this, I will again write you to-morrow;—if -no letter come, you may understand by the silence that my suggestions -are approved by the President. - - Very truly yours, - - J. H. EATON. - -P. S. I will write to you to-morrow or the next day, _at any rate_. - -3 _o’clock_. I sent your letter to the President. In answer he thus -writes: “Say to Mr. Buchanan that he will not be required to go out -before next winter or spring, that he may reach St. Petersburg on the -breaking up of the ice—unless something more than is now expected -arises, when the President will rely upon Mr. Buchanan’s patriotism to -proceed. He will have sufficient time to arrange his affairs.” - - [BUCHANAN TO EATON.] - - LANCASTER, June 12, 1831. - -DEAR SIR:— - -After the receipt of your last kind letter of the 7th inst., with the -extract from the President’s note to you annexed, granting me all the -indulgence I could have desired, I can no longer hesitate to accept the -Russian Mission. I fear that the necessary arrangements, both of a -professional and private character, which I must soon begin to make -preparatory to leaving the country—together with the study of the French -language, which I intend to commence—may disclose the fact that this -Mission has been offered to me and accepted. Indeed, from the -publications in the newspapers it was believed by many before I had any -intimation that such an intention existed on the part of the President. -Is there any reason why I should for the present defer these -preparations? - -Please to present my grateful compliments to the President, and believe -me to be - - Sincerely your friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - -Hon. JOHN H. EATON. - - [EATON TO BUCHANAN.] - - WASHINGTON, June 15, 1831. - -DEAR SIR:— - -On receiving your letter this morning I referred it to the President, -and he has returned me a hasty note, which I enclose to you. It is quite -like himself, candid and frank. - - With great regard, yours, - - J. H. EATON. - - [EATON TO JACKSON.] - -DEAR SIR:— - -I send you a letter to-day received from Mr. Buchanan. What shall I say -to him? - - Yours, - - J. H. EATON. - - [JACKSON TO EATON.] - -DEAR SIR:— - -Say to him in reply, to go on and make his preparations and let the -newspapers make any comments that they may think proper, and mind them -not. It is only necessary that _he_ should not give them any information -on this subject—the journals will say what they please, and be it so. - - Yours, - - A. J. - - [LIVINGSTON TO BUCHANAN.] - - (Private.) WASHINGTON, August 2, 1831. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -Mr. Taney having given me your letter of the 26th July, with a request -that I would communicate it to the President, I did so; and he has -directed me to say that it was not deemed proper to make the offer of -the Russian Mission public until Mr. Randolph’s return should make the -place vacant, and that when that event happened he would direct me to -write to you. - -The former communications were made to you while I was confined to my -bed, and did not pass through my Department, or they would have been put -in a shape that would have spared you any embarrassment on the subject. - -I am, my dear Sir, with the greatest regard and esteem, - - Your friend and humble servant, - - EDW. LIVINGSTON.[28] - - [TANEY TO BUCHANAN.] - - (Confidential.) WASHINGTON, August 2, 1831. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I received your letter and immediately waited on Mr. Livingston, and -placed it in his hands, requesting him to ascertain whether your -appointment and acceptance might not at once be made public. Mr. -Livingston informed me to-day that he had seen the President, and that -the only reason for desiring that nothing should be said about it was -that Mr. Randolph had not yet returned, and that he did not wish that -your appointment should be formally made and publicly announced until -Mr. Randolph arrived in this country. The Secretary of State will, -however, write to you himself to-day. I omitted to ask him when Mr. -Randolph was expected, but he will probably mention the time in his -letter to you. I can readily imagine that the present state of things -may be rather embarrassing to you, and hope it will not be long before -an appointment which I am quite sure will give great satisfaction to our -friends, can be officially made known. - -Mr. Livingston intends to go to New York in the course of this week in -order to have a conference with Mr. McLane and Mr. Van Buren before the -latter sails for England. He will leave Washington on Thursday, unless -he should learn in the mean time that Mr. McLane is on his way to this -place. And as an interview with him on your affairs would, I presume, be -agreeable to you, perhaps you may make it convenient to meet him in New -York. Governor Cass has accepted the appointment of Secretary of War, -and was to leave home on the first of this month, and expected to be -here before the 15th. - -Wishing you, my dear Sir, a pleasant excursion, and regretting that my -engagements here will prevent me from joining you at Saratoga, I am - - Most truly your friend and obedient servant, - - R. B. TANEY. - -There was one member of Mr. Buchanan’s family who was decidedly opposed -to his acceptance of this mission. This was his mother, then at the age -of 65. It would be interesting to know what was the special reason which -led this excellent and intelligent lady to feel as she did about this -appointment. Whether it was anything more than a presentiment that she -should never see him again after he had crossed the ocean, or whether -she thought that it would not be wise for him to venture in a new path -of public life, can only be inferred from the following letter, which -she wrote to him after his decision had been made: - - [MRS. BUCHANAN TO HER SON JAMES.] - - October 21 [1831]. - -MR DEAR SON:— - -With Harriet’s permission, I write you a few lines in her letter. I feel -deep solicitude respecting your mission to Russia, and perhaps I am too -late in laying [before you] my objections, which, in my estimation, are -formidable. Would it not be practicable, even now, to decline its -acceptance? Your political career has been of that description which -ought to gratify your ambition; and as to pecuniary matters, they are no -object to you. If you can, consistently with the character of a -gentleman and a man of honor, decline, how great a gratification it -would be to me. May God of His infinite goodness, dispose of us in -whatever way may promote His glory and secure our everlasting felicity, -is the prayer of your affectionate - - MOTHER. - -P. S.—At what time do you intend paying us that visit, previous to your -departure from the country which gave you birth, and I expect, to me, -the last visit? Do not disappoint me, but certainly come. - -There is no record of this visit, which was indeed the last, but which -was undoubtedly made. One of the strongest reasons that weighed with Mr. -Buchanan against his acceptance of this mission was his mother’s -advanced age, and the probability that he might never see her again. In -the latter part of August and the early part of September, he was absent -from Lancaster on a journey to the East, on account of his health. On -his return, he wrote a private letter to General Jackson; part of which, -however, is wanting in the copy before me: - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO GENERAL JACKSON.] - - LANCASTER, September 10, 1831. - -DEAR GENERAL:— - -Having had the bilious fever severely for the last three autumns, I was -advised by my physicians to go to the North this summer, as the best -means of preventing its recurrence. Accordingly, I have been wandering -about among the New Yorkers and the Yankees for several weeks past. I -reached home but last night. Whilst I was at Boston, the anti-masonic -letter of Mr. Adams made its appearance. This folly, although it caps -the climax, is in perfect character with the history of his conduct. It -is a melancholy spectacle to see a man who has held the first office -acting as he has done. It is now believed seriously, even by his former -friends, that he is courting the anti-masonic nomination. He and Rush -are a _par nobile fratrum_. I was happy to find everywhere that the -little specks which appeared on the political horizon—about the time you -changed your Cabinet—have been entirely dissipated. It could not have -been otherwise. In the opinion of your friends, the present Cabinet is -just such a one as it ought to be. In this State, your strength has -alarmed those who evidently wished to abandon you, and they are now the -loudest in your support. It not being in their power to affect you, they -are pushing another purpose with all their might. They are strenuously -opposed to a national convention to nominate a Vice-President; and -through the inadvertence of our friends who are without suspicion, it -appears to be settled that a State convention, which will meet to -nominate a Governor on the 4th of March next, will also select a -candidate for the Vice-Presidency. This nomination ought to be made by a -Jackson convention on the 8th of January. The consequence will be that -the State administration—on account of its extensive patronage and the -interest felt by all the State office-holders in sending their -particular friends to the convention—will probably be able to control -the nomination. George M. Dallas is unquestionably the candidate of the -State administration, and of all those who are the friends of Mr. Ingham -and Calhoun. Now I have no wish to be a candidate for the -Vice-Presidency; on the contrary, my nomination was put up without my -consent, and it is my intention to decline, but I desire to do it—— - -[The residue of the original letter is lost.] - -Although Mr. Buchanan had accepted the offer of the Russian Mission, his -nomination could not be submitted to the Senate until after that body -had assembled in December, 1831. It was acted upon in the Senate in the -early part of January, 1832, and from the following letter from Mr. -Livingston, the Secretary of State, it appears that the nomination was -confirmed by an unanimous or nearly unanimous vote: - - [LIVINGSTON TO BUCHANAN.] - - (Private and unofficial.) WASHINGTON, Jan. 12, 1832. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I pray you to receive my congratulations on your appointment and the -unanimity with which your nomination is understood to have been -confirmed by the Senate—a favor which it is believed will not be -conferred upon all of us. Allow me also to ask at what time you can -arrange your affairs for a departure. Have you designated any one to -serve as your Secretary of Legation? You know that your wishes will be -consulted on the occasion. Should you not desire that Mr. Clay should be -retained in that situation, I could mention a gentleman who would be -highly useful to you. He speaks most of the modern languages, has -travelled in Europe and made good use of his travels; he is now employed -in my Department and I should part with him with very great regret, but -being sincerely attached to him I consider his advancement, not my -interest or convenience, in this application; for he, Dr. Greenhow, -enjoys my fullest confidence and you will, if you take him, find him -every way worthy of yours, and well calculated by his manners, -deportment and knowledge of the world to aid you in the lighter but very -necessary duties of your station, as well as to perform those of a more -important kind with which you may entrust him. - -Two or three apples of discord have, as you will perceive by the papers, -been thrown in both houses—each of them sufficient to create a warfare -that will last during a session. - -I am, my dear Sir, with high regard, - - Your most obedient servant, - - EDW. LIVINGSTON. - -With what feelings Mr. Buchanan left his home in Lancaster and proceeded -to Washington, and thence to New York to take passage for Liverpool, may -be gathered from the following portions of his diary: - - _March 21, 1832._ - -I left Lancaster in the stage early in the morning for Washington and -arrived in Baltimore the same evening. Although my feelings are not very -easily excited, yet my impressions on this day were solemn and sad. I -was leaving a city where I had spent the best years of my life, where I -had been uniformly a popular favorite, and, above all, where I had many -good and true friends who had never abandoned me, under the most trying -circumstances. Among these people I had acquired a competence for a man -of moderate wishes, and I think I may say without vanity my professional -and personal character stood very high. I was about to embark in a new -pursuit, and one in which my heart never was; to leave the most free and -happy country on earth for a despotism more severe than any [other] -which exists in Europe. These gloomy reflections often came athwart my -mind. They were succeeded, however, by a sense of reliance on that good -Providence which hitherto had blessed and sustained me, and by a -conviction that I was about to go upon an important mission in which I -might be made the instrument in His hands of rendering important -services to my country. - - _Sunday, April 8th._ - -I set sail from New York for Liverpool on board the “Silas Richards,” -Captain Henry Holdridge, accompanied by Lieutenant John W. Barry, of the -U. S. army, as private secretary, and Edward Landrick, a mulatto -servant. I suffered from sea-sickness during nearly the whole voyage. -Our fellow-passengers were kind and agreeable. Dr. Hosack of New York -gave Charles Archibald, Esq., the son of the Attorney-General of Nova -Scotia, a letter of introduction to me, which he delivered on -ship-board. I found him to be an amiable and intelligent young -gentleman, and enjoyed much pleasure in his society. There was a Mr. -Walter—an Englishman—from London, on board, a man of general -information, who was always ready and always willing to defend all the -institutions of his own country, whether good or bad. He would have been -a very agreeable companion, had he been willing to converse instead of -making speeches. Notwithstanding, he was warm-hearted and kind, and the -impression he made upon me was quite favorable. In addition to these -passengers, we had a Mr. Clapham from Leeds, Mr. Stuart from Pittsburg, -Mr. and Mrs. McGee and Mr. Moller of New York, Mr. McBride of Dublin, -Mr. Morris of Brockville, U. C., and his sister-in-law, Mrs. Morris, -from —— in the same province, Mr. Osmond, a preacher of the Society of -Friends, from Indiana, going to London to attend the yearly meeting, -Mrs. and Miss Taylor of New York. - -The captain was an excellent seaman, a gentleman in his manners, and -possessed much more information than could have been expected from one -in his profession who had crossed the Atlantic eighty-eight times. We -saw Cape Clear, the southwestern point of Ireland on Sunday, the 22d; -but were detained by head winds for several days on that coast. Several -of us had determined to go on board a fishing boat and land at Cork, and -proceed from thence to Dublin, but were prevented by adverse winds from -approaching the shore. We arrived in Liverpool on Thursday, the 3d May, -about 12 o’clock (noon), after a passage of 25 days. When the pilot came -on board, he informed us that Liverpool was clear of cholera, but that -it was raging both in Cork and Dublin. We took lodgings at the Adelphi -Hotel. The passengers on this day gave Captain Holdridge a dinner at -“The Star and Garter,” at which I presided. Mr. Brown and Mr. Ogden, our -consul, were present as guests. - - _Friday, May 4th._ - -Mr. Brown of Liverpool took me about in his carriage and showed me the -town of Liverpool. The appearance of the people, their manners and their -language are so similar to those of New York that I could scarcely -realize I was in England. The brick of which the houses are built when -new have a dirty yellow appearance and the coal dust soon gives them a -darker hue. This imparts a gloomy appearance to the town and deprives it -of that light and cheerful hue which we experience in Philadelphia and -New York. It is a place of great wealth and vast commerce, although the -approach to it is tedious and difficult and altogether impracticable at -low tide. The Mersey is but a small river compared with those in -America. Its docks are admirable and very extensive, covering a space -actually under water of between eighty and ninety English acres. The -cemetery is well worthy of observation. Mr. Barry and myself dined with -Mr. Brown at his country house about three miles from Liverpool. It is -beautifully situated, the grounds around it highly improved, and both -its external and internal appearance prove the wealth and the taste of -its opulent and hospitable owner.[29] Francis B. Ogden, Esq., the -American consul, and several other gentlemen were of the party. We spent -a very pleasant afternoon and evening. - -Mr. Ogden has wandered much over the world. He is an agreeable and -warm-hearted fellow and something, I should suppose, of what we call “a -gimcrack” in America. He has given me a cipher of his own invention -which he says is the best in the world—and that it may be continually -changed, so that my secretary may decipher one letter and yet know -nothing about any other. During our stay at Liverpool we received many -attentions. We were particularly indebted to Mr. Crary and Mr. Carnes, -for whom I had letters of introduction from my friend John S. Crary of -New York. I could not help observing at this place what a strong -impression the successful operations of our Government had produced on -the minds of Englishmen. Our national character now stands high, -notwithstanding the efforts which have been made to traduce it. - - _Saturday, 5th._ - -Left Liverpool on the railroad, and arrived at Manchester—a distance of -thirty miles—in one hour and twenty-five minutes. There are two tunnels, -one of about 2200 yards, under the city, to communicate with the vessels -at the docks, the other about 200 yards, passing under a hill in the -suburbs. - -The following letter to his youngest brother, lately the Rector of -Oxford Church, Philadelphia, gives his first impressions of England: - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO HIS BROTHER EDWARD.] - - LONDON, May 12, 1832. - -MY DEAR BROTHER:— - -We left Liverpool on Saturday morning last and arrived in this city -on Tuesday. On our way, after passing over the railroad to -Manchester, we visited Birmingham, Kenilworth Castle, Warwick -Castle, Stratford-upon-Avon, Blenheim and Oxford. Every portion of -the country that we have seen is in the highest state of -cultivation, and its appearance at this season of the year is -delightful. One thing, however, which must strike every American -traveller, is the mercenary spirit of all that class of people with -whom he comes in contact on the road. No person performs any office -for you, no matter how slight, without expecting to be paid. Indeed -travelling and living here are very extravagant, and not the -slightest part of the trouble and expense are the perquisites which -it is expected you will give to servants of all kinds, post-boys, -coachmen, etc. - -I have visited the cathedrals of Oxford and Westminster Abbey—two of the -finest specimens of Gothic architecture in England. I have not time to -give you a description of either. They are gloomy, venerable piles, and -give birth to many solemn associations. They recall past ages to your -view, and raise the mighty dead of former generations to be your -companions. As places of worship, however, they must be very damp and -uncomfortable. In Ireland the people have ceased to pay tithes. They -submit to have their articles seized, but the proctors can find no -purchasers for such articles at any price. The consequence has been that -nearly all payments have ceased. This country is at present in a very -distracted state. Never since the days of Charles I. has there been such -an excitement among the mass of the people. What will be the event, God -only knows. The king [William IV.], who this day week was one of the -most popular monarchs who ever sat upon any throne, is now detested or -rather despised by the people. His refusal to create the number of peers -necessary to carry the Reform Bill, and his alleged hypocrisy throughout -the whole proceeding, have occasioned this change in public sentiment. I -should not be astonished at a revolution; but yet I hope and trust that -the people may obtain their just rights without resorting to such a -dreadful alternative. The Church is not popular. Its rich livings are -conferred upon the younger branches of noble houses more with a view of -making a provision for their temporal wants than of providing for the -spiritual welfare of the people committed to their charge. The best -course is pursued in our own country, where men choose the ministry from -conscientious motives, and the people provide for them voluntarily. The -present system of tithes cannot continue much longer in this country -without some modification, unless there should be a much stronger -government than exists at present. Indeed, from everything I have seen, -although this is a country of vast wealth and resources, and of very -advanced civilization, I thank my God that I was born an American rather -than an Englishman. - -I expect, God willing, to leave this place for St. Petersburg on Friday -next, the day of the sailing of the steam packet, and I hope to reach -the end of my journey on or about the first of June. I am anxious once -more to feel settled. From all the information I can receive the -diplomatic circle of St. Petersburg is a very agreeable one, and the -Emperor and Court entertain the most friendly feelings towards our -country. Prince Lieven, the Russian ambassador to this country, has been -very polite to me. Although I do not anticipate much happiness during my -continuance abroad, yet I have no doubt, with the blessing of -Providence, I shall be content. You need not expect to hear from me -again until I shall reach St. Petersburg. Please to send this letter to -mother, and drop a few lines to Maria. Write to me often. I feel very -anxious to hear from George. I trust in Heaven that he may be restored -to health. You will perceive by the papers that the cholera has almost -entirely disappeared from this city; indeed, it never was very -formidable here. I was at Covent Garden Theatre on Thursday evening, and -saw Young’s Tragedy of Revenge performed. Mr. Young, the most celebrated -tragedian of England, performed the part of Zanga. It was a most -masterly performance, and excited the deepest interest. Although I have -always admired that play, I never felt all its force and beauty until -that night. Give my love to mother, Jane, Harriet, George, Mr. Lane and -all the family, and believe me ever to be - - Your affectionate brother, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - 12:30, _Monday, May 14th_. - -The Duke of Wellington is Premier; the members of his Cabinet not yet -known. - -Mr. Buchanan went from London to Hamburg by a packet, and thence made -the overland journey to St. Petersburg. I find only the following traces -of his travel: - - _Tuesday, May 22d_ [1832]. - -The appearance of Hamburg is calculated to make a favorable impression. -It is situated on the northern bank of the Elbe, the river here running -a little to the north of west. The old part of the town along and near -to the river has a very antiquated appearance. Most of the houses are -built with their ends fronting on the street, and they are composed of -wooden frame-work, the interstices being filled up with brick. In this -respect they resemble the ancient houses of Lancaster. Many of these -houses are three stories, and some of them more in height up to the -square—the gable end, and above it, contains one and two and three -stories with windows on the street until it comes to a point ornamented -with various figures. - -The new part of the city is beautiful. In the northern part of it there -is a small lake, called the “Binnen Alster,” nearly square, and about a -quarter of a mile on each side. Around this lake, except on the northern -side, there are ranges of very fine houses built in the modern style, at -a considerable distance from it, so as to leave room not only for the -street, but for spacious walks shaded by trees, with benches placed at -convenient distances. Still further to the north there is a larger lake -communicating with the former called the “Grosse Alster.” All around -this lake and along the small stream which feeds it there are shaded -walks, public gardens and grass plots laid out with much taste, and kept -in perfect repair. The graveyard in the midst of them shows that man’s -long home may be made a subject of attraction for the living; and my own -feelings taught me that those who are led to the place appointed for all -living, from curiosity, may leave it under solemn and useful -impressions. - -I called this morning upon John Cuthbert, Esq., our consul, and left at -the house of Mr. Gossler, a senator of Hamburg, a letter of -introduction, with my card, which I had received from his brother at New -York. Mr. Cuthbert called with me on Monsieur Bacheracht, the -consul-general from Russia, who was sick in bed, and I left at his house -the letter from Prince Lieven. We also called on Mr. Parish, but did not -see him. - -This is one of the ancient free cities of Germany. It is governed by a -Senate, consisting of twenty-four members, composed of lawyers and -merchants, each one-half. The Senate fills up its own vacancies as they -occur. It also elects four of its own members burgesses, in whom the -executive authority is vested. The deliberations of the Senate are in -secret. The duties on goods imported are but one-half per cent. _ad -valorem_, and the other taxes upon the people are very light. They -appear to be contented and happy, and I have yet seen but one beggar on -the streets. Indeed their language and appearance strongly reminded me -of Lancaster. The Senate also elects four Syndicks, but not of their own -body. - -According to their laws no foreigner can be a resident merchant here, -unless he goes through the forms and submits to the expense and -inconvenience of becoming a burgher. Mr. Cuthbert claimed for an -American naturalized citizen this privilege under our treaty with -Hamburg, without becoming a burgher, and after some correspondence on -the subject it was granted. This is a privilege which the English have -never yet obtained. I advised Mr. Cuthbert to send the correspondence to -the Secretary of State. - -The outlet of the lakes into the river furnishes a water-power -sufficient to turn several mills, and water for a canal which is very -useful in connecting the river with the upper part of the city. It is -strange that not a single dock has been erected on the river by this -ancient city. - -The constitution of Hamburg, although far from being free in the just -acceptation of the term, has secured to the citizens enviable -advantages, compared with many of the other states of Germany. - -We dine with Mr. Gossler to-morrow. - -(Here follows a minute account of the coins in common use in Hamburg.) - - _May 23d._ - -We dined with Mr. Gossler, the son, in the country; his father, to whom -we had the letter, being now in England. Our host had resided in Boston, -and about three years ago married Miss Bray of that city. She is related -to the Elliott family, and is a sprightly, pleasant woman, who talks -very well. Besides our host and hostess, the company consisted of Mr. -William Gossler, their uncle, an old bachelor; Mr. Charles H. Carnegy, a -young Scotchman who came in the packet with us from London; Mr. -Wainwright, from Boston, also our fellow-passenger; Mr. Barry, and -myself. We spent a very agreeable afternoon and evening. We received an -invitation from Mr. Richard Parish to dine with him on Sunday at his -country place, which we were obliged to decline, intending to leave for -Lubeck on Saturday. - - _Thursday, May 24th._ - -In the morning, we visited Altona, a Danish town in Holstein adjoining -Hamburg, and below it on the river. Its appearance is similar to that of -the old part of Hamburg, though it contains some fine modern houses. The -public walks are also pleasant here. The population is said to be -25,000. In the afternoon, we ascended the steeple of St. Michael’s, and -had a fine view of the city. It is 480 feet in height. The church is a -fine building. I observed in it an altar, at some distance from the -pulpit, with an image above it of our Saviour on the cross. This in a -Lutheran Church was new to me. - -Before I enter upon the business of the mission, some of the private -letters which Mr. Buchanan wrote to his friends at home, during the -summer of 1832, will be found to contain matters of interest. Whatever -other accomplishments he possessed or wanted, he certainly wrote very -agreeable letters. One of the first persons to whom he wrote, after his -arrival at St. Petersburg, was General Jackson. - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO GENERAL JACKSON.] - - ST. PETERSBURG, June 22, 1832. - -DEAR GENERAL:— - -You will, ere this reaches you, have heard of my arrival in this -capital, through the Department of State. Certainly it is not the place -I should select for my residence, though it may be justly termed a city -of palaces. The climate is healthy, but very cold. Indeed it can -scarcely be said that summer has yet commenced. Their winter continues -about seven months. At this season there is literally no night. I feel -confident I could read common print at 12 P. M. I use no candles. The -Americans and English here say they suffer more from the heat than from -the cold during winter. All the houses have double casements, double -windows, and very thick walls, and they are heated by stoves to a high -degree of temperature. The Russians still wear their cloaks in the -streets. The great objection which an American must feel to a residence -in this country does not arise from the climate, though that is bad -enough; it is because here there is no freedom of the Press, no public -opinion, and but little political conversation, and that very much -guarded. In short, we live in the calm of despotism. And what makes this -situation much more unpleasant to me is, that from some cause or other, -I know not yet what, this mission seldom receives any letters or -newspapers from the United States. I beg that you would take up this -subject yourself, and then it will be attended to. But this by the way. - -It must be admitted, however, if we can believe the concurrent opinion -of all the foreigners resident here with whom I have conversed, that the -Emperor Nicholas is one of the best of despots. As a man of excellent -private character, as a husband, a father, a brother, and a friend, his -life presents a fit example for all his subjects. _But still he is a -despot._ But little occurred on my presentation to his Majesty worthy of -repetition, except what is contained in the despatch. He told me he had -one American in his service as his aide—that was Mr. Munroe; that he was -not then in St. Petersburg, having gone on board one of the ships in the -fleet for the purpose of making a campaign (for exercise and -instruction, I presume), and that he intended to be transferred from the -military to the naval service. - -The empress talked very freely. She spoke on several subjects, and with -great rapidity. Amongst other things she observed we were wise in -America not to involve ourselves in the foolish troubles of Europe; but -she added that we had troubles enough among ourselves at home, and -alluded to our difficulties with some of the Southern States. I -endeavored in a few words to explain this subject to her; but she still -persisted in expressing the same opinion, and, of course, I would not -argue the point. The truth is, that the people of Europe, and more -especially those of this country, cannot be made to understand the -operations of our Government. Upon hearing of any severe conflicts of -opinion in the United States, they believe what they wish, that a -revolution may be the consequence. God forbid that the Union should be -in any danger! If unfortunate events should occur tending to destroy the -influence of our example, constitutional liberty throughout the rest of -the world would receive a blow from which it might never recover. In -making these remarks, I do not mean to state that the Russian government -are unfriendly to the people of the United States; on the contrary, I -believe they prefer us decidedly either to the English or French; but -yet they must attribute to our example the existence of those liberal -principles in Europe which give them so much trouble. Upon the whole, my -interview with the empress was quite agreeable. - -There are three ambassadors at this court: Lord Heytesbury, the English; -the Marshal Duke of Treviso (Mortier), the French; and Count Figlemont, -the Austrian; and a number of ministers plenipotentiary of my own grade. -In point of rank I am at the tail of the list, and I should be very -sorry to suppose I would ever reach the head. The rule upon this -subject, however, is wholly unexceptionable: the minister who has been -longest here ranks the highest in his own grade. The Diplomatic Corps -have received me very kindly. This I may attribute to the high character -my country is everywhere acquiring. Your foreign policy has had no small -influence on public opinion throughout Europe. It is supposed Marshal -Mortier is not very agreeable to this government: he is the officer who -blew up the Kremlin. - -I have taken a comfortable and well-furnished house in a beautiful -situation fronting on the Neva, to which I expect to remove next week. -My family will consist of Mr. J. Randolph Clay [Secretary of the -Legation], whom I have invited to live with me, Lieutenant Barry -[private secretary], and myself. My expenses will be great, but I shall -endeavor to keep them within my outfit and salary. - -From an examination of the correspondence between Mr. Clay and the -Department I fear I shall have difficulties in the settlement of my -accounts. It was not possible for him with the most rigid economy to -exist as chargé d’affaires upon his salary, had he received all to which -he was entitled, and yet he has received but about $1880 per annum. So -far as I can understand the subject, the difficulty has arisen solely -from the circumstance that we are authorized to draw on Amsterdam, and -not on London. Surely this circumstance cannot change the amount of -salary to which a minister is entitled by law, nor ought Mr. Clay to -receive less at a more expensive court than Mr. Vail receives in -England. Mr. Livingston told me it would make no difference to me -whether I drew on Amsterdam or London, and this may eventually be the -case; but I am very anxious to avoid the difficulty of having a -troublesome account to settle with the Department. I should esteem it, -therefore, a particular favor, if it be just, that you would authorize -me to draw on London. Every difficulty on this subject would be removed, -if we were allowed five rubles here for a dollar, which is the manner in -which our consul settles his accounts; and I should suppose, from a -communication received by Mr. Clay from my friend Mr. Pleasonton, that -he now believes this to be correct. Pardon me for thus troubling you -with my own affairs...... - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO HIS BROTHER EDWARD.] - - ST. PETERSBURG, July 15–27, 1832. - -MY DEAR BROTHER:— - -I received yours of the 4th of June on the 19th inst. It contains -melancholy information. I trust each one of us may be able to say in -relation to ourselves “God’s will be done!” I fear there is but little -hope for poor George. May his latter end be peace! God grant that he may -recover! ——’s marriage must have been a gloomy ceremony. I hope, -however, that joy may succeed to gloom, and that her marriage may be -happy. I fear that her husband’s health is not good. I would thank you -to make it a point to wish them happiness in my name. May they be united -in spirit here and be heirs of glory hereafter! - -From some unaccountable neglect either at the Department of State or the -Legation in London, I have received no newspapers from the United States -since my arrival in this city except those which came in the vessels -with your two letters of the 3d of May and 4th of June; and these -letters are all I have received from our country except one from Mr. -Reynolds of Lancaster. I have thus been entirely deprived of the -pleasure of hearing anything from my relations but what you have -communicated. I shall endeavor to correct this evil; but in the meantime -it would be better to send letters intended for me to Mr. Crary or some -other friend in New York who would enclose them to our chargé in London -(Mr. Vail). I presume no ship will leave America for St. Petersburg -after you shall have received this letter until early in the next -spring. I hope my friends in New York will not neglect to send me -newspapers by every such opportunity. - -I cannot complain of my situation here, though it is not very agreeable. -The press is under so strict a censorship that nothing is published -except what the government pleases. Every avenue through which liberal -opinions might enter this empire is carefully closed; and in fact but -few even of the higher classes of society know much of our country or -its institutions. An American minister, therefore, to this court enjoys -but few of the advantages he would derive from the character of his -country either in England or France. Notwithstanding, I have been -treated very civilly, particularly by the Diplomatic Corps and the -English, who are numerous here. We have an Episcopal church, of which a -Mr. Law is the rector. He is said to be a good man, and is a tolerably -good preacher; I have heard him twice. The service of the _English_ -Church is very long; I think the retrenchments made in it by the Church -in the United States have been very judicious. There is also a Methodist -church here, which I have not visited. - -The higher classes among the Russians in St. Petersburg have, I fear, -but little religion; and the common people are very ignorant and -superstitious. Although the Greek differs from the Latin Church in -regard to _the use of images_, yet they cross themselves here, with much -apparent devotion, before consecrated _pictures_, which are put up -everywhere throughout the city; and in passing the churches. Among this -class there is no honesty; they will always cheat you if they can. To -this rule I have not met with a single exception. Although I am far from -believing that a Puritanical observance of Sunday is required of us, yet -I confess I have been shocked with its profanation in this country. The -emperor and empress, who are models of correct moral deportment in other -respects, give their balls and grand fêtes on Sunday evening; and I am -confident it has never entered their thoughts that in this respect they -were acting incorrectly. - -My domestic arrangements are very comfortable. My house is excellent and -very well furnished. It has the benefit of a fine view of the Neva, and -a southern exposure, which in this land of frost and snow is a great -advantage. We have not yet had one day which could be called summer. The -weather has been cool, and indeed the season has been more remarkable -than any which the oldest inhabitants have ever experienced. In common -seasons they have about six weeks of very warm weather. It is healthy -and my health is good. - -Mr. Clay and Mr. Barry are very agreeable young gentlemen. The latter -desires to be remembered to you. The mulatto man I brought with me from -the United States is a valuable servant. I know not what I should do -without him. - -Give my kindest love to George. I have written to him since my arrival -here. Give my love to mother, Jane, Maria, Harriet and all the family. I -have not yet written to Maria; I shall do so soon. Should you be in New -York on the receipt of this, remember me to my friends there. Praying to -God that we may meet again in health and prosperity in our native land, -I remain - - Your affectionate brother, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO JOHN B. STERIGERE.] - - ST. PETERSBURG, August 2, N. S. 1832. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -Here I am, pleasantly situated in my own house, which commands a -delightful view of the Neva and all the vessels which enter this port. -The city is magnificent and beautiful. The buildings, both public and -private, have been constructed upon a grand scale; but the people are -ignorant and barbarous. With the exception of the merchants and a few -others in the commercial cities, there is no intermediate rank between -the nobleman and the slave. The serfs, however, are not unkindly -treated. They are attached to the soil, and in general are not bound to -labor for their masters more than three days in the week. Besides they -are furnished with land which they cultivate for themselves. No one can -be here for a month without being fully convinced that these people are -wholly unfit to take any share in the government, and it is doubtless -the policy of the emperor and nobles to keep them in this state of -ignorance. Throughout Germany the people have generally received the -rudiments of education and are fit for free institutions; but here -despotism must yet prevail for a long time. How happy ought we to be in -America! Would that we knew our own happiness! Coming abroad can teach -an American no other lesson but to love his country, its institutions -and its laws better, much better than he did before. - -The emperor and the empress in their domestic relations are worthy of -all praise. In this respect their example is excellent, and I am -inclined to believe it has had a favorable effect upon the conduct of -their nobles. Still that is far from being of the best character. - -From my own observation and experience since I left home, I do not think -a wise American ought to desire a foreign mission. For my own part I -should greatly prefer a seat in the Senate to any mission which the -Government could confer upon me. I trust, however, that I shall be -instrumental during my sojourn here in benefiting my country. If my -labors in accomplishing the objects of my mission were closed I should -be very desirous of returning home; but I shall remain as long as duty -requires, and endeavor to be content. - -There has been great neglect in the Department of State or somewhere -else in forwarding my letters and newspapers. I have not yet received a -single newspaper, except a few which were sent me by some friends direct -from New York, and the two or three letters that have reached me refer -me to the papers for political news. This being the case, I charge you -by our mutual friendship to write to me often and give me all the news. -Please to send your letters to Campbell P. White or some other friend in -New York, not to the Department of State; and direct them to the care of -Aaron Vail, Esquire, our chargé in London. Perhaps it might be better to -enclose them to him. He is a very good fellow and will be attentive in -forwarding them. I was much pleased with him in London. - -It seems Van Buren has been nominated by the Baltimore Convention;[30] -but Pennsylvania has not yet yielded her pretensions in favor of Mr. -Wilkins. I fervently hope that such a course will be pursued by our -State as not to endanger its vote in favor of General Jackson. - -I have been well treated since my arrival by the Diplomatic Corps -generally; but particularly so by Lord Heytesbury the English, and the -Duke of Treviso the French ambassador, and by the Swedish and Hanoverian -ministers. So far as regards my personal feelings I am very sorry that -Lord H. has been replaced by Lord Durham. The latter does not promise to -be so popular as the former. I have not yet learned to submit patiently -to the drudgery of etiquette. It is the most formal court in Europe and -_one must conform to its rules. Foreign ministers must drive a carriage -and four with a postilion_, and have a servant behind decked out in a -more queer dress than our militia generals. This servant is called a -“chasseur” and has in his chapeau a plume of feathers. To this plume, as -it passes, the detachment of soldiers present arms, and individual -soldiers take off their hats. How absurd all this appears to a -republican! It was with some degree of apprehension that I took a house -on the north side of the river, although by far the best I could find; -because no foreign minister had resided on this side before; but it has -succeeded, and since I have set the example I have no doubt it will be -followed by others, as it has many advantages over the opposite shore. - -Let me hear how you are succeeding at the law. Be not discouraged. -Persevere and with the blessing of Heaven your success is certain. -Remember me kindly to Mr. Paulding, Mr. Patterson, and all my other -friends whom you may chance to meet. If you all think as often of me as -I do of you, I shall be freshly remembered. - - Ever your sincere friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO HIS BROTHER EDWARD.] - - ST. PETERSBURG, September 1–13, 1832. - -DEAR BROTHER:— - -I received your very agreeable letter of the 15th July on the 4th -September. I was very anxious indeed to hear from poor George, and -regret to learn that which I have for some time apprehended, that we can -indulge but little hope of his final recovery. Still it is a great -satisfaction to know that he does not feel alarmed at the prospect of -death. I trust his philosophy may be of the genuine Christian character -and that he may have disarmed death of its sting by saving faith in the -Redeemer of mankind. Still hope will linger and is unwilling to abandon -us when so near and dear a relative is the object. - -I congratulate you upon your admission to the ministry and trust that -you may be an instrument in doing much good to your fellow-men...... - -The last advices from America have brought us most distressing news -concerning the progress of the cholera. We have heard that it was -subsiding in New York, but that it was making great ravages in -Philadelphia. God grant that it may not have extended into the interior -of Pennsylvania. I am now very anxious for news from America and expect -it by the next steamboat in a few days. There have been a few cases of -cholera in St. Petersburg during the present season. As the newspapers -here publish nothing upon the subject and there are no reports from the -police made public there has been scarcely any alarm. Indeed I suppose -that a large majority of the people know nothing of its existence. Dr. -Le Fevre, the physician of the British Embassy, told me to-day that in -the course of his practice, which is very extensive, he had met no case -for the last two weeks. Those places in Europe which have suffered from -the disease one year, generally have experienced a slight return of it -the next. - -I think this climate will be favorable to my health, at least in regard -to the bilious complaints with which of late years I have been so much -afflicted. My life glides on smoothly here. The place is becoming more -agreeable to me as my acquaintance extends; yet I still feel like a -stranger in a strange land. I have so far mastered the French language -as to be able to read and understand it without much difficulty. It will -be some time, however, before I shall speak it fluently. - -The Diplomatic Corps yesterday attended a Te Deum at the Church of St. -Alexander Nevsky. It was the day of that saint, who is the greatest in -the Russian calendar. The service was very magnificent and imposing; -though the tones of an organ would have made it grander. These are not -used in the Greek churches. The emperor was there and appeared to be -very devout. He often crossed himself, and in one part of the ceremony -kissed the hand of the archbishop. Think of the proudest and most -powerful potentate on earth still continuing to do so much reverence to -the clergy! Among other miracles, this saint, it is said, rode up the -Neva on a grindstone. After the service had concluded in the church, we -were present at the erection of a granite column to the memory of the -late Emperor Alexander—the largest and heaviest which has ever been -erected, it is said, in ancient or modern times. There were 2000 men and -an immense quantity of machinery employed. - -I say again, rely upon the divine blessing and your own judgment in all -things, and I shall be content; but let it be taken coolly and not under -the influence of the idle talk of others. Settle in no place merely for -the sake of a settlement. You shall not be at any loss for money. Give -my love to mother and all the family, and believe me to be - - Ever your affectionate brother, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO GENERAL JACKSON.] - - ST. PETERSBURG, October 1–13, 1832. - -DEAR GENERAL:— - -I avail myself of the present opportunity of writing to you with the -more eagerness, as I know not when I shall again enjoy that pleasure. -The last steamboat for the season will leave here in about a fortnight, -and after that period no safe opportunity may soon offer. To put my -letters in the post-office here would be most certainly to expose them -to the Russian government; indeed they scarcely think it necessary to do -up the seals decently of those which I receive. - -Both the emperor and Count Nesselrode have returned to the capital. I -may therefore expect a final answer to our propositions in a few days. I -dined with the count yesterday, who treated me with marked attention. I -suppose he thought it incumbent on him to do so, as it was the first -time he had invited me. The dinner was given to the French ambassador, -the Duke of Treviso, who leaves here to-day in the steamboat on leave of -absence. Whether he will ever return is, I think, doubtful. I do not -express this opinion, because I believe there is danger of immediate -hostilities between the two countries; on the contrary, I am satisfied -they will remain at peace whilst Louis Philippe shall continue on the -throne and pursue his present course of policy. How long the present -state of things may last in France is the question. I think you may rest -satisfied that Russia will not go to war for the King of Holland. She -will suffer France and England to carry into effect the decrees of the -London conference against him. This, however, will cause much irritation -here and in Prussia. Indeed, from my intercourse with the Russian -nobility, I believe a war with France to preserve Belgium for the King -of Holland would be highly popular. The emperor, however, has, I am -almost confident, determined it shall not be for the present. This is -wise, for I am persuaded that Russia has not yet sufficiently recovered -from the four wars which she has sustained since the accession of the -present emperor, to enable her to be as formidable and efficient as the -world believes her. As long, therefore, as things remain as they are in -France, there will not be war. An attempt on her part to interfere -forcibly with either Germany or Poland would instantly change the aspect -of affairs. - -News of the death of King Ferdinand of Spain arrived here a few days -ago, but has since been contradicted. In the mean time it produced a -great sensation. It is considered that his death without a son must -necessarily produce a civil war in that ill-fated country, and perhaps -make the rest of Europe parties. His imprudent abolition of the Salique -Law in favor of his daughter, it is thought, will not be submitted to by -Don Carlos, in favor of whose succession the whole of the Apostolical -party will be found ranged. The government here ardently desires the -defeat of Don Pedro. Indeed any change in Europe in favor of liberal -principles would be disagreeable to them, and they even occasionally -publish ill-natured articles concerning the United States. This you will -perceive from the last St. Petersburg _Journal_, a file of which I shall -send by Mr. Mitchell, for whom I have obtained a courier’s passport. The -articles contained in newspapers here have the more meaning, as the -press is under a most rigid censorship. I am well acquainted, however, -with the chief censor, Count Laval, who is one of those noblemen who -have been the most polite to me, and I shall take some opportunity of -conversing with him on this subject. - -England is, I think, fast losing her consideration on the Continent. The -present ministry are not believed to possess much ability, at least for -conducting foreign affairs; and they have so many embarrassing domestic -questions on their hands independently of the national debt, that they -cannot without the most urgent necessity involve the country in a war. -They have negotiated and paid for making Belgium a virtual province of -France—Greece of Russia; and, I think, they are in a fair way of losing -their commercial advantages in Portugal by an affected neutrality -between the hopeful brothers of the house of Braganza, for which they -receive no credit, at least in this country. Although Lord Durham was -treated with the most distinguished attention by the emperor, he -received almost none from the nobility; and they indulge in a bitterness -of remark both against him and his country which shows what are their -feelings towards England. Besides, he was an eccentric nobleman, and is -the subject of as many ridiculous stories as my predecessor. I am -sincerely glad that he has in some degree taken the place of the latter -in the gossip of this city. But this is a subject to which I would not -advert in writing to any other person. They have no free press here; but -they make up for the want of it in private scandal in relation to all -subjects on which they can talk with safety. The present British -minister, Mr. Bligh, is a plain, agreeable, and unassuming gentleman, -with whom my relations are of the most friendly character. - -Within the last six weeks I have had the good fortune to make the -acquaintance of several noble families of the very highest rank, and I -am beginning to receive many attentions from that class. Their coldness -and jealousy towards strangers generally are fast disappearing in -relation to myself. Some accidental circumstances which it would be -useless to detail have contributed much to this result. I consider this -a fortunate circumstance, as the nobility exercise great influence in -this country. I think in my despatch of the 9th of August last I spoke -rather too harshly of them as a class; and although, with a few -exceptions, I by no means admire them, yet this shows how dangerous it -is to form opinions too hastily. The influence of the example of the -present emperor and empress, in the correctness of their private -deportment, is doing their nobility much good. - -Too much care cannot be taken in selecting a minister for this court. -Indeed it would be difficult to find many suitable persons in our -country for this mission. In London and in Paris, our ministers enjoy -the consideration to which they are entitled from the exalted character -of their country; but here the character of the country must depend in a -considerable degree upon that of the minister. The principles of the -American Government, the connection between our greatness and prosperity -as a nation, and the freedom of our institutions, are a sealed book in -regard to the Russians. Their own press dare publish nothing upon the -subject, and all foreign papers, unless those of the most illiberal -character, are prohibited. The higher classes here must in a great -degree receive their information concerning our country from our -minister. This sufficiently points out what ought to be his -qualifications, and I regret my own deficiency in some important -particulars. Great talents are by no means so requisite as an easy -address, insinuating manners, and a perfect knowledge of the French -language. (In the latter I have already made considerable advances.) -Above all he ought to have a genuine American heart, in which I know I -am not deficient, always anxious to seize every favorable opportunity, -and many such occur, of making an impression in favor of his country. -There is one great disadvantage, however, under which a minister here -labors; and that is, the total inadequacy of the salary. These people -are fond of extravagance and show, and have not the least taste for -Republican simplicity and economy. In order that a minister may hold a -high place in their esteem, he must be able to return their civilities. -They judge much by appearances. The want of this reciprocity will be -attributed to the meanness of the minister or that of his country, or -both. Even the representative of his Sardinian Majesty receives $16,000 -per annum. Now if I had $100,000 per annum, I would not pursue any -course of conduct in this respect which I should be ashamed to exhibit -to my countrymen; but surely if they were aware that their minister -could not return with Republican simplicity and dignity the civilities -which he cannot avoid receiving without giving offence, they would -consent to an increase of salary. I think $15,000 would be sufficient -for the purpose _without the outfit_. Perhaps it would be better to fix -it at $13,000, with the expense of a furnished house. At all events, I -must give some large dinners. - -I make these remarks without feeling the slightest personal interest in -them, because nothing short of your express commands would induce me to -remain here longer than two years from the time of my arrival; and I -trust something may occur to justify my return to my native land within -a shorter period. I feel, however, if I had such a salary I could leave -a much more favorable impression of my country behind me. By the bye, I -do not know yet what I am to receive; if I should have to lose the -exchange between this and Amsterdam at its present rate, my salary will -but little exceed $8,000. If ever a change shall be made the salary of -the minister here ought to be fixed in silver roubles. - -I have lately seen much of Mr. Politica, who is still attached to the -Foreign Office. His feelings towards our country appear to be very -friendly. From his conversation, I have reason to anticipate a favorable -issue to our negotiations; but I shall not allow myself to confide much -in unofficial conversations. I have no doubt that they feel it would be -their interest to negotiate with us; and they appreciate highly the -advantages of our trade; yet they entertain such strong prejudices -against commercial treaties, and there are so many wheels within wheels -in the complex system of their policy that it is safest not to expect a -treaty with too much confidence. I have no doubt, should they conclude -one with us, England would insist upon being placed on the same footing. -Besides, Count Cancrene, the Minister of Finance, is understood to be -opposed to all commercial treaties. - -I ought to state that I believe the omission to invite Mr. Barry to the -reviews was unintentional, and Count Nesselrode expressed his sorrow to -Baron Krudener for the neglect before the latter left this city. - -I shall soon be looking with great anxiety for news concerning our -elections. I read your veto message with very great pleasure. Although -rather inclined to be friendly to the re-charter of the Bank of the -United States, yet I am now free to say, I should vote for no bill for -that purpose liable to the objections of that which passed both Houses -of Congress. I am glad to observe the spirit which seems to animate the -Republican party of Pennsylvania, in relation to this subject. I -entertain no apprehension concerning the result of your election; but I -wish to see you come into office for a second period with that -triumphant majority which you are entitled to receive, both from the -wisdom and success of your foreign and domestic policy. I cannot think -that the unnatural union between the Clay men and the Anti-masons will -reduce your majority; as I believe the mass of both these parties is -honest and cannot approve such a political partnership. - -Pardon me for not taking the trouble of correcting and re-writing this -long and rambling letter. I should do so did I not know it was only -intended for friendly eyes. I now receive my newspapers with tolerable -regularity, through the kindness of my friends in Hamburg and Lubeck. -This regulation will cease at the close of the present month, when the -steamboats will be discontinued. Please to present my best respects to -the members of your Cabinet. I have been for some time expecting a -letter from Major Barry. Remember me kindly to your family, and believe -me to be, wherever my lot may be cast, - - Your faithful, devoted and grateful friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO HIS BROTHER EDWARD.] - - ST. PETERSBURG, October 13th, 1832. - -MY DEAR BROTHER:— - -I received yours of the 12th August dated Union, Va., on the 2d instant. -It gave me a gloomy picture of the state of poor George’s health and has -deprived me of the last ray of hope in relation to his recovery. Indeed -whilst I am writing this I have too much cause to apprehend that your -next will announce that he has bidden an eternal adieu to this vain and -transitory world. I had conceived the highest hopes of his future -eminence and usefulness. His talents were of the first order, his -manners were popular and his principles were, I believe, perfectly pure. -Alas! that his sun, which rose so brightly and promised such a brilliant -day, should so soon be extinguished. Such seems to have been the -inscrutable decree of an all-wise Providence. May our dear mother and -may we all be enabled to say, “Father, Thy will be done.” I feel the -deepest gratitude towards Dr. Semmes for his kindness. My acquaintance -with him was but slight, but I shall make it a point, should I ever have -an opportunity, of manifesting to him how much I have been penetrated by -his kindness. In the meantime do not fail to make my sentiments known to -him. It is probable that ere long I shall address him a letter returning -him my thanks. You can readily conceive what anxiety I shall feel until -the arrival of your next. I trust it may have pleased Providence to -enable poor George to reach Mercersburg. - -My time here is gliding on not unpleasantly. When I reflect upon my past -life and the many merciful dispensations of which I have been the -subject, I cannot be too thankful to the Almighty. This land of -despotism is not the place where an American minister ought to have -expected many friends, particularly as the Russian nobility have but -little disposition to cultivate the acquaintance of strangers; it has -yet so happened that several of the very highest order have shown me -much kindness, and I have some reason to believe I shall be a favorite. -The English merchants, who are numerous, wealthy and respectable, have -been very civil, and the Diplomatic Corps have paid me all the attention -I could desire. Still I shall be happy when the day arrives that I can -with honor leave this elevated station and return to my native land. - -The ladies here, as they are almost everywhere, are the best part of -society. Many of them and their children speak English very well, whose -husbands cannot speak a word of that language. There is a Princess -Tscherbatoff here with whom I have become very intimate. She has a -charming family and they have travelled much through Europe. She is a -lady of uncommon intellect, brilliant accomplishments, and yet preserves -great personal attractions. I mention her name for the purpose of -introducing a circumstance somewhat singular. By some means or other she -got hold of the “Pilgrim’s Progress,” and it has evidently produced a -considerable effect upon her feelings. She has read several of the old -English devotional books and likes to converse upon the subject of -religion. It is strange that my first and most intimate acquaintance -with a Russian Princess should have been with one conversant with the -writings of such men as John Bunyan and Isaac Watts. I doubt whether -there is another like her in this respect throughout the Empire. She is -a member of the Greek Church and attached to it; but informs me that she -often goes to hear a Mr. Neal preach, who is, I believe, a kind of -English Methodist. Her religion, and I sincerely believe she possesses -it, does not prevent her from being very gay and entering into the -fashionable amusements of her class. There is no estimating the good -which an able and pious man may be instrumental in performing, not only -in his own generation, but long after he has been gathered to his -fathers. - -The weather is now about as cold here as it is in Pennsylvania towards -the close of November. We have already had a slight fall of snow and -several severe frosts. In going out to dinner in the country on the last -day of September, I observed a very large oats field in shock. Very -little of it had been taken in. You may judge of the nature of the -climate from this circumstance, though this season has been remarkably -cold and damp. I can now readily believe, what I have often heard since -my arrival, that I should suffer less from cold in this country than in -my own. They regulate the heat of the houses by a thermometer; and their -stoves are so admirably contrived that they are large and beautiful -ornaments, and consume but very little wood compared with those of our -own country. My health still continues to be good, thank God! - -Give my kindest love to my mother—how often do I now think of her with -gratitude and affection! to Jane, Maria, and Harriet, and to poor -George, if he be still living. Remember me to Mr. Lane, affectionately, -and to all the family. - -I shall send this letter enclosed to Mr. Lane, with directions that they -may read it if you should not be in Mercersburg. Remember me to Uncle -John, Alexander and his lady, Mr. Reynolds and his lady, and to Mrs. -Martin and Molly Talbot, and believe me to be ever - - Your faithful and affectionate brother, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO MRS. SLAYMAKER.] - - ST. PETERSBURG, October 31, 1832. - -DEAR MADAM:— - -I received your kind and agreeable letter of the 20th August last on the -8th instant. I scarcely know anything the perusal of which could have -afforded me more pleasure. I left no friend in my native land for whose -interest and welfare I have a greater solicitude than for your own. How -could it be otherwise? Your conduct since the lamented death of your -husband, whose memory I shall ever cherish, has been a model of -propriety. The severest critic could not find fault with any part of it, -unless it be that you have too much secluded yourself from society, of -which you are so well calculated to be an agreeable and instructive -member. I have never heretofore expressed these sentiments to you -because you might have considered them the language of flattery. As they -now proceed from “a stranger in a strange land,” I cannot believe you -will doubt their sincerity. - -I fear I cannot with truth defend the chastity of the Empress Catharine. -She was a disciple of the school of the French philosophers, and was -therefore wholly destitute of religion—the surest safeguard of female -virtue. Her natural disposition was, however, good, and where her -ambition and her pleasures were not concerned she was an amiable and -kind-hearted woman. The Princess Dalgorouski, one of my most intimate -friends in this city (if I ought to use the term upon so short an -acquaintance), is the granddaughter of the youngest brother of the -Orloffs. She has several times amused me with anecdotes which she had -heard from her grandfather, all tending to prove the goodness of -Catharine’s heart. Among other things, it was not at all uncommon for -her to rise in the morning and light her own fire, rather than disturb -the slumbers of any of her attendants. She took great delight not only -in educating her own grandchildren, but others of the same age about the -court. Her son Paul, however, was always her aversion. When he succeeded -to the throne he acted like a madman, and I have often had to laugh at -the pranks of his tyranny. For example, he issued an edict commanding -all persons, whether male or female, either in the summer or the winter, -upon his approach to alight from their carriages and stand in the street -uncovered before him as he passed. Of course the latter part of the rule -applied to foot passengers. An English merchant, still living in this -city, attempted upon one occasion to make his escape as the Emperor -approached, but he was observed by the keen eye of Paul, and was -immediately sent for to the palace. His defence was that he was -near-sighted; and the Emperor immediately presented him with a pair of -spectacles, and commanded him never to be seen in public without having -them upon his nose. The command was literally obeyed, and the merchant -has ever since worn the spectacles. The anecdote is literally true. - -The Emperor Alexander was a mild and amiable man; but his example, until -near the close of his life, was not calculated to restrain the -dissoluteness of manners which prevailed in the days of Catharine. -Circumstances, too tedious to mention in the limits of a hasty letter, -made him at last esteem his wife, the Empress Elizabeth, as she -deserved. In the commencement of his reign, he was a libertine, but he -died a fanatic. It is delightful to hear of the familiar intercourse -which he held with his subjects. He visited many families in this city -as a private gentleman whom etiquette prevented from appearing at court; -and upon such occasions he was as free and familiar, even with the -children, as though he had been of an equal rank. He died disgusted with -his high station, and exclaimed to Doctor Wyley, his physician, who was -remonstrating with him for not using his prescriptions, “I am sick of -this world, why should I desire to live?” Such is the end of human -greatness. - -The present emperor is, I think, the finest looking man, take him -altogether, I have ever beheld; besides he is a prince of great energy -and ability. However we may detest his conduct towards the Poles, which -has no doubt been exaggerated in the English and French papers, his -moral conduct, as well as that of the empress, in all their domestic -relations is without a blemish. Their example in this respect has -already had a happy influence on the nobility of this country. On -Saturday last I attended a Te Deum at court, celebrated on the occasion -of the birth of a young grand duke; and the gaieties of the season are -expected to commence as soon as the empress shall recover from her -accouchement. She is remarkably fond of dancing, in which she excels. - -My time begins to pass much more pleasantly, or to speak with greater -accuracy, less unpleasantly than it did at first. To be an American -minister is but a slender passport to the kind attentions of the Russian -nobility. They know but little of our country, and probably desire to -know still less, as they are afraid of the contamination of liberty. I -have, therefore, had to make my own way in their society with but little -adventitious aid, and I confess I am sometimes astonished at my own -success. Among the ladies, who, in every portion of the world, are the -best part of society, I have many agreeable acquaintances. A greater -number of them speak the English language than of the gentlemen. -Besides, since my arrival here, I have learned to read and write the -French, and now begin to speak it in cases of necessity. - -Besides the nobility there is an agreeable and respectable society here -of wealthy English and German merchants, among whom I have spent many -pleasant hours. Although they are not received at court, many members of -the Diplomatic Corps eat their good dinners, and treat them as they -ought to be treated, with kindness and civility. I hope to visit Moscow -before my return to the United States, and that, too, under favorable -circumstances. - -I sincerely rejoiced to hear of the good fortune of our friends of the -Wheatlands. Lydia is a good little girl and deserves to be happy. I was -pleased with the anecdotes you gave me in relation to the match, and the -joy which my good friend Grace displayed upon the occasion. My worst -wish towards them is that they may derive all the happiness from it -which they anticipate. They are an excellent family, with whom I could -wish you to be more intimate. I would be better pleased with them, for -their own sakes, if they were less extravagant; “but take them for all -and all,” I feel the warmest interest in their welfare. I regret to -learn that Aunt Anne, in a state of depressed health and spirits, has -felt herself under the necessity of leaving her comfortable home in -Lancaster, to take charge of her son Henry’s family at the iron works. -It is just such conduct, however, as I should have expected from that -excellent and exemplary woman; she will always sacrifice her own comfort -to a sense of duty, or to the call of humanity. I shall never forget her -kindness towards myself. I beg of you to present her my best love (I -think I may venture to use the expression). Remember me kindly also to -Anny, and to Henry, Stephen and Samuel. - -I have always appreciated the friendship of your mother as it deserved, -and have felt proud of her confidence. I trust that your hopes may be -realized, and that it may please Providence yet to permit me to enjoy -many happy hours in her society. She possesses an admirable faculty of -saying much in few words, and there is a point in her character which -gives a peculiar force to her expressions. I know her to be an excellent -mother and an excellent friend, and I warmly reciprocate her kind -feelings. Say to her that I ardently wish her many pleasant days, and -that the circumstances which have heretofore occurred to vex her peace -may not prevent her from enjoying an old age of comfort and happiness. -Remember me also in kindness to all your sisters. - -But in what terms shall I speak of Mrs. H.? None of my friends, except -yourself, have mentioned her name in their letters, and I need scarcely -add that I did not even indulge the hope of receiving one from herself. -This I can say of her, and I now speak from actual knowledge, that her -manners and her talents would grace the most powerful and splendid court -in Europe. I fear, however, that such a treasure is not destined to -bless my pilgrimage. - -I altogether approve your conduct in taking the Judge’s daughter into -your family. He is a most excellent man, and will know how to appreciate -your kindness. I regret to say I have received no letter from him since -I left the United States. When you see him, please to present him my -kindest remembrance. I heartily rejoice that you did not remove to -Columbia or Marietta. - -From my last information from the United States I have reason to hope -that the good city of Lancaster has escaped the cholera. We have had -some of it here during the summer, but not so much as to produce any -serious alarm. I believe it has almost, if not altogether, disappeared. -Mr. Clay, my Secretary of Legation, has been very anxious to visit home -during the approaching winter, and I have given him leave to go by the -last steamboat for the season, which will leave this to-morrow, Mr. -Barry having agreed to officiate in his stead during his absence. He -will be the bearer of despatches, and intends to visit Lancaster. I hope -you will favor me with a long letter by him, and give me all the little -news of the town; for you have often said I was a great gossip. I shall -keep this letter open until I can ascertain whether I shall have time to -write to Mr. Reynolds, so that if not I may add a postscript intended -for him. The truth is that at present I am very much occupied. A tyro in -diplomacy, I am compelled to encounter the most adroit and skilful -politicians in the world, with no other weapons except a little -practical common sense, knowledge and downright honesty. Should I fail, -and I by no means despair of success, I wish to convince my government -that I have done my duty. It is probable that Mr. Clay will take no -private letters from me to the United States, except for my mother and -yourself. I need scarcely add that I have not time to write this over, -and give it such a polish as an answer to your letter deserves. When you -write, which I hope will be often, please to say nothing of Russia in -your letters but what may be favorable, as the post office here is not -too secure. This caution, however, does not apply to that one with which -I hope you will gratify me by Mr. Clay. Please to remember me kindly to -the whole family at the Wheatlands, to Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds and Miss -Lydia and Dr. Semple—to my old friend Miss Mary Carpenter, and to all -others bearing that character whom you may meet. - -Wishing you Heaven’s best blessing, I remain, - - Ever your faithful and devoted friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - -P. S. Please to remember me to Mr. Amos Slaymaker and Henry and his -wife. I hope Mr. Dickenson may, ere this reaches you, be restored to his -flock, and have a son and heir to bless his marriage bed. - -I shall not have time to write to Mr. Reynolds. Please to deliver him -the enclosed, and tell him that I have no journal later than the 10th -August, although my other papers have arrived up till the middle of -September. You may also say to him, _but to him alone_ and caution him -not to repeat it, that the prospects of success in my mission, after -many difficulties, now begin to appear bright. I have received no letter -from him lately. Mr. Clay will not leave this for a fortnight yet, and I -shall send this letter by another opportunity to London. - -As the reader has already learned, Mr. Buchanan had two very promising -younger brothers, one of whom died five years before he went abroad, and -the other was living and in apparently good health when he left the -country. The elder of these two, William Speer Buchanan, died at -Chambersburg in his 22d year, on the nineteenth of December, 1827, a few -months after his admission to the bar. He had graduated at Princeton in -1822, and studied his profession at Chambersburg and at the law school -in Litchfield, Connecticut. His father died while he was still at -Princeton: and a letter from his mother to his brother James, written in -1821, which lies before me, gives indications of his early -character.[31] - -William Buchanan did not, like his next youngest brother, live to show -what he might have become. This other, and perhaps more brilliant member -of the family, George W. Buchanan, graduated at Dickinson college in -Carlisle, in 1826, at the age of eighteen, with the highest honors of -his class. Being nearly twenty years younger than James, the latter, -after the death of their father, took a parental interest in promoting -his prospects, and guiding his professional education, he studied law in -Chambersburg and Pittsburgh, and being admitted to the bar in Pittsburgh -in 1828, he began to practise there. In the autumn of 1830, as the -reader has seen, he was, doubtless on his brother’s request, appointed -by President Jackson United States District Attorney for the Western -District of Pennsylvania. Probably no man ever received a similar -appointment at so early an age; he was only two and twenty; but his -letters, some of which have been quoted, show great maturity of -character; and as his application for the appointment must have been -supported by the influence of other persons as well as by that of his -brother, it is safe to assume that the office was intrusted to fit -hands. He was already acquiring a lucrative private practice, when, in -the summer of 1832, his health began to fail. He died in November of -that year, and the following letter of Mr. Buchanan to his brother -Edward relates to the sad termination of his illness: - - ST. PETERSBURG, Jan. 9th, N. S. 1832. - -MY DEAR BROTHER:— - -I have received your three letters of the 10th and 26th September and of -the 12th November: the first on the 21st October, the second not till -the 2d instant, and the last on the 28th December. You will thus -perceive that the one announcing the death of poor George had a very -long passage, having got out of the usual line and lain at Paris a -considerable time. I had heard of this melancholy event long before its -arrival. How consoling it is to reflect that he had made his peace with -Heaven before he departed from earth. All men desire to die the death of -the righteous; but a large portion of the human race are unwilling to -lead their life. I can say sincerely for myself that I desire to be a -Christian, and I think I could withdraw from the vanities and follies of -the world without suffering many pangs. I have thought much upon the -subject since my arrival in this strange land, and sometimes almost -persuade myself that I am a Christian; but I am often haunted by the -spirit of scepticism and doubt. My true feeling upon many occasions is: -“Lord, I would believe; help Thou mine unbelief.” Yet I am far from -being an unbeliever. - -Ere this reaches you, you will probably have heard of the conclusion of -the commercial treaty, which was the principal object of my mission. My -success under all the circumstances seems to have been almost -providential. I have had many difficulties to contend with and much -serious opposition to encounter; but through the blessing of Providence -I have been made the instrument of accomplishing a work in which all my -predecessors had failed. I trust it will receive the approbation and -promote the interests of my country. - -I entertain some faint hopes that I may be permitted to leave St. -Petersburg by the last steamboat of the next season; though it is -probable I shall be obliged to remain another winter. Nothing, however, -shall detain me longer than two years from the time of my arrival, -except an urgent sense of public duty or the request of General Jackson, -neither of which I anticipate. My anxiety to return home is increased by -the present state of health of mother and Jane. It is not in any degree -occasioned by want of kindness on the part of the people here. On the -contrary, I am everywhere received in the most polite and friendly -manner, and have good reason to believe I am rather a favorite, even -with the emperor and empress themselves. - -I shall undertake to advise you strongly not to remain in Allegheny -Town. A letter which I have received from Dr. Yates confirms me in this -opinion. I am glad to find this seems to be your own determination. -There are but two brothers of us and you ought to use every precaution -to preserve your health consistent with your duty...... - -My health is good, thank God, and I trust it may so continue with His -blessing until we shall all once more meet again. With much love to -mother and the rest of the family, I remain - - Your affectionate brother, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - ------ - -Footnote 26: - - Colonel Benton, writing to Mr. Randolph on the 26th of May, said: - “Your nomination came up this morning, and was acted upon with great - promptness. Tyler called it, but before it was called it was - understood that the opposition would support it unanimously. This they - did with some degree of _empressement_. Several voices from their side - called for the question as soon as Tyler sat down, among them - Louisiana Johnston, and Webster, were most audible. There were no yeas - and nays, and nothing said by any person but Tyler, and only a few - words by him, and those of course complimentary; the opposition - evidently wishing to be observed as supporting it. Everybody is asking - me whether you will accept. I tell them what surprises many, but not - those who know you, that not a word between you and me had ever passed - on such a subject.” - -Footnote 27: - - In this debate, it was charged that the President’s Message was - written by Mr. Van Buren, the Secretary of State, and that General - Jackson was incapable of writing his official papers. It is very - probably true that he did not write some of them. His Proclamation - against the Nullifiers is generally assumed to have been written by - Edward Livingston. But that General Jackson was capable of writing - well, there can be no doubt. I remember, however, that in my youth, - during his Presidency, it was generally believed in New England among - his political opponents that he was an entirely illiterate man, who - could not write an English sentence grammatically, or spell correctly. - This belief was too much encouraged by persons who knew better; and it - was not until many years afterwards that I learned how unfounded it - was. There now lie before me autograph letters of General Jackson, - written wholly with his own hand, and written and punctuated with - entire correctness, and with no small power of expression. Some of - them have been already quoted. These have been, and others will be, - printed without the slightest correction. The handwriting is sometimes - rather better, for example, than Mr. Webster’s. There is not a single - erasure in any one of the letters, and but one very trifling - interlineation. The spelling is perfectly correct through-out. General - Jackson wrote better English than Washington: and as to King George - III, the General was an Addison, in comparison with his majesty. - - When General Jackson visited New England as President, in the summer - of 1833, the Degree of LL.D. was conferred upon him by Harvard - College. This was much ridiculed at the time, in that neighborhood, on - account of his supposed illiteracy. - -Footnote 28: - - Mr. Livingston became Secretary of State in May, 1831, in the place of - Mr. Van Buren, who resigned in order to be made Minister to England, a - post to which he was nominated by the President, but he was not - confirmed by the Senate. - -Footnote 29: - - Mr. afterwards Sir William Brown, an eminent banker of extensive - American connections. - -Footnote 30: - - As Vice-President. - -Footnote 31: - - [MRS. BUCHANAN TO HER SON JAMES.] - - July 3d, 1821. - - MY DEAR JAMES:— ... A letter from William came to hand on the 11th of - June, in which he expressed considerable anxiety to return home, that - he might once again see his father and receive his last benediction; - but upon receiving the melancholy information of his death, his desire - of coming home is subsided. I am highly gratified by the reception - from him of a letter of the 18th, in which is exhibited a resignation - to and acquiescence in the will of Providence, together with - appropriate sentiments on that melancholy occasion, far beyond his - years. For this I bless the Giver of every good and perfect gift. - Hoping you may be ever the care of an indulgent Providence, and all - your conduct regulated by His unerring wisdom, I subscribe myself your - affectionate - - MOTHER. - ------ - - - - - CHAPTER VIII. - 1832–1833. - -NEGOTIATION OF TREATIES—COUNT NESSELRODE—HIS CHARACTERISTIC MANAGEMENT - OF OPPOSING COLLEAGUES—THE EMPEROR NICHOLAS—HIS SUDDEN ANNOUNCEMENT - OF HIS CONSENT TO A COMMERCIAL TREATY—WHY NO TREATY CONCERNING - MARITIME RIGHTS WAS MADE—RUSSIAN COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE AMERICAN - PRESS—BARON SACKEN’S IMPRUDENT NOTE—BUCHANAN SKILFULLY EXONERATES - HIS GOVERNMENT—SENSITIVENESS OF THE EMPEROR ON THE SUBJECT OF - POLAND. - - -The serious business of negotiation began soon after Mr. Buchanan’s -arrival in St. Petersburg. He was charged with the duty of proposing a -commercial treaty with Russia, and also a treaty respecting maritime -rights. It would be impossible to attempt to carry my readers through -the maze of notes, protocols, and despatches which resulted in the -successful accomplishment of the main object of this mission. A brief -account of the principal persons concerned in the negotiation, and a -narrative of its general course, together with a few of its most -striking incidents, will perhaps be interesting. - -At the head of the Russian chancery at this time was Count Nesselrode, -the great minister, who, in 1814, as the plenipotentiary of the Emperor -Alexander, signed the treaty between the Allied Powers and Napoleon, -which wrested from the latter the empire of France and the kingdom of -Italy, and confined his dominion to the island of Elba. Nesselrode, too, -in the same capacity, along with Lord Castelreagh and Prince Talleyrand, -concluded the second treaty of Paris between the Allied Powers and -France, after the final overthrow of Napoleon at Waterloo, the treaty -which restored the Bourbons to their throne. This distinguished person -was the son of a nobleman of German descent, who had been in the service -of the Empress Catharine II., and therefore, as well on account of the -traditions of his house, as of his remarkable abilities and erudition, -he must have been an interesting person to meet. He was, with all his -practical astuteness, a man of moderate and rational views. He appears -to have taken kindly to Mr. Buchanan from the first; but he was not -predisposed to a commercial treaty with the United States, and, indeed, -he had not bestowed much attention upon the subject. It had not been his -habit, or the habit of any of the Russian statesmen, during the long -wars in which Russia had been engaged prior to the year 1815, to look -much beyond the confines of Europe and those portions of the East which -were involved in the European system. Still, however, Count Nesselrode -was open to conviction upon the importance of a commercial treaty with -the United States; and it will appear in the sequel that the treaty was -at length carried in the cabinet, against strenuous opposition, by his -very dexterous management, seconded by Mr. Buchanan’s skilful course and -ample knowledge of the subject. - -Baron Krudener, who was at this time the Russian Minister at Washington, -but who was at home on leave of absence when Mr. Buchanan came to St. -Petersburg, was opposed to all commercial treaties. So was Count -Cancrene, the minister of finance. He was an embodiment of the old -traditionary policy of Russia, which did not favor close or special -commercial alliances. From the time of the Empress Catharine, the -relations between Russia and this country had always been friendly; but -there had been no treaties concluded between the two countries, since -the Government of this Union had taken its present form, down to the -year 1824. The convention negotiated in that year by Mr. Middleton, and -ratified in 1825, was quite inadequate to reach the various interests of -trade that had since grown up, and was still less adapted to promote an -increase of the commerce between Russia and the United States. To make a -treaty which would answer these great purposes; establish the principle -that would entitle either party to require an equal participation in the -favors extended to other nations; provide for the residence and -functions of consuls and vice-consuls; regulate the rates of duties to -be levied oil the merchandise of each country by the other, so far as to -prevent undue discrimination in favor of the products of other -countries; and fix the succession of the personal estates of citizens or -subjects of either country dying in the territories of the other; all -this constituted a task to be committed on our side to able hands, -considering the obstacles that had to be removed. Mr. Buchanan was at -the age of thirty-eight, when he undertook this labor. Although he was -without official experience in diplomacy, I think it evident that he had -been a student of the diplomatic history of his own country and of -public law to a considerable extent; and what he did not know of the -trade between Russia and the United States before he left home, he made -himself master of soon after he arrived at St. Petersburg. He spoke of -himself in a letter quoted in the last chapter, as a tyro in diplomacy, -with no weapons but a little practical common sense, knowledge, and -downright honesty, with which to encounter the most adroit and skilful -politicians in the world. It will be seen that he found the encounter a -hard one. But his manners were conciliatory; his tact was never at -fault, so far as I can discover; and it is evident that he was a -favorite in all the circles of Russian society into which he entered. He -found that his weapons, good sense, knowledge of his subject, and a -certain honest tenacity of purpose, were sufficient for all the demands -of his position. When he first reached St. Petersburg, his knowledge of -the French language was quite imperfect, but he soon acquired sufficient -facility in speaking it for the ordinary purposes of conversation. Count -Nesselrode did not speak English well, but he could converse in that -language, although he did not like to trust himself to it entirely. Mr. -Buchanan’s French was perhaps rather better than the count’s English. -They do not seem in their intercourse to have used an interpreter, but -in one or the other language they got on together very well. - -After Mr. Buchanan’s arrival and the necessary formalities had been gone -through according to the rigid etiquette of the Russian court, he wrote -privately to General Jackson on the 22d of June (1832) in regard to the -prospects of his mission, as follows: - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO GENERAL JACKSON.] - - ST. PETERSBURG, June 22, 1832. - - . . . . . . . . . . - -I am not without hope of succeeding in the negotiation, though I can say -nothing upon the subject with the least degree of certainty. I entertain -this hope chiefly because I am now fully convinced it is their interest -to enter into a treaty of commerce with us. In a casual conversation the -other day with Baron Krudener I explained my views of the great -advantages Russia derived from our commerce with St. Petersburg, and how -much, in my opinion, the agriculture and the general prosperity of the -colonies on the Black Sea would be promoted by encouraging American -navigation in that quarter. Yesterday I had another conversation with -the baron from which it was evident he had been conversing with Count -Nesselrode upon the subject; and the impression which I have received -from him is rather favorable. Still it is of a character so vague that I -place but little reliance upon it. I shall see Count Nesselrode at one -o’clock to-day, and will keep this letter open until after our -interview. - -3.30. I have just returned from Count Nesselrode’s, and from our -interview I entertain a hope, I may say a good hope, that I shall be -able to conclude both treaties with this government. I am sorry I shall -not have time to prepare a despatch for Mr. Livingston to be sent by -Captain Ramsay. He shall hear from me, however, by the first _safe -opportunity_. - -[There is one subject to which I desire briefly to direct your -attention. I should write to the department about it, but my views are -not yet sufficiently distinct to place them there upon record, and -besides there is not now time. In case a treaty should be made with this -government on the subject of maritime rights, its provisions ought to be -framed with great care, because it will probably be a model for similar -treaties with other nations. In looking over the project in my -possession, I find one provision which it strikes me the cabinet ought -to re-examine. It is the proviso to the first article. This proviso was -not introduced into our earlier treaties. It first found a place in that -with Spain and has since been copied into our treaties with Colombia, -Central America and Brazil. - -Why should this limitation exist? I shall allude to my views by -presenting a supposed case, for I have not time to do more. - -Suppose Great Britain, which does not recognize the principle that “free -ships make free goods,” and Russia to be engaged in war after the -treaty, the United States being neutral. - -1. Would it not be greatly for our interest (more particularly as from -our character we shall generally be a neutral nation) if our ships could -carry the goods of Englishmen to Russia and all over the world, without -these goods being subjected to capture by the armed vessels of Russia? - -2. Would not great embarrassments arise if Russian vessels of war, after -ascertaining that a vessel belonged to a citizen of the United States, -which is all they could do under the general principle, should then -under the proviso be permitted to inquire into the ownership of the -cargo, and if they suspected it belonged in whole or in part to English -subjects, to seize and take it before a prize court? - -3. This proviso could only have been introduced to force England into -the adoption of the rule that “the flag covers the cargo;” but how can -it produce that effect? It will render the property of an Englishman as -insecure on board an American as a British vessel; it being equally -liable to seizure in either. But let the rule be general, let our flag -protect the cargo, no matter who may be the owner, and then English -merchants will have the strongest inducements to employ our navigation. - -4. Would not the promise make the treaty itself a felo de se, whenever -Russia shall be at war with a nation which does not recognize the -general rule? - -5. If England should at any time be neutral and we at war, the general -rule adopted between us and Russia will not prevent us from capturing -our enemies’ goods on board British vessels. - -6. These suggestions become of much more importance when we consider -that we may have similar treaties with many nations. - -These crude remarks are merely intended to direct your attention to the -subject. I consider it very important and should like to hear from the -department in relation to it as soon as possible. We shall first take up -the treaty of commerce, I presume; indeed Count Nesselrode has asked for -my views in writing on that subject. - -It might be of consequence to me to have a copy of our treaty with -Turkey.] - -In haste, I am, with the greatest respect, - - Your friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - -P. S. Please remember me to the members of your cabinet and also your -family. - -2d P. S. Captain Ramsay, for whom I had obtained a courier’s passport, -will not go to-day; but I have fortunately just heard of a vessel about -sailing for Boston, by which I send this. - -At a little later period, Mr. Buchanan formally submitted to Count -Nesselrode the propositions which he had been instructed to make as the -basis of a commercial treaty, and those which related to the subject of -maritime rights, or the rights of neutrals during war. Nothing definite -was arrived at on either topic until the 8th-10th of October. On that -day, Mr. Buchanan received a note from Count Nesselrode, requesting him -to call at the Foreign Office on the succeeding Monday. What followed -was certainly a most remarkable occurrence. The count began the -conversation by asking whether the answer which he was about to make to -the American propositions would be in time to reach Washington before -the next meeting of Congress. Mr. Buchanan replied that it would not, -but said that it might reach Washington within a fortnight after that -period. The count then asked if the answer could be sent immediately. -Mr. Buchanan replied that if, as he hoped, the answer should be -favorable, he would take measures to send it at once. The count then -stated reasons, which had led the emperor to decline the American -proposition for concluding a treaty of commerce and navigation between -the two countries, but made no allusion to the proposed treaty -concerning maritime rights. Here there was a dilemma, for which Mr. -Buchanan was not prepared by anything that had preceded; for although he -was well aware of the interior opposition to a commercial treaty in the -Russian cabinet, and was not very sanguine of success, he had placed his -hopes on Count Nesselrode’s ability and disposition to overcome that -opposition. That the emperor had come to an unfavorable decision, and -that Count Nesselrode had been directed to communicate it, was rather an -unexpected event. Nesselrode, however, contrived to make Mr. Buchanan -understand that the emperor had yielded in this matter to the opinions -of Count Cancrene, the minister of finance, and of M. de Blondorff, the -minister of the interior, and that the result had not been in accordance -with his, Nesselrode’s, judgment. Such an occurrence could hardly have -taken place in an English cabinet, still less would it have been -communicated to a foreign minister; but in Russia it was perhaps not -uncommon for the prime minister to be overruled by his colleagues. But -Count Nesselrode knew a way to get over all such difficulties; and he -proceeded in a very characteristic manner to accomplish what he -intended. He went over anew the whole ground, encouraging Mr. Buchanan -to develop again the reasons which made a commercial treaty desirable -for both countries and finally requested him to put them in the shape of -a formal note. He then assumed a very confidential tone, which may be -best described by Mr. Buchanan’s own account, given in his despatch of -October 19–21, to the secretary of state. - -“Towards the conclusion of the interview he laid aside altogether, or at -least appeared to do so, the wary diplomatist, and his manners became -frank and candid. He made the request and repeated it, that I should -submit a new proposition for the conclusion of a commercial treaty, and -accompany it by an abstract of the explanations which I had just made, -impressing it upon me to advert especially to the trade with the Black -Sea, and the moral influence, to use his own expression, which such a -treaty might have on the people of the United States. I told him I -should do so with pleasure. He then requested me to send it as soon as I -conveniently could and he would immediately submit it to the emperor, -and give me an answer before the departure of the last steamboat, which -was to leave St. Petersburg on Wednesday, the 19–21 instant. He -afterwards asked me whether I intended to send the note to Washington -which he had delivered to me, by the next steamboat; and from his manner -it was easy to perceive that he wished I would not. I replied that I -should certainly delay sending it until the last steamboat, hoping that -in the meantime I might receive a better one...... - -Some conversation, not necessary to be repeated, was held on other -subjects, and I took my leave much satisfied with the interview and -arguing from it the most happy results, should Count Nesselrode possess -sufficient influence to carry his own wishes into effect, against those -of Count Cancrene.” - -In a short time after Mr. Buchanan’s new communication had been sent to -Count Nesselrode, a further step was taken in what might almost be -called a diplomatic intrigue. Baron de Brunnow, a counsellor of state, -and the confidential friend of Count Nesselrode, called upon Mr. -Buchanan, and informing him that he came by the count’s request, said -that Mr. Buchanan’s views contained in his note were perfectly -satisfactory to the count, and that they were so clearly and distinctly -expressed that they could not be misapprehended, and that the count -would be happy to become the medium of presenting them to the emperor, -and would use his influence to have them adopted. But in order that -nothing might appear which would show that Count Nesselrode had -requested Mr. Buchanan to submit a new proposition for a commercial -treaty, the baron desired Mr. Buchanan to modify the language of his -note, so that it would not appear to be written in compliance with any -wish which the count had expressed. Perceiving the struggle which was -about to ensue in the cabinet between Nesselrode and Cancrene, Mr. -Buchanan at once agreed to change the phraseology of his note. Baron -Brunnow requested that it might be done immediately, as it was Count -Nesselrode’s intention to have the note translated into French on that -day, and to go with it to the emperor on the next morning, so that an -answer might, if possible, be obtained before the departure of the next -steamboat. Baron Brunnow made no secret of Count Cancrene’s opposition -to all commercial treaties, but said that Count Nesselrode saw no -objection to such a one as Mr. Buchanan had proposed; that he had -repeated Mr. Buchanan’s observation that “statesmen often found it -expedient to yield even to honest prejudices for the purpose of -promoting the public good,” and had said that he had no doubt such a -treaty would produce a beneficial effect on the American trade with the -Black Sea. - -This mode of facilitating Count Nesselrode’s movements being arranged, -the conversation between Mr. Buchanan and Baron Brunnow turned upon the -proposed treaty concerning maritime rights, of which an account will be -given hereafter. Excepting the interchange of formal notes relating to -the commercial treaty, nothing further occurred until the 31st of -October, when Mr. Buchanan calling at the Foreign Office by appointment, -found Count Nesselrode “in fine spirits and in the most frank and candid -mood.” But he said that it would be impossible to conclude the treaty -before the end of a fortnight. In making the arrangements for sending to -the United States the new notes which had passed, the count expressed -the strongest desire that the British government should not obtain any -knowledge that such a treaty was in contemplation; and for this reason -he offered to send Mr. Buchanan’s despatch for Washington by a Russian -courier, to be delivered to Mr. Vail, the American chargé in London. Mr. -Buchanan preferred another channel of communication with Mr. Vail, and -through that channel his despatch was sent off on the following day. The -attitude in which it left the whole affair of the commercial treaty was -thus summed up by Mr. Buchanan: - -“For several weeks before the receipt of Count Nesselrode’s first note, -I had but little expectation of concluding a commercial treaty. Mr. -Kielchen, lately appointed consul at Boston by this government, informed -me, some time ago, that Count Cancrene had resolved never to consent to -the conclusion of such a treaty with any power whilst he continued in -the ministry, and his influence with the emperor, particularly on -commercial subjects, was universally admitted to be very great. He has -the character of being an obstinate man; and I scarcely allowed myself -to hope, either that he would change, or be defeated in his purpose. I -feel the more happy, therefore, in being able to congratulate you upon -our present favorable prospects.” - -Nothing was heard from Count Nesselrode for nearly a month; but on the -evening of November 21st Mr. Buchanan met him at a party. The count took -Mr. Buchanan aside, and told him that he believed he was now ready for -him, and proposed to send him a project of a treaty of commerce which -should be founded on the provisions of the American treaties with -Prussia, Sweden and Austria. Long interviews and oral discussions of -this project then took place at the Foreign Office between Mr. Buchanan, -Count Nesselrode, Baron Brunnow and Baron Sacken. In these discussions -Mr. Buchanan evinced the most thorough acquaintance with the whole -subject, and gave the Russian statesmen information which was new to -them and greatly surprised them. At length all the details of the treaty -were settled, and by the 17th of December it was prepared for signature -in duplicate, in the French and English languages. Still the treaty was -not yet signed. For the purpose of expediting the matter, Mr. Buchanan -made a suggestion that as the emperor’s fête day, or his saint’s day, -was to be celebrated on the 18th December, N. S., that it should be -signed on that day. Count Nesselrode was pleased with the suggestion, -and said that Mr. Buchanan’s wish should be gratified, if possible. -Baron Sacken doubted if it would be practicable, but the count said it -must be done, and that Mr. Clay, the American Secretary of Legation, -could assist them in making the copies. This occurred on the 13th of -December, N. S. It was not, however, until Mr. Buchanan was in the -presence of the emperor, at his levée on the morning of the 18th, that -he felt finally assured that the treaty would be signed, although Count -Nesselrode had informed him on the 15th that he was authorized to sign -it. What occurred at the emperor’s levée will be best told by Mr. -Buchanan himself: - -On Tuesday morning, the 18th, we went to the emperor’s levée; and on -this occasion a singular occurrence took place in relation to the -treaty. - -The strictest secrecy had been preserved throughout the negotiation. -Indeed I do not believe an individual, except those immediately -concerned, had the least idea that negotiations were even pending. A -rumor of the refusal of this government to make the treaty had -circulated two months ago, and I was then repeatedly informed in -conversation, that it was in vain for any nation to attempt to conclude -a treaty of commerce with the Russian government, whilst Count Cancrene -continued to be minister of finance. Count Nesselrode had on one -occasion intimated a desire that the British government should not -obtain a knowledge that negotiations were proceeding, and this was an -additional reason on our part for observing the greatest caution. - -It ought to be remembered, however, that this intimation was given -before information had reached St. Petersburg of the conclusion of the -late treaty between France and England in relation to the Belgian -question. The diplomatic corps, according to the etiquette, were -arranged in a line to receive the emperor and empress; and Mr. Bligh, -the English minister, occupied the station immediately below myself. You -may judge of my astonishment when the emperor, accosting me in French, -in a tone of voice which could be heard by all around, said, “I signed -the order yesterday that the treaty should be executed according to your -wishes;” and then immediately turning to Mr. Bligh asked him to become -the interpreter of this information. He (Mr. Bligh) is a most amiable -man, and his astonishment and embarrassment were so striking that I felt -for him most sincerely. This incident has already given rise to -considerable speculation among the knowing ones of St. Petersburg; -probably much more than it deserves. - -I ought to remark that when I was presented to the emperor, I understood -but little, I might almost say no, French; and there was then an -interpreter present. Supposing this still to be the case, the emperor -must have thought that an interpreter was necessary, and he was correct -to a certain extent, for I have not yet had sufficient practice to -attempt to speak French in the presence of the whole court. I trust this -may not long be the case; but I still more ardently hope I may not very -long continue in a situation where it will be necessary to speak that -language. - -There can be no doubt but that all which occurred was designed on the -part of the emperor; and what must have rendered it still more -embarrassing to Mr. Bligh was, that one object of Lord Durham’s mission -is said to have been the conclusion of a commercial treaty with Russia. - -After the emperor had retired, Mr. Bligh, in manifest confusion, told me -he feared he had been a very bad interpreter, and asked me what kind of -a treaty we had been concluding with Russia, to which I replied it was a -treaty of commerce. - -Count Nesselrode was not present at the moment, and from his manner when -I informed him of the incident, I believe he had not previously received -any intimation of the emperor’s intention to make such a disclosure. - -The count and myself afterwards proceeded from the palace to the Foreign -Office and there signed the treaty. The only persons present were Baron -Brunnow and Baron Sacken. On this occasion but little worthy of -repetition occurred. They all exhibited the greatest cordiality and good -will, and the count emphatically declared that he believed we had that -day completed a work which would result in benefits to both nations. - -On taking my leave, I expressed no more than I felt, in thanking him for -his kind and candid conduct throughout the whole negotiation, and he -paid me some compliments in return...... - -Thus, sir, you have in my different despatches a faithful history of the -whole progress of the negotiation up to its termination. Independently -of the positive advantages secured to our commerce by the treaty, and of -the stipulation prohibiting Russia from granting favors to any other -nation at our expense, there is another consideration which deserves -attention. I think I cannot be mistaken in asserting that if the -feelings of the Russians towards our country in the days of the Emperor -Alexander were of a kindly character, which I have no reason to doubt, -they have undergone some change since the accession of his present -majesty. In a future despatch I may probably state my reasons for this -impression. The very fact, however, of concluding the present treaty and -thus distinguishing us from other commercial nations, connected with the -time and manner in which his majesty thought proper to announce it, will -have a powerful influence favorable to our country among the members of -a court where every look and every word of the emperor is noted and -observed almost as if he were a Divinity. I may say that I have already -experienced a change: even Count Cancrene, in a conversation with Baron -Steiglitz of this city, has expressed his assent to the treaty, -observing at the same time that the United States formed an exception to -his general principles on this subject. He added a compliment to myself -of such a character as I know I do not deserve, and therefore I shall -not repeat.[32] - -In announcing to the Secretary of State (on the 20th of December, 1832, -N. S.) the conclusion of the commercial treaty, Mr. Buchanan said: - -“I have now the pleasure of transmitting to you a treaty of commerce and -navigation, which was signed on Tuesday last, the 18th instant, between -the United States and Russia, by Count Nesselrode and myself. I -congratulate the President, that after many fruitless attempts have been -made by our Government to conclude such a treaty, it has at last been -accomplished. - -“Like yourself, I confess, I did not entertain sanguine hopes of success -when I left Washington. The despatch of Mr. Randolph upon this subject -was indeed very discouraging. The difficulties in prospect, however, -served only to inspire me with a stronger resolution to accomplish, if -practicable, the wishes of the President. This I trust has been done -without the slightest sacrifice, in my person, of either the dignity or -the honor of the country. Should my conduct throughout this difficult, -and in some respects extraordinary negotiation, receive his approbation -and that of the Senate, I shall be amply compensated for my labors.” - -That Mr. Buchanan was not equally successful in concluding a treaty -concerning maritime rights is a matter that admits of easy explanation. -In the communication which was made to him by Count Nesselrode in -October (1832), there was conveyed a respectful refusal to make the -commercial treaty. At the interview which took place afterward between -Baron Brunnow and Mr. Buchanan, at the house of the latter, after they -had arranged for re-opening the negotiation concerning a commercial -treaty, there was a conversation on the other subject, which was thus -reported by Mr. Buchanan to the Secretary of State: - -After our conversation ended on this subject,—I referred to that portion -of the note of Count Nesselrode which declined our offer to conclude a -treaty on maritime rights, and said that the President would probably -not be prepared for this refusal. I told him that on the 28th August, -1828, N. S., a few months before the election of General Jackson, Baron -Krudener had addressed a communication to the Department of State which -gave a strong assurance that the emperor was willing to conclude such a -treaty. That when General Jackson assumed the reins of Government in the -month of March following, he had found this communication on file, and -that was the principal reason why he had given Mr. Randolph instructions -to conclude a treaty concerning neutral rights. I was therefore -surprised no allusion whatever had been made to this important letter in -the note of Count Nesselrode, and that he had passed it over as though -it had never existed, whilst he referred to the note he had addressed to -Mr. Middleton so long ago as the 1st of February, 1824, for the purpose -of explaining the views of the imperial government at the present -moment. - -I then produced the communication of Baron Krudener to Mr. Brent of the -16–28th of August, 1828, and read it to Baron Brunnow. After he had -perused it himself, he expressed his surprise at its contents, and said -he did not believe a copy of it had been transmitted to the Foreign -Office; that he could say for himself he had never seen it before. He -thought the baron must have gone further than his instructions had -warranted; and that instead of expressing the willingness of the emperor -to _adopt by mutual agreement_, the principles concerning neutral rights -proposed by the United States, he ought merely to have expressed the -_concurrence_ of the emperor in those principles and his desire to -preserve and protect them. He added that these rights were best -maintained by the power of nations, and we had nobly defended them -during our late war with England. I replied, that was very true, and the -United States were becoming more and more powerful every year, and had -less and less occasion to rely upon treaties for the maintenance of -their neutral rights. - -I afterwards remarked that I thought the count, from the tenor of his -note, had probably overlooked one circumstance of importance in -considering this subject, as he had placed the refusal chiefly on the -ground that it would be useless for only two powers to conclude such a -treaty between themselves. That the fact was, the United States already -had treaties of a similar character with several nations, which I -enumerated, and that if Russia had concluded this treaty, in case she -should hereafter unfortunately be engaged in war with any of these -powers, the property of her subjects would be secure from capture by -their ships of war, on board of American vessels. He replied that as to -Prussia, Sweden, and Holland there was little danger of any war between -them and Russia; and that we had no such treaties with the maritime -powers with whom Russia was likely to be engaged in hostilities. - -(Evidently, as I supposed, alluding to England and France.) - -In the course of the conversation, I regretted that I had never seen the -note addressed by Count Nesselrode to Mr. Middleton in February, 1824, -and that there was no copy of it in the archives of the legation here. -He then said he would take pleasure in sending me a copy, and thought he -might assure me with perfect confidence, from the feelings of Count -Nesselrode towards myself, that he would be happy to send me at all -times copies of any other papers I might desire from the Foreign Office. - -He at first proposed to repeat this conversation to Count Nesselrode. I -replied I had no objection. It was not intended by me as an attempt to -renew the negotiation at the present time; but merely to make some -suggestions to him in free conversation. Before he took leave, however, -he said he believed that as his mission to me had been of a special -character, he would report nothing to the count but what had a relation -to the commercial treaty—except that I desired to have a copy of his -note to Mr. Middleton; but that after the other subject was finally -disposed of, he thought I ought to mention these things to Count -Nesselrode myself. I told him I probably might, that what I had said to -him on this subject, had been communicated in a frank and friendly -spirit, and I considered it altogether unofficial. No doubt he repeated -every word. - -What is here related occurred in the autumn of 1832, and the subject of -maritime rights was not again alluded to until the following spring. -Writing to General Jackson a private letter on the 29th of May, 1833, -Mr. Buchanan said: - -I fear I shall not be able to conclude the treaty concerning maritime -rights, though I shall use my best exertions. My late attempt to -introduce the subject was not very successful, as you will have seen -from my last despatch. - -I have now, after much reflection, determined on my plan of operations. -It would not be consistent with the high character of our Government, or -with what I am confident would be your wishes, that I should make -another direct official proposition, without a previous intimation that -it would be well received; and we might thus be subjected to another -direct refusal so soon after the last. It is therefore my intention to -present my views of the subject in the form of an unofficial note, and -to express them with as much clearness and force as I am capable [of]. I -shall not in this note seek a renewal of the negotiation; though I shall -leave it clearly to be inferred that such is my desire. If they should -not move in the business afterwards, it would neither be proper nor -dignified to press them further. - -I am convinced they are endeavoring to manage England at present, and -that this is an unpropitious moment to urge them to adopt principles of -public law which would give offence to that nation. Besides, Russia has -now a large navy, and but a small commercial marine; and it is not for -such a power as she now believes herself to be, to desire to change the -law of nations in such a manner as to abridge her belligerent rights. -The principle “that free ships shall make free goods,” will always be -most popular with nations who possess a large commercial marine and a -small navy, and whose policy is peaceful. But I shall do my best. I hope -this question may be determined by the beginning of August, as I should -then have the opportunity of seeing something more of Europe, and yet -reach the United States about the end of November. By the last accounts, -my mother’s health was decidedly better, so that on that ground I need -not so much hasten my return. - -I have received many letters which give me strong assurances that I -shall be elected to the Senate. I confess, however, that I feel very -doubtful of success. The men in Pennsylvania, who have risen to power by -the popularity of your name, while in heart they are opposed to you, -will do every thing they can to prevent my election. The present -governor is greatly influenced by their counsels, and his patronage is -very great and very powerful. Besides, the Nullifiers and their organ, -the _Telegraph_, will show me no quarter. Thank God! I know how to be -content with a private station, and I shall leave the Legislature to do -just as they please...... - -Our excellent consul here is in very bad health from the severity of the -climate. His physician says that he must travel, and that immediately: -but I entertain some doubts whether he has sufficient strength left for -the purpose. It is said, however, that he was restored once before by a -change of climate, when in an equally weak condition. He purposes to set -off in a few weeks, and Mr. Clay, who will have little else to attend -to, will do his business cheerfully during his absence. I sincerely wish -he could obtain a situation in a milder climate. It would be a most -happy circumstance for the commerce of the United States if all our -consuls were like Mr. G. After sending my note to Count Nesselrode, I -intend to visit Moscow for a few days, as he is to be absent himself. I -beg to present my respects to your family, and to Messrs. Barry, Taney, -McLane and Woodbury. - -The simple truth is, that the Russian government, since the intimation -made by Baron Krudener just before General Jackson became President, had -changed its mind in regard to the subject of maritime rights. The reason -for declining to make the treaty in 1832–33, as explained by Count Pozzo -di Borgo to Mr. Buchanan, in Paris, accords entirely with what Mr. -Buchanan had learned at St. Petersburg.[33] The attitude of the Belgian -question, and the relations of Russia towards England, precluded the -acceptance of the American proposal to establish by treaty between -Russia and the United States the principle that “free ships make free -goods.” - -All of Mr. Buchanan’s official duties at St. Petersburg were not, -however, so entirely pleasant as the negotiation of the commercial -treaty. While this negotiation was in its early stage, Baron Sacken, who -had been left by Baron Krudener as Russian chargé d’affaires at -Washington, made to the Secretary of State a somewhat offensive -communication, complaining of certain articles in _The Globe_, the -official paper of the American Government, concerning the conduct of -Russia towards Poland. The complaint was doubtless made in ignorance of -the fact that although the _Globe_ was the official gazette of our -Government, the President had no control over or responsibility for its -editorial articles, or the articles which it copied from English or -French journals. The freedom of the press in this country was not -understood by Russian officials; and although it does not appear that -Baron Sacken’s act was directed from St. Petersburg, there can be no -doubt that in making the complaint he did what he believed would be -acceptable to his superiors at home. He, however, considerably overshot -the mark, in the tone and manner of his communication to the Department -of State, and it became necessary for the President to direct Mr. -Buchanan to lay the matter before the Russian government. This was done -by a despatch from Mr. Livingston, courteous but firm, pointing out the -impossibility of exercising in this country any governmental constraint -over the press, and making very clear the offensive imputation of -insincerity on the part of the President contained in Baron Sacken’s -note. This occurrence was not known at St. Petersburg, at least it was -not known to Mr. Buchanan, while the negotiation of the commercial -treaty was pending. On the receipt of Mr. Livingston’s despatch, which -was written early in January, 1833, Mr. Buchanan had an interview with -Count Nesselrode on the subject, of which he gave the following account -to the Secretary of State: - - February 26th, 1833. - -On yesterday at 2 o’clock, P. M., I had a conference with the count. I -inquired if he had yet received from Washington the answer of Mr. -Livingston to Baron Sacken’s note of the 14th of October last; to which -he replied in the affirmative. After expressing my regret that anything -unpleasant should have occurred at Washington in the intercourse between -the two governments, whilst everything here had been proceeding so -harmoniously, I observed: - -That Baron Sacken himself, in his note to Mr. Brent, had admitted that -the President, throughout the whole course of his administration, had -constantly expressed a desire to be on friendly terms with Russia. But -the President’s feelings had not been confined to mere official -declarations to the Russian government; they had been expressed, in -strong terms, before the world in each of his annual messages to -Congress, previous to the date of Baron Sacken’s note. Besides they had -been always manifested by his conduct. - -The baron [I said], with a full knowledge of these facts, had addressed -this note to Mr. Brent, which was not only offensive in its general -tone, but more especially so in imputing a want of sincerity to the -President, and in effect charging him with tacitly encouraging the abuse -of the emperor by the American newspapers, whilst he was professing -friendship towards the Russian government. Such a charge was well -calculated to make a strong impression upon General Jackson, a man who, -during his whole life, had been distinguished for sincerity and -frankness. When, after Mr. Clay’s departure, I had perused this note, -with which his excellency had been good enough to furnish me, I was -convinced the President could not pass it over in silence; and I had -since been astonished not to have received, until very recently, any -communication on the subject. - -I had now discovered that the reason of this delay was an anxious desire -on the part of the President to avoid everything unpleasant in the -intercourse between the two countries; and had formed an expectation -that Baron Sacken himself, after reflection, would have rendered it -unnecessary to bring the subject before the imperial government. In this -hope the President had been disappointed. Nearly two months had -transpired before Mr. Livingston answered his note. In the meantime, a -fair opportunity was afforded him to withdraw it, and a verbal -intimation given that this would be more agreeable to the President than -to take the only notice of it which he could take with propriety. Mr. -Livingston had supposed that, under the circumstances, the baron would -have felt it to be his duty to visit Washington, where, at a verbal -conference, the affair might have been satisfactorily adjusted. In this -opinion he found he was mistaken. At length, on the 4th December, he -addressed the baron this answer, which places in a striking light the -most offensive part of his note, the charge of insincerity. Even in it, -however, the President’s feelings of amity for Russia and respect for -the emperor are reiterated. - -After this answer, Mr. Livingston waited nearly another month, confident -that a disavowal of any offensive intention would, at least, have been -made. This not having been done, he has sent me instructions, under date -of the 3d January last, to bring the subject under the notice of the -imperial government; and it is for that purpose I have solicited the -present interview. - -The count expressed his regret that any misunderstanding should have -occurred between Baron Sacken and Mr. Livingston; it was evident the -former never could have intended anything offensive to the President, as -he had taken the precaution of submitting his note of the 14th of -October to Mr. Livingston in New York before it was transmitted to the -Department, who not only made no objection to it at the time, but -informed him it should be answered in a few days. The count then asked -if Mr. Livingston had not communicated this circumstance to me in his -despatches. I replied in the negative, and from my manner intimated some -doubt as to its existence; when he took up the despatch of Baron Sacken -and read to me, in French, a statement of this fact. He said, if Mr. -Livingston had at that time objected to any part of the note, the baron -would have immediately changed its phraseology. I replied that the -President at least had certainly never seen the note previous to its -receipt at the Department; and it appeared to me manifestly to contain -an imputation on his sincerity, and was besides offensive in its general -character. He did not attempt to justify its language, but repeated that -he thought Baron Sacken never could have intended to write anything -offensive to the President. If he had, it would have been done in -violation of his instructions. That the feelings of the emperor as well -as his own were of the most friendly nature towards the Government of -the United States, and that, in particular, both the emperor and himself -entertained the highest respect and esteem for the character of the -President. That neither of them would ever think of sanctioning the -imputation of insincerity or anything that was dishonorable to General -Jackson, and he was very sorry Baron Sacken had written a note the -effect of which was to wound his feelings. - -As the count did not still seem to be altogether satisfied that the note -attributed insincerity to the professions of the President, I then took -it up and pointed out in as clear and striking a manner as I could, the -most offensive passages which it contained. After I had done, he -repeated in substance what he had said before, but without any -qualification whatever, expressing both his own sorrow and that of the -emperor, that Baron Sacken should have written a note calculated to -wound the feelings of General Jackson, or to give him any cause of -offence. He added, that the baron either already had left, or would soon -leave the United States; and he had no doubt, that soon after the -arrival of the treaty and of Baron Krudener at Washington, all matters -would be explained to the satisfaction of the President; by whom, he -trusted, this unpleasant occurrence would be entirely forgotten. - -With this explanation, I expressed myself perfectly satisfied, and -assured him I should have great pleasure in communicating it to the -President. - -He then observed that, judging from the despatch of Baron Sacken, this -unfortunate business seemed to have been a succession of mistakes. That -Mr. Livingston, through Mr. Kremer, had pointed out to the baron the -exceptional parts of his note; but whilst he was engaged in correcting -them, and before sufficient time for this purpose had been afforded, he -had received Mr. Livingston’s note of the 4th of December. - -In the course of the interview, the count read me several detached -paragraphs from Baron Sacken’s despatch, and from their character I -received the impression that he had become alarmed at the consequences -of his own conduct, and was endeavoring to justify it in the best manner -he could. - -We afterwards had some conversation respecting the publications in our -newspapers, in which allusion was made to the explanations I had given -him on this subject in December. He stated distinctly that they were now -fully aware of the difficulties which would attend any attempt to -interfere with the press under our form of Government. - -In obedience to your instructions, I now read to him the greater part of -Despatch No. 5, and explained the nature of the only connection which -our Government has with the official paper. After having done so, I -asked him to consider the consequences of an unsuccessful attempt on the -part of the administration at Washington to control the _Globe_; and -told him that in that event, the editor, by publishing it to the world, -would make both the emperor and the President subjects of abuse -throughout the Union. The press was essentially free in our country. -Even the Congress of the United States had no power to pass any law for -the punishment of a libel on the President. This subject was exclusively -under the jurisdiction of the several States. - -That, it was true, editors were often influenced by the counsel of those -whom they respected, therefore I had communicated his request to General -Jackson, that he would advise the editor of the _Globe_ to desist -hereafter from offensive publications against Russia, but even this -would be a delicate matter to proceed from a person holding the office -of President of the United States. I then informed him that I had been -much pleased, some weeks since, to observe in the St. Petersburg -_Journal_ an official contradiction of some of the acts attributed to -the Russian government of Poland; that I had sent the paper which -contained it to the Department of State, and had no doubt it would be -extensively published in the United States. He expressed great -satisfaction that I had taken the trouble, and said it would be very -agreeable to them to have this contradiction circulated throughout our -country. - -It is scarcely worth repeating that he objected, in a good-natured -manner, to the designation of Baron Sacken’s note in the despatch as “a -formal note,” observing that a formal note always commenced with “the -undersigned,” and not the first person. This was intended to be an -informal note, and that was the reason it had been submitted to Mr. -Livingston before it was transmitted to the Department of State. - -I congratulate you that this unpleasant affair has had such an -auspicious termination. We shall, I think, hear no more complaints from -this quarter, on the subject of publications in the American newspapers, -especially if the editor of the _Globe_ should be a little more -circumspect in his course hereafter. - -In regard to the subject of Polish affairs, the treatment of which by -the _Globe_ was the occasion of Baron Sacken’s imprudent note, it will -be seen hereafter that the emperor was peculiarly sensitive to the -comments of the foreign press. Mr. Buchanan, who had the best -opportunity for observation while he was in St. Petersburg, formed the -opinion that the personal attacks upon the emperor, on account of the -conduct of his government towards the Poles, with which the English, -French, and American journals abounded, were to a certain extent unjust; -that the inveterate national hatreds with which the Russian and Polish -races regarded each other, were at the bottom of most of the -difficulties with which the emperor had to contend; and that the fact -that Russian officers were intrusted with power in Poland over a race -whom they hated and by whom they were hated in turn, inevitably led to -many of the cruelties and oppressions with which the world outside of -Russia resounded, and which were charged upon the emperor personally, as -if he had designed them. Buchanan did not palliate or excuse the conduct -of the Russian government towards the Poles; nor does he seem on any -occasion, when it was proper for him to refer to it, to have allowed any -one to suppose that he defended it. But in writing to his own Government -or to his friends at home, he did not hesitate to say that he thought -many of the causes which produced the oppression that so roused the -indignation of the world, lay deep in the national hatred between the -two races, and were not to be imputed to an arbitrary and cruel temper -in the emperor. - -He looked upon the despotism which he saw with the calm eye of an -observer who could comprehend its character and trace its operations, -without doing injustice to the reigning monarch. He saw a vast nation -entirely incapable of any thing like constitutional liberty, and -governed by the absolute will of one man, to obey whom was at once a -point of religion, loyalty and patriotism. Between the nobility and the -throne, there was no middle class, capable of thinking or acting upon -any political subject; and the nobility, as a rule, were capable and -desirous of no other political training, ideas or aspirations than such -as would fit them for the part of useful servants of an emperor whom -they adored, and of a system which constituted their country the most -peculiar and the least free of any in Europe. The statesmen who were -formed under such a system were, as might naturally be expected, -accomplished in many ways, subtle and often powerful reasoners; and they -were not seldom among the ablest men of the age. When they were made to -understand how completely, as Mr. Buchanan said, they and we were -“political antipodes,” they found no difficulty in yielding to the -necessity of respecting a state of things in America which was so unlike -any thing that they knew at home. At first, Count Nesselrode could not -understand how a government could have an official organ, and yet -disclaim responsibility to a foreign power for what that organ said in -its editorial columns. But when it was explained to him that the -American Government did disclaim that responsibility, and was obliged to -do so by the nature of its political institutions, he did not make it -his business to argue the point, but gracefully accepted the explanation -and put an end to the whole of the misunderstanding. - -It must be confessed, however, that while Mr. Buchanan fully and firmly -carried out his instructions and procured all the admission that his own -Government desired, in regard to Baron Sacken’s note, it was a pretty -fine distinction that his Government had to draw. It was perfectly true -that the _Globe_ was the official gazette of the American Government, -and yet that its editorial columns could not be legally controlled by -the President. Still it might be a question whether an American -administration should have had an official organ, with which it was -connected on such terms that the editor or conductor was just as -independent of its influence or its power, as if he published a -newspaper that was not connected in any way with the Government. Both at -home and abroad, the editorial columns of the _Globe_ were liable to be -regarded as speaking the sentiments of the administration; and when it -became necessary to disclaim that they did so, the explanation, although -made upon undeniable facts, was an awkward one to make. Mr. Buchanan -certainly felt it to be so, for in writing to the Secretary of State, -after he had obtained from Count Nesselrode all the disavowal that was -desired, he said: - -I have time but for few remarks upon this strange interview. - -It serves to show how indispensable it is that our minister to this -country should be kept advised of every proceeding in the United States -which may affect the relations between the two nations. He has indeed a -most difficult part to perform. He must be cautious in the extreme, and -is under the habitual necessity of concealing his real sentiments. It is -utterly impossible for these people to realize the state of affairs in -the United States. We are political antipodes, and hence the great -difficulty of maintaining those friendly relations which are so -important to the interests of our country. I know not when the despatch -was received containing a copy of Baron Sacken’s note to Mr. Brent, or -what influence it might have had upon the negotiation had it reached him -[Nesselrode] at an earlier period. Of this, however, I feel confident, -that, if a copy of this note had been transmitted [to me] immediately -after its receipt, this unpleasant interview might have been avoided -altogether.... - -I would suggest the policy of advising the editor of the _Globe_ to -abstain at least from severe editorial paragraphs respecting the emperor -of Russia. Neither the cause of Poland nor of human liberty could suffer -by his silence in a country where there are so many faithful sentinels, -and I should, _by all means_, advise the publication of a strong -editorial paragraph in the _Globe_, expressing a proper sense of the -good feelings of the emperor of Russia, evinced towards the United -States in making us an exception to his general policy by concluding the -commercial treaty. If this should be done, and more particularly if the -President should, even in the slightest manner, allude to the -circumstance in his inaugural address, it would be very grateful -personally to the feelings of the emperor. - -I have felt it my duty to take measures, though they may be expensive to -the Government, of having the semi-weekly _Globe_ transmitted to me -through the post-office from London. Will you be particular in giving -directions that it shall be regularly forwarded from New York by every -packet. It is true it will be read at the post-office here; but should -it contain anything offensive, I shall know it almost as soon as this -government and before the Russian minister at Washington can have an -opportunity of transmitting any inflammatory commentaries. I assure you, -I feel the delicacy of my position; but knowing your distinguished -abilities and long experience, if I could but only attract your special -regard to this mission, I think, between us, we might, in perfect -consistency with the high and independent character of our own country, -keep his imperial majesty in a state of better feeling towards us than -almost any other nation. We have much to gain by such a course and -nothing to lose. - -I requested Mr. Vail, some time ago, to send me the semi-weekly _Globe_ -by mail from London. Although this may be expensive to the Government, -it cannot be avoided, and it is absolutely necessary that I should -receive it. It would seem, however, that the department has ceased -forwarding them to London. Will you be kind enough to give directions -that they shall be sent, in a separate parcel, by every Liverpool packet -from New York. - ------ - -Footnote 32: - - It should be said here that the whole course of this negotiation shows - that the details of the treaty were entrusted largely to Mr. - Buchanan’s discretion. At that time, indeed, it was impracticable for - an American minister in Europe, and especially at St. Petersburg, to - be guided from day to day, or even from month to month, by the - Secretary of State. The Atlantic had not then been crossed by steam. I - have gone through with the minute discussions which took place between - Mr. Buchanan and the Russian Foreign Office, but have not deemed it - necessary to display them to my readers. They evince on his part a - thorough acquaintance with the whole subject, and a remarkable power - of carrying his points. - -Footnote 33: - - See _post_ an account of Mr. Buchanan’s conversation with Pozzo di - Borgo in Paris. - ------ - - - - - CHAPTER IX. - 1832–1833. - -GENERAL JACKSON’S SECOND ELECTION—GRAVE PUBLIC EVENTS AT HOME REFLECTED - IN MR. BUCHANAN’S LETTERS FROM HIS FRIENDS—FEELINGS OF GENERAL - JACKSON TOWARDS THE “NULLIFIERS”—MOVEMENTS IN PENNSYLVANIA FOR - ELECTING MR. BUCHANAN TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—HE MAKES A - JOURNEY TO MOSCOW—RETURN TO ST. PETERSBURG—DEATH OF HIS - MOTHER—SINGULAR INTERVIEW WITH THE EMPEROR NICHOLAS AT HIS AUDIENCE - OF LEAVE. - - -Mr. Buchanan, as the reader has seen, went abroad in the spring of 1832. -Events of great consequence occurred at home during his absence. The -great debate in the Senate on nullification, between Mr. Webster and -Col. Hayne, which took place in 1830, had not been followed in South -Carolina by any surrender of the doctrine maintained by the Nullifiers. -In November, 1832, the people of South Carolina, assembled in -convention, adopted their celebrated ordinance which declared the -existing tariff law of the United States null and void within her -limits, as an unconstitutional exercise of power. General Jackson who -had been re-elected President in the same month, defeating Mr. Clay and -all the other candidates by a very large majority of the electoral -votes, issued his proclamation against the Nullifiers on the 10th of -December.[34] Then followed the introduction of the “Force Bill” into -the Senate in January, 1833; a measure designed to secure the collection -of the revenue against the obstruction of the State laws of South -Carolina; Mr. Webster’s support of this measure of the administration; -and the consequent expectation of a political union between him and -General Jackson. This union, however, was prevented by an irreconcilable -difference between Mr. Webster and General Jackson and his friends on -the subject of the currency and the Bank of the United States. In 1832 -the President had vetoed a bill to continue the Bank in existence. Early -in June the President left Washington on a tour to the Eastern States, -and while in Boston, during the month of June, he determined to remove -the public deposits from the Bank of the United States, and to place -them in certain selected State banks. These events and the excitements -attending them are touched upon in the private letters which Mr. -Buchanan received from his friends, not the least interesting of which -was one from General Jackson, expressing his feelings in regard to his -proclamation in a very characteristic manner. From one of these letters, -too, we may gather that steps were already taking to elect Mr. Buchanan -to the Senate of the United States. - - [FROM A FRIEND IN WASHINGTON.] - - WASHINGTON CITY, August 1, 1832. - -DEAR SIR:— - -Of course you receive regular files of American papers, and I shall -therefore not be able to give you much news of a public or political -nature. - -Thinking, however, you may overlook some things of importance, I shall -confine myself to them. The tariff bill, having passed in a modified -form (reducing the duties on protected, and taking them off nearly -altogether on unprotected articles, to the wants of the Government), it -was supposed the excitement in the South would be allayed, if not -entirely subdued; but this, I am sorry to say, has not been the case in -South Carolina. Messrs. Hayne, Miller, McDuffie, etc., have published an -address to the people of South Carolina, in which they state, that the -protective system has now become the settled policy of the country, and -advise an open resistance to the act. Their legislature will, I have no -doubt, recommend the same course, and before another year, I am firmly -of the opinion, _rebellion_ will be the order of the day, accompanied -with all its horrors. The moment that a drop of blood is shed by the -South, in resisting the laws, there will be a general rising of the -people, and where is the hand that will be able to stop the fearful -wrath of the sovereign people? Duff Green, in his paper of yesterday, -said: “That he will write as long as writing will be of any effect; when -that ceases, he will adopt the _sword_. If South Carolina is to be -sacrificed, the _tyrant will_ be met on the banks of the Potomac, and -many, very many, are the sons of her sister States who will rally -beneath her standard. We say to her gallant sons, go on! Yours is the -cause of _liberty_, and the eyes of all _her_ votaries are upon you!” - -When language like this is held by the _leader_ of the party, at the -seat of Government of the Union, under the immediate eyes of the heads -of the nation, and suffered to pass unpunished, it is indeed time for -the people seriously to think of a civil war. The leaders in this affair -will have much to answer for, and be assured they will be _held -accountable_. - -The bank bill has passed, by a small majority, in both Houses of -Congress, and the President (true to his principles) has returned it -(without his signature) with his objections. There appeared to be great -excitement at the time, but it was only occasioned by the brawling of -the opposition. A large meeting was got up in Philadelphia, at which a -few Jackson men of no note attended, but all would not do. The next -week, the Jackson men met to express their opinions, and they resolved -unanimously to support “Andrew Jackson, bank or no bank, veto or no -veto.” At this meeting there were between ten and fifteen thousand -people, citizens of the city and county, the largest meeting, I am told, -that ever assembled in Philadelphia within the recollection of the -oldest inhabitants. - - [GENERAL JACKSON TO MR. BUCHANAN.] - - (Private.) WASHINGTON, March 21, 1833. - -DEAR SIR:— - -Your letter by Mr. Clay was handed me on his arrival. The fact of there -being no means of conveyance, my not having ascertained Mr. Clay’s -determination in regard to his return to you, and the immense and heavy -pressure of public business have caused me to delay my reply. -Nullification, the corrupting influence of the Bank, the union of -Calhoun and Clay, supported by the corrupt and wicked of all parties, -engaged all my attention. The liberty of the people requires that wicked -projects, and evil combinations against the Government should be exposed -and counteracted. - -I met nullification at its threshhold. My proclamation was well timed, -as it at once opened the eyes of the people to the wicked designs of the -Nullifiers, whose real motives had too long remained concealed. The -public ceased to be deluded by the promise of securing by nullification -“a peaceful and constitutional modification of the tariff.” - -They investigated the subject, and saw that, although the tariff was -made the ostensible object, a separation of the confederacy was the real -purpose of its originators and supporters. - -The expression of public opinion elicited by the proclamation, from -Maine to Louisiana, has so firmly repudiated the absurd doctrine of -nullification and secession, that it is not probable that we shall be -troubled with them again shortly. - -The advices of to-day inform us that South Carolina has repealed her -ordinance and all the laws based upon it.[35] Thus die nullification and -secession, but leave behind the remembrance of their authors and -abettors, which holds them up to scorn and indignation, and will -transmit them to posterity as traitors to the best of governments. - -The treaty is as good a one as we could expect or desire, and if you can -close the other as satisfactorily, it will be a happy result, and place -you in the highest rank of our able and fortunate diplomatists. - -Mr. Clay has conversed with me freely, and has determined, under all the -circumstances, to return to you. - -If Mr. Clay had not taken this determination, be well assured that your -request in respect to his successor would have received my most anxious -attention. You should have had one in whom you could with safety -confide. I had thought of Mr. Vail, now at London, who has signified his -inclination to remain abroad, as secretary of legation, when relieved by -a minister. - -Mr. Clay can be left as chargé-d’affaires when your duty to your aged -mother may make it necessary for you to return to her and your country. - -Knowing, as I do, that you will not leave your post until you bring to a -close the negotiation now under discussion, I have said to the Secretary -of State to grant you permission to return whenever you may ask it. But -should an emergency arise which will render it inconvenient, if not -impossible, for you to write and receive an answer from the state -department before, from the feeble health of your mother, it may be -necessary for you to return, you will consider yourself as being hereby -authorized to leave the court of Russia, and return, leaving Mr. Clay in -charge of our affairs there. - -I must refer you to Mr. Clay, and the newspapers, which I have requested -the Secretary of State to send you, for the news and politics of the -day. I must, however, add, that in the late election, good old -Democratic Pennsylvania has greatly increased my debt of gratitude to -her, which I can only attempt to discharge by renewed and increasing -vigilance and exertions in so administering the Government as to -perpetuate the prosperity and happiness of the _whole_ people. - -Accept of my best wishes for your health and happiness, and for your -safe return to your country and friends. Give my kind respects to Mr. -Barry, and believe me to be sincerely - - Your friend, - - ANDREW JACKSON. - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO GENERAL JACKSON.] - - ST. PETERSBURG, May 22, 1833 - -DEAR GENERAL:— - -I had the pleasure of receiving, by Mr. Clay, your kind letter of the -21st March. And here allow me to tender you my grateful thanks for the -permission which you have granted me to return home. Indeed, I, for some -time, had scarcely indulged the hope that I should be allowed to leave -St. Petersburg before the next spring; this permission, therefore, was a -most agreeable surprise, and adds another to the many obligations I owe -to your kindness. I hope I may yet have an opportunity of displaying my -gratitude by my actions. - -Although I shall leave St. Petersburg with pleasure, yet I shall always -gratefully remember the kindness with which I have been treated here. My -great objection to the country is the extreme jealousy and suspicion of -the government. A public minister, in order successfully to discharge -his duties and avoid giving offense, must conceal the most ennobling -sentiments of his soul. We are continually surrounded by spies, both of -high and low degree in life. You can scarcely hire a servant who is not -a secret agent of the police. - -There is one mitigating circumstance in Russian despotism. In other -portions of Europe we behold nations prepared and anxious for the -enjoyment of liberty, yet compelled to groan beneath the yoke. No such -spectacle is presented in this country. The most ardent Republican, -after having resided here for one year, would be clearly convinced that -the mass of this people, composed as it is of ignorant and superstitious -barbarians, who are also slaves, is not fit for political freedom. -Besides, they are perfectly contented. The emperor seems to me to be the -very beau ideal of a sovereign for Russia, and in my opinion, -notwithstanding his conduct towards Poland, he is an abler and a better -man than any of those by whom he is surrounded. I flatter myself that a -favorable change has been effected in his feelings towards the United -States since my arrival. Indeed, at the first I was treated with great -neglect, as Mr. Clay had always been. I was glad he returned. It would -be difficult to find a more agreeable Secretary of Legation. I also -entertain a very high opinion of Mr. Vail. - -I sincerely rejoice that our domestic differences seem almost to have -ended. Independently of their fatal influence at home, they had greatly -injured the character of the country abroad. The advocates of despotism -throughout Europe beheld our dissensions with delight; whilst the -friends of freedom sickened at the spectacle. God grant that the -restless spirits which have kindled the flame in South Carolina may -neither be willing nor able to promote disunion by rendering the -Southern States generally disaffected towards the best of governments. - -Whilst these dissensions are ever to be deplored in themselves, they -have been most propitious for your fame. We generally find but few -extracts from American papers in the European journals; but whilst the -South Carolina question was pending, your proclamation, as well as every -material fact necessary to elucidate its history, was published on this -side of the Atlantic. I have a hundred times heard, with pride and -pleasure, the warmest commendations of your conduct, and have not met -with a single dissenting voice. I was the other day obliged to laugh -heartily at the sentiment of a Russian nobleman, which he considered the -highest commendation. He said it was a pity that such a man as you had -not been king of England instead of William the Fourth, for then Ireland -would have been kept in good order and O’Connell would long since have -been punished as he deserved. - -I might have told him you were not the stuff of which kings are made, -and if you had possessed the power Ireland would have had her grievances -removed and received justice, and that then there might have been no -occasion for severity...... - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - [FROM S. PLEASONTON.] - - WASHINGTON, April 2d, 1833. - -DEAR SIR:— - -I take the opportunity afforded by the return of Mr. Clay to St. -Petersburg to write to you, in the certainty that the letter will be -safely delivered. - -The compromising tariff act passed at the last session has been accepted -pretty generally at the South, and has been received at the North much -better than I expected, so that the alarm and anxiety which existed on -the subject have been removed. - -Much clamor, however, is yet kept up at the South, including Virginia, -on the subject of the President’s 10th December proclamation, and what -is called the enforcing bill. The proclamation in my opinion contains -the true Union doctrine, and does General Jackson great honor; and the -enforcing bill was absolutely called for by the attitude which South -Carolina had assumed. The State rights gentlemen, however, in the South, -are for denying all right to the Union, as if the two governments were -not formed by the same people and for their benefit. Absurd as these -State rights doctrines are when carried fully out, I fear they will be -pushed to an open rebellion by the Southern States before many years -shall elapse. - -I was in hopes that when Mr. Livingston went to France, as he will do -probably in June next, that you would have been called to the Department -of State, but it seems a different arrangement is to be made. Mr. McLane -is to go to the Department of State, and it is said a gentleman from -Pennsylvania, who has never been spoken of for the Treasury, is to be -appointed to that department. As Dallas and Wilkins have been much -talked of for this department, I am somewhat in hopes that the person -referred to may be yourself. Be that as it may, I feel pretty confident -that you will be elected to the Senate of the United States at the next -meeting of the legislature, if you should be at home in season. They -have made two or three trials to elect a senator during the session -without effect, and from all I can learn the legislature will adjourn -without making an election, so that the election will lie over until the -next session. - -Mrs. Pleasonton is now pretty well, though she has had several severe -attacks in the course of the winter. Mathilda, with her husband, left us -yesterday morning for Philadelphia. She had been ill for nearly two -months, and was not able to leave us until yesterday. Augustus is -exceedingly studious and is getting a good share of professional -business. I have great hopes of him. Laura is still in Philadelphia, but -will complete her education in the month of May. Mrs. P. intended to -have written to you but she has not had it in her power, having been -much engaged for Mathilda. I send you by Mr. Clay, copies, or rather -duplicates, of two letters written to you some time ago about your -accounts. - -Mr. Clay can inform you of many particulars which will interest you, but -I presume will say nothing of his friend [John] Randolph, who is now -decidedly and zealously in the opposition. He was here lately and -behaved in the most eccentric manner. - -As you may not have seen all the documents communicated to Congress by -the President in relation to South Carolina, I have determined to -burthen Mr. Clay with them. They are accordingly enclosed. - -With great regard, I remain, dear sir, your friend and obedient servant, - - S. PLEASONTON. - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO JOHN B. STERIGERE.] - - ST. PETERSBURG, May 19, 1833. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I think you are mistaken in supposing I should have been elected to the -Senate had I been at home. The opposition against me from many causes -would have been too strong. Indeed, I have an impression that my public -career is drawing near its close, and I can assure you this feeling does -not cost me a single pang. All I feel concerned about is to know what I -shall employ myself about after my return. To recommence the practice of -the law in Lancaster would not be very agreeable. If my attachments for -that place as well as my native State were not so strong, I should have -no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion. I would at once go either to -New York or Baltimore; and even if I should ever desire to rise to -political distinction, I believe I could do it sooner in the latter -place than in any part of Pennsylvania. What do you think of this -project? Say nothing about it. I have not written a word on the subject -to any other person. I see the appointment of Judge Sutherland announced -some weeks ago. Judging from the feelings displayed in the election of -printers to Congress, I should not have been astonished at his election -as Speaker by the next House of Representatives. - -The winter here has been very long, but I have not at all suffered from -the cold. The great thickness of the walls of the houses, their double -windows and doors, and their stoves built of tile, render their houses -much more comfortable in very cold weather than our own. They are always -heated according to a thermometer, and preserved at an equal -temperature. Indeed, I have suffered more from the heat than the cold -during the winter. But its length has been intolerable. The Neva was -frozen for nearly six months. It broke up on the 25th ultimo; but still, -until within a few days, there is a little ice occasionally running -which comes from the Lake Ladoga. - -On the 9th instant the navigation opened at Cronstadt. Four noble -American ships led the way, and with a fine breeze and under full sail -they passed through the ice and made an opening for the vessels of other -nations. The character of our masters of vessels and supercargoes stands -much higher here than that of the same class belonging to any other -nation. They have much more intelligence. This Court requires a man of -peculiar talent. There are but few of our countrymen fit to be sent here -as minister. Here the character of the country depends much upon that of -the minister. The sources of information respecting our republican -institutions which are open throughout the rest of Europe are closed in -this country. A favorable impression must be made upon the nobility by -personal intercourse, and in order that this may be done it is -absolutely necessary that the minister should occasionally entertain -them and mix freely in their society. Such is the difference between -Russian and American society, I am satisfied that Levett Harris would be -a more useful minister here than Daniel Webster. I make this remark on -the presumption that for years to come we shall have no serious business -to transact. - -After looking about me here, I was much at a loss to know what course to -pursue. Without ruin to my private fortune I could not entertain as -others did. Not to entertain at all I might almost as well not have been -here except for the treaty. After some time I determined that I would -give them good dinners in a plain republican style, for their splendid -entertainments, and the plan has succeeded. I have never even put livery -on a domestic in my house;—a remarkable circumstance in this country. - -I think I may say, I am a favorite here, and especially with the emperor -and empress. They have always treated me during the past winter in such -a manner as even to excite observation. I am really astonished at my own -success in this respect, for in sober truth, I say that, in my own -opinion, I possess but few of the requisites of being successful in St. -Petersburg society. I trust and hope that I may be permitted to return -to my beloved native land this fall; and if Providence should continue -to bless my endeavors, I think the character of the United States will -stand upon a fairer footing with his Imperial Majesty than it has ever -done since his accession to the throne. - - _May 22d._ - -Mr. Randolph Clay returned here on the 19th, bringing me a great number -of letters from my friends and the President’s permission to return home -this fall. God willing! I shall be with you about the end of November. -These letters hold out flattering prospects of my election to the Senate -at the next session. - -I confess I consider this event very doubtful, and shall take care not -to set my heart upon it. - -Mr. Barry leaves me to-day for London, and I have no time to add -anything more. Please to write soon, and believe me ever to be your -sincere friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - -P. S.—Remember me to Paulding, Patterson, Kittera and my other friends. -I wrote once to the latter, but have never received an answer from him. - - [FROM LOUIS McLANE.] - - (Unofficial.) WASHINGTON, June 20, 1832. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -It affords me sincere pleasure to devote a portion of my early labors in -this Department[36] to you, whom I have known so long, and esteemed so -highly. In one form or other you will hereafter receive more frequent -communications from me, for I have already made a regulation by which a -semi-monthly communication will be kept up from the Department with our -principal ministers abroad. This is not only due to their character, but -necessary to keep them informed of our principal domestic and foreign -relations. This regulation will be independent of such special -communications as the particular state of the missions respectively may -[render] necessary. - -You have no friend in this country who participated more sincerely than -I in the success of your negotiation, and if the President needed -anything to strengthen his friendship for you, or his confidence in your -zeal and ability, your labors on that occasion would have afforded it. -He has probably told you so himself, as I understood from him that he -intended to write you. - -...... The President is on a tour through the northern and eastern -cities. He will go to Portland and thence up the lakes, through New York -to Ohio and Pennsylvania, and expects to return here about the middle of -July. I accompanied him as far as New York, and thence returned to my -post. His health and spirits, notwithstanding the great fatigue to which -he was perpetually exposed, had considerably improved, and I now have -great hopes that he will derive advantage from his journey. His journey -to New York was quite a triumphal procession, and his reception -everywhere indescribably gratifying and imposing. The enthusiasm and -cordial out-pouring of the kindest feelings of the heart, with which he -was everywhere greeted, could not be exceeded, and the committees from -the East, who met him in New York, assured us that a similar reception -awaited his further progress. In Boston, both parties were emulating -each other’s exertions, and Webster, it was understood, had cut short -his tour in the West, in order to receive him. - -This would be a sharp alliance, and yet it is altogether probable. On -the part of Webster’s friends, it is ardently desired and incessantly -urged; on his own part he affects to consider the President’s hostility -to the bank as the only barrier. But I consider this only the last qualm -of a frail lady, who notwithstanding, finally falls into the arms of the -seducer. In the Senate, Webster’s accession may be important, in the -country its effect will be at least doubtful; especially with the -democracy of New England. If, however, the President can identify the -power of his name and character and hold upon the affections of the -people with any individual, all opposition, however combined, must be -hopeless. It is evident to me that no man ever lived, who exerted the -same influence over the great body of the people as General Jackson; and -if he devote the remainder of his term to tranquilize the public mind, -he will go into retirement with greater fame than any other man in our -history. The bank is the only disturbing question, and that he might -overthrow, after all its iniquities, without a jar, unless by premature -changing the [deposits], he should seriously derange the business and -currency of the country. He is strongly disposed to take that step, both -from his own hostility to the institution, and from the importunate -[advice] of many of his friends. It would, in my opinion, be injudicious -and prejudicial to the community; but the probability is it will be done -either before or immediately after the commencement of the next session -of Congress. - -The affairs in the South are once more tranquil, and nullification may -be said to be extinct. There are men in that quarter, however, who -seriously meditate further difficulties, and there is just reason to -apprehend that these will not be satisfied short of a Southern -convention, leading to a Southern confederacy. - -The elements of popular excitement only are wanting to make their -purpose discernible to all, and the grave question has been revived for -this purpose. So far it has not been successful, though it is evidently -making some impression in one or two of the States south of the Potomac, -and you know better than I can tell you, that the spirit of revolution -is progressive, though it may be slow. - -On all other points, our affairs at home are prosperous, and the -prospect gratifying; and the new lines of party will not be very -distinctly defined until toward the close of the next session of -Congress. - -I saw, while in Philadelphia with the President, many of your friends, -who affectionately inquired after you, and you may be satisfied that -your absence from the country has not served to weaken their attachment. - -Now, my dear sir, I have taken up already too much of your time with -this uninteresting letter, and I will therefore relieve you from a -greater part of it. I will only add the wish of Mrs. McL—— to be brought -to your remembrance, and the assurance of the continued respect and -regard with which I am unaffectedly your friend and servant, - - LOUIS MCLANE. - -The principal object of the mission being accomplished, Mr. Buchanan -began his journey to Moscow early in June, and was absent from St. -Petersburg about a month. In making selections from his journals and -letters relating to this tour, as well as those which he kept on his -travels homeward after he finally left Russia, I shall omit descriptions -of places and countries that are now familiar to multitudes of -Americans, and shall quote only those which are of interest because they -give accounts of persons or things as they impressed him at the time, -and which are out of the beaten path of guide books as they then were or -have since become, or which relate to the public affairs of that period. - - _Tuesday at 8 P. M., June 4, 1833._ - -Left St. Petersburg and arrived at Novogorod about 12 midi on Wednesday. -Visited the church of St. Sophia, said to be founded by Wladimir in -1040. His tomb, at which they say miracles are wrought, is in it. The -paintings are numerous and barbarous. The interior has a rude -magnificence. Went into the _sanctum sanctorum_, where women are never -admitted. There they consecrate the Eucharist in the Greek Church, out -of the view of the people; unlike the Latin in this respect. The priest -afterwards carries it out on his head, to be adored by the people. - -The sides of the western door are lined with bronze, from which jutted -out in bronze a number of strange and barbarous figures not unlike those -of Mexico. They must have been Christian and even Russian in their -origin, as one of them represented an Archimandrite in full dress. The -inscriptions were Sclavonian. Our guide said they were conquered from -the Swedes by St. Wladimir. The church is west of the river. It and -several other buildings are surrounded by a brick wall, with turrets, -etc., etc., about twenty-five feet high and eighteen thick and nearly a -mile in circumference, a ditch beneath. - -There are also the remains of another rampart and ditch, a considerable -distance from the former. The church of St. Sophia is surrounded by a -dome and four cupolas of the character peculiar to Russia. - -The former is gilt and the others plated with silver, so they say. The -celebrated monastery of St. Anthony we did not visit. There is scarcely -any appearance of ancient ruins to indicate the former greatness of -Novogorod. This arises from the nature of the materials of which it was -built. - -On Wednesday night we stayed at Zaitsova, an excellent inn. - -The public houses are generally bad, beyond what an American can have -any idea of; nevertheless, a few on this road were good. This inn is -maintained in a degree by the emperor. - -The peasants are jolly, good-natured fellows, who drive furiously and -seem happy. They are all rogues, nevertheless. In appearance and conduct -they are very unlike those of Petersburg. - - _Saturday, June 8._ - -We arrived in Moscow at 10 o’clock A. M. The road is the best over which -I have ever travelled. It is macadamized in the most perfect manner, and -the traveller pays no toll. About 175 versts, or five posts, are yet -unfinished between Chotilova and Tiver. This fraction is the old road -and partly composed of sand, partly of the trunks of trees laid across, -and partly of large stones, and in some places it is very bad. The -posting is eight cents per verst for four horses and ten cents for the -post adjoining St. Petersburg and Moscow. - -The horses, though mean in their appearance, travel with great speed. -They uniformly place the four abreast when travelling by post in Russia. -The post-boys always cross themselves devoutly before ascending their -seats; though they, in common with all the other Russian mousiques whom -I have ever met, will cheat you if they can. - -At every post station we found a number of these—with their long beards -and their tanned sheepskins—ready to grease the carriage or perform any -other menial service. At night they lie down on the road and around the -post-houses, and sleep on the ground. Indeed Russians of the highest -class appear to know little of the comforts of a good bed. - -The country presents a forlorn aspect for 150 versts from St. -Petersburg. It is both poor and flat, and the villages have a wretched -appearance. They all consist of log huts with their gables towards the -street. As you approach Waldi, the country becomes somewhat better and -more undulating, and more attention seems to have been paid to its -cultivation. It afterwards resumes its level appearance as you advance -to Moscow, but still it is much better in every respect than near St. -Petersburg. With a single exception we did not observe a nobleman’s seat -along the whole route, and this one had a mean appearance. Nothing -affords variety to the dull and monotonous scenery except the churches, -which present the only interesting objects in the landscape. - -Tiver is the principal town of the government of that name. It was -finally conquered in 1483. The city is handsome and has the appearance -of prosperity. It is situated on both sides of the Volga. When I -approached this river, I could not resist the feeling of how strange it -was that I should be on its banks. - - _Sunday afternoon, 9th._ - -We went to the promenade, at three versts from the city, on the -Petersburg road. - - _Monday morning, 10th._ - -We visited Madame S—— and had some conversation with her which would -have been agreeable but for the constant interruption of a parrot which -screeched as if it had been hired for the occasion. She had accompanied -Mr. Wells of Philadelphia last year to the monastery of the Trinity. Her -son is to go with us to the Kremlin to-morrow. - -The appearance of Moscow must have greatly improved since its -conflagration in 1812. It has lost, however, in a great degree, that -romantic and Asiatic appearance which it formerly presented. The -cumbrous and rude magnificence of palaces irregularly scattered among -Tartar huts, has given place to airy and regular streets in all -directions. It appears to be in a prosperous condition. That which -chiefly distinguishes it from other cities is the immense number of -churches. Their cupolas, of all colors and of all forms, rising above -the summits of the houses and glittering in the sun, are very striking -and imposing objects. In this respect no city in the world, except -Constantinople, can be compared with it. In the evening we visited the -Russian Theatre. Both the infernal regions and the Elysian fields were -well represented on the stage. - - _Tuesday._ - -It rained all day. Dined with Madame Novaselsoff. She is one of the -three daughters of —— Orloff, the youngest brother of the three who left -no son—immensely rich—had one son, an only child, who was killed in a -duel some nine years ago. Aide-de-camp of Emperor—Ischermoff was his -antagonist. Both fell. His mother lives upon his memory. She says she is -now building two churches, one on the spot where he expired and the -other on her estate—-a monument. She has established schools, one on the -Lancasterian plan, among her peasants. I told her she ought to live for -her peasants and consider them her children. Her example also might -produce great effect. She said she had no object to live for, and when -it was the will of God, she would go cheerfully; that her affections -were fixed on another world. She had a full length likeness of her son -in her parlor, and different other portraits of him scattered about; his -drawings, etc., etc. - - _Wednesday morning._ - -We visited the Foundling Hospital, or the Imperial House of Education, -as it is called. We had a letter for Dr. Alfonskoi, the chief medical -officer attached to the institution, and he, together with Baron -Stackelberg, the superintendent, conducted us through the apartments. -This hospital is the glory of Moscow and is the most extensive -establishment of the kind in the world. It is perfectly well conducted -in all its departments. - -The object of the institution is twofold. The first is limited to the -preservation of the lives of the foundlings and rearing them as peasants -of the crown, and the second extends to their education and their -freedom. The number of infants of the first description amounted to 6500 -the last year. Each of these requires a separate nurse, and from the -peculiar state of society in Russia, these are provided without the -least difficulty. The peasant women throughout the province of Moscow -(and others are excluded) come daily in considerable numbers to offer -their services as nurses. Each one receives a foundling and after -remaining with it a few weeks in the hospital, she and the child are -sent to the village to which she belongs. For the maintenance of this -child, until it attains the age of twelve years, she receives five -roubles per month, or sixty per annum. Three thousand foundlings had -been received during the present year. The boys and girls thus raised -are sent upon the lands of the crown and become peasants. The former are -not exempted from serving in the army. - -It was quite a novel spectacle for me to pass through the long ranges of -women, with infants in their arms, or in the cradle. Everything was -clean and in good order; though the women were anything but -good-looking. - -I believe most of the children received are legitimate, of poor parents. -_It is called the Imperial House of Education_, not a foundling -hospital, and the former name is more applicable to it than the latter. - -They borrow at 4 and lend at 5; not 5 and 6, as the Guide says. - -Baron Stackelberg told Mr. G. that the institution had 7,000,000 roubles -clear after all expenses at the end of each year—_sed quere_. - -The second class are very different from the first. They consist of -those foundlings for whom 150 roubles are advanced at the time they -enter the establishment. But as the institution can accommodate a -greater number than are sent to it upon these terms, the deficiency is -supplied by selections made sometimes from children of the first class, -but most generally from those of poor parents of Moscow. These all -continue in the institution until they receive their education. They are -free when they depart from it and are not liable to be drafted as -soldiers. A sufficiently accurate account of these is to be found in the -Guide. There are at present 550 boys and as many girls of this -description. - -We dined with Dr. Alfonskoi. His wife is a communicative, agreeable -woman who expresses her opinion freely upon all subjects. Whilst at -table I received the impression from her conversation that she took me -for an Englishman, notwithstanding I had been introduced to her as the -American minister. I did not consider this remarkable, from the -ignorance which prevails throughout this country concerning the United -States. On the evening of this day I had a still more decided example. -Mr. G. and myself went to pay a visit to “The Prince Ouroussoff, master -of the court of his I. M., and senator.” Whilst I was conversing with -the daughter, the princess asked Mr. G. if the United States still -belonged to England. He replied that they were independent and -constituted a separate government. She said this must have been since -1812, and when he informed her that their independence had been -recognized by England since 1783, she was much astonished. Among other -things she wished to know whether they spoke the English language in -America. - -We visited the Souchareva Bashnia. This is a lofty and extensive -building on an elevated position, in the second story of which is the -reservoir to supply the city with water. This is brought eighteen -versts. The top of the edifice affords a fine view of the city. - -All the buildings of this establishment escaped the conflagration of -1812. They contain at present a population of more than 5,000, and have -a distinct police. - - _Thursday Morning._ - -Before breakfast I visited the mineral-water establishment. It is -situated near the Moscow, about four versts above the Kremlin. There you -find waters of twenty-four different kinds prepared in imitation of -those which are most celebrated throughout Europe. I took a glass of -Carlsbad, the taste of which reminded me of that of Saratoga. Indeed the -whole scene resembled that exhibited there. There were a great number of -ladies and gentlemen walking in the promenades, drinking and talking; -but the ladies of Saratoga were not there. The water is drawn by cocks -from different vessels prepared for containing it, and placed contiguous -to each other in a row. - -This establishment has been recently made by a joint stock company. The -emperor has subscribed a number of shares. In St. Petersburg they are -about to get up a similar establishment. There were to be six hundred -shares at five hundred roubles each; but three times that amount was -subscribed at once. Dr. Myer, whom I met there to-day, is now here as -agent from St. Petersburg to gain information, and observe the operation -of the establishment at Moscow. - -We ascended the belfry of Ivan Vélikoi (Jean le Grand). It receives its -name from the Church of St. John, which it surmounts. From there we had -another fine view of the city. There are thirty-one bells in the belfry. -All in the Kremlin are collected in it.—Vide the Guide. - -From thence we proceeded to the treasury of the Kremlin and examined its -contents. It is fully described in the Guide, with the exception of some -things which have been added since its publication. - -These are chiefly the trophies of the conquest of poor unhappy Poland. -They are the two thrones—the sceptre, the globe, and the sword of the -emperor of Russia as king of Poland, which have been brought from -Warsaw. - -The portraits of all the kings of Poland are now hung up in their order -in this Russian arsenal where the treasure is kept. We saw there also -the flags which had been presented to the Polish army by the Emperor -Alexander, and also the original constitution of Poland on the floor at -his feet. It was placed there by the express command of his present -majesty. - -The glorious standard of Poland which waved triumphantly over many a -well fought field, but which the most exalted courage and self-devotion -could no longer maintain against brutal and barbarian force, is there -exhibited. The white eagle has been obliged to cower beneath the -double-headed monster of Russia. May it again soar! though to all human -appearance it has sunk forever. - -The head of John Sobieski is one of the most noble and commanding I have -ever beheld. The famous standard which he took from the Turks at Vienna -when Poland saved Europe from the sway of the Infidel, is now in the -same hall with the portrait of the hero and the king who commanded her -army on that celebrated day. We afterwards visited the ancient and the -modern palaces. The contrast between the two exhibits the change between -ancient and modern times in striking colors. In one of the rooms of the -latter, among other ancient portraits, we saw one of the Princess -Sophia. She was an extraordinary woman, and must have had a very fine -face. I have an interest in this woman, and am willing to disbelieve the -crime which Peter the Great attributed to her, of an intention to -assassinate him. How must her proud and ambitious spirit have been -chafed by being confined to a monastery after having reigned with so -much distinction. Accompanied by Mr. Thal, we rode out of the Barrier de -Drogomirov, two or three versts on the road to Smolensko, to the summit -of the last of three hills which rise gradually above each other, from -whence we had a fine view of the city. It was from this quarter that the -French entered. Bonaparte slept the first night at Petrovski, a place -near the St. Petersburg road, about three versts from the city. - - _Friday Morning, June 2–14th._ - -I went with Mr. Gretsch, the editor of the Bee at St. Petersburg, to see -the famous monastery of Novo Devitcher where we saw the tomb of the -Princess Sophia, who took the veil under the name of Suzanna, and was -buried in 1704. For the rest, see the Guide, 183, 184. Mr. G. and myself -visited and went through the mosque. In this country, all churches must -be open. Unfortunately we arrived a little too late for the service. - -John the Third, in 1473, married the Princess Sophia, the daughter of -Thomas Paléologus Porphyrogénétus, who was the brother of Constantine -Paléologus, who died in 1453, whilst seeing his capital fall under the -dominion of the Turks. By his unison with the last descendant of the -Paléologus, John the Third considered himself as the heir of their -crown, and after his marriage he substituted the eagle with two heads -for the cavalier which was then the arms of the grand principality, and -it was then that he took the title of Tsar. - - _Saturday._ - -This Mr. Gretsch is the editor of the _Northern Bee_ of St. Petersburg, -the principal Russian journal. He is also on a visit here for the first -time. He came up to me the other day at the Treasury and introduced -himself, since when he has been uncommonly kind. He appears to be, for I -know not what he is, a frank, open-hearted, talkative, well-informed -person, but something of a bore. He laughingly styled the sultan this -morning “our Governor General of Turkey.” I am persuaded this is now the -feeling in Russia. They believe themselves to be already the virtual -masters of Constantinople. - -Mr. G. and myself afterwards went to the Mountain of Sparrows. It is on -the southwest of the city opposite or nearly so the monastery of Novo -Devitcher. From thence you have the best view of Moscow, and it is truly -a beautiful and magnificent spectacle. It was here that they commenced -the foundation of the cathedral of St. Sauveur, in consequence of a vow -of the Emperor Alexander during the French war; but it has been -discontinued, and will be erected in another part of the city. The place -was found to be too extensive and too expensive, though the vow was to -build the greatest and most magnificent church in Russia. - -We next visited the garden of Niéschouchin, from whence also we had -another fine view of the city. We there saw a theatre _sub Jove_. - -The opinion of Dr. Alfonskoi on the cholera is that it arises in all -cases from a defect of heat in the system, and his universal remedy, -after he came to understand the disease, was the hot, very hot bath. He -is fully convinced it was not contagious. It seized on those whose -digestive powers had been enfeebled by drunkenness or high living. I -told him of Dr. Stevens’ saline treatment, and he said, from the -development of heat, [which] the salt produced in the system, it might -have been a good remedy. The cholera, Dr. A. thinks, came from the -earth, is connected with gravity. The grip is its opposite and is -connected with electricity. This last the best evidence that the cholera -has finally disappeared. The stomach the root, as of a tree, etc. - - _Sunday, 16th June._ - -I went to the English chapel, and heard an excellent, animated, -evangelical discourse, from the Rev. Matthew Camidge, the pastor. His -text was 2 Peter 3d chapter, from —— to ——. It was on the subject of the -long suffering of God with sinners, and the repentance to which this -should naturally lead, etc., etc. The judgment-day will come by surprise -as many temporal judgments do after long suffering. - -There is to be a theatrical entertainment this evening in the open air, -at the garden of Nieschouchin, and afterwards a party at Madame -Paschkoff’s. My old Presbyterian notions will prevent me from attending -either. After church I paid some visits to the Skariatines, etc. - -The English chapel was consumed in the conflagration of 1812, and has -been rebuilt but a few years since. It contains no organ. They sing -well. The pastor receives about £200, the half of which comes from -England. I was struck with the solemnity of this little congregation in -a strange land. May God be with them! It was the most impressive sermon -I have heard since I left America. - - _Monday, 5–17th June._ - -We visited, in company with Mr. Gretsch, and particularly examined the -interior of the cathedrals of the Annunciation, of the Assumption, and -of St. Michael the Archangel. They are sufficiently described in the -Guide. We also visited the ancient palace of the Patriarchs, and saw -everything that was contained therein. The apartments of his holiness -were very small and simple, though the state rooms must have been -considered magnificent in Russia a century and a half ago. We there saw -the apparatus for making the holy oil, which is distributed throughout -Russia. It is only prepared once in three years. How wise it was in -Peter the Great to abolish the Patriarchate! Few men would have had the -courage to make the attempt. From the ignorance of the Russians and -their proneness to superstition, he must have continued to be as he -formerly was, the rival of the czars themselves. - -From thence we went to the Alexander Institution, so called after his -majesty. Whilst the cholera raged in Moscow, many of the children of -poor noble families were deprived of their parents, and thus became -destitute orphans. To relieve their wants and furnish them with an -education, this institution was first established by the present -emperor. Being pleased with its operation, he has made it permanent. The -orphan children of poor nobles from any part of the empire are now -received there, and all their expenses defrayed. The emperor purchased -for the purposes of this institution the house and grounds of a -nobleman, Count Rasoumoffsky, for which he gave 1,200,000 roubles B. A. - -The extent of these private establishments of the Russian nobility may -be judged of, from the circumstances that this house and the adjacent -buildings appertaining to it now, accommodate 250 boys and as many -girls, with all the necessary professors and domestics. - -Here the former are taught the Russian, French, German and Latin -languages; geometry, geography, drawing, dancing, etc., etc., and the -latter are instructed in all these branches, except Latin and geometry, -and in the other accomplishments which more particularly belong to -females. There are three classes of each. - -We heard the first class of the young ladies examined in French and -geography, and then specimens of their drawing, embroidery and other -needle-work were exhibited to us. They acquitted themselves very -creditably. They also played for us on the piano. As a compliment to -myself, they were examined on the geography of the United States. What -struck me with great force, was that the little girls in the second and -third classes recited pieces from the French and German, as well as the -Russian, with apparent facility, and so far as I could judge, with a -perfect accent. - -They certainly have the most wonderful talent for acquiring languages of -any people in the world. - -We afterwards went through the apartments of the boys and heard them -examined. One of the boys was asked who was the greatest man that -America had produced, and he promptly answered Washington. The thrill of -delight which I experienced at the moment, I shall not undertake to -describe. He hesitated in his answer to the second question, who was the -next, as probably many Americans would; and was then asked who was the -celebrated ambassador of the United States at Paris, to which he replied -Franklin. He first said Ptolemy Philadelphus, but corrected himself -immediately. - -The most imposing spectacle I witnessed here was all the girls collected -at dinner. They were all dressed alike, in green frocks and white -aprons, which came over their arms. When we entered, they were all -ranged at their different places and were standing up. Those who were -distinguished, were placed at two small tables in the centre. Previous -to taking their seats, they sang a hymn in Russian as a blessing. Their -performance was excellent. Here the goodness and piety of the female -heart shone out in a striking manner. The little girls exhibited the -warmest and most lively devotion, and frequently crossed themselves with -all that sincerity and ardor of manner which can never be counterfeited -at their age. The dinner was very good. One circumstance is worthy of -remark. Mr. Gretsch made a little address in Russian to one of the -female classes, which Mr. Guerreiro understood. He informed them that I -was the minister of the United States, a great and powerful republic. -That the people there were well educated and well informed; but that -every person had to labor. That their Government was a good one; but no -paternal emperor existed there, who would become the father of orphans -and educate them at his own expense. He concluded by impressing upon -their minds how grateful they ought to be to the emperor, and how much a -monarchical government ought, on this account, to be preferred to a -republic. - -The emperor is very fond of this institution, of which he is the -founder. Indeed, in different forms and in different manners nearly all -the children of the Russian nobility of both sexes are educated in -imperial institutions, and in some degree at the expense of the -government. We visited the garden where there was a considerable number -of very little boys and girls too young for any of the classes. It is -the emperor’s delight, they say, to go among them and play with them, to -he down upon the ground and let them cover him, and to toss them about -in all directions. From all I have heard, a great fondness for children -is one of the traits of the emperor’s character. He is quick and warm in -his feelings, and at the moment of irritation would be severe: but his -passion soon subsides, and the empress receives great credit for -correcting this fault in his temper. I am more and more convinced every -day that he could have pursued no other course with safety towards the -Poles than that which he did. The bitterness against them is extreme, -and there is scarcely a monument of antiquities in the Kremlin which -does not relate to battles lost and won between the two nations. Their -mutual enmity is truly hereditary. The emperor advances two hundred -thousand roubles per annum to this institution, and has lately given it -a million of roubles, which is to accumulate for the purpose of forming -a capital for its support. The foundation of a new and extensive -building has already been laid for the better accommodation of the -pupils. - -The chamberlain, Tchenchine, is the principal director, and Mr. Davydoff -the chief professor, with both of whom I was much pleased, as well as -with Madame Tchenchine, the wife of the former. - -From thence, accompanied by Messrs. Tchenchine and Davydoff, we visited -the Armenian institution, founded in 1806 by the Messieurs Lazareff, -wealthy Armenian noblemen, for the benefit chiefly of native Armenians, -wheresoever they may be scattered. The memoir presented to me by Mr. D. -will sufficiently explain the object of it. There you saw in the form -and in the face of the pupils the Asiatic traits. One of them, a native -of Calcutta, spoke English to me. There are several private institutions -for the education of youth at Moscow, founded by private munificence, -and whether ostentation may have been the moving cause or not, still -they are very valuable to the community. We partook here of an elegant -déjeuner-à-fourchette. There are now forty-five scholars gratis and -twenty-five who pay fifty roubles per month, in the institution, so says -Mr. Davydoff. - -We dined to-day with the governor-general, Prince Galitzine, and a -select party. He is a dignified gentleman of the old school, with great -simplicity of manners, and is revered by the people high and low of the -city and province of Moscow. He speaks English tolerably well, and we -had much conversation concerning the United States. He commanded the -cavalry at the battle of Borodino, and represented it, as it has been -always represented, as a most murderous battle on both sides. - -We spent the evening at Prince Ourousoff’s. I had almost forgot to -mention that in our visits to the cathedrals and the patriarchal palace -we were accompanied by Mr. Polevoy, the editor of the Moscow -_Telegraph_, at Moscow, who is engaged in writing a history of Russia, -and by another savant, Professor John Snéquireff. - -The former gave me several exemplaries of Russian antiquities as a -souvenir. - - _Tuesday Morning._ - -Mr. Gretsch, Mr. Guerreiro and myself set out for the Trostza monastery, -a place famous in Russian history. It is sixty-two versts north of -Moscow. We left by the barrier of Trostza. We found the road covered -with numerous parties of pilgrims on foot, going to pay their devotions -at the shrine of St. Sierge, the founder. The women were, I think, -nearly ten to one for the men. In ancient times the sovereigns of Russia -used to go on foot from Moscow to worship at this shrine; the _pious_ -Catharine was, I believe, the last who performed this pilgrimage in this -manner. - -The villages and churches along the road are nearly all celebrated in -Russian history. At about seven versts from the principal convent there -is a monastery for nuns dependent upon it. We found the church at this -monastery crowded with pilgrims, crossing themselves; many were on their -knees before the pictures, and the most devout touched the floor with -their foreheads. There is nothing in the Greek liturgy which sanctions -the worship of these pictures. Indeed, images are excluded. It was, -however, impossible to resist the belief that these poor creatures -considered them something more than mere pictures. - -When we arrived at Trostza we found that the governor-general had sent -an officer to show me all the antiquities and curiosities of the place; -and had not Mr. Guerreiro told them in my absence that he knew it would -be disagreeable to me, I should have been received by a military guard. -I thus avoided what to me would have been unpleasant. - -We were first presented to the Reverend Father Antoine, the -archimandrite or abbot of the monastery. In my life I have never beheld -a more heavenly expression of countenance. It spoke that he was at peace -with heaven and with his fellow-men, and possessed a heart overflowing -with Christian benevolence and charity. He spoke no French nor English, -and my conversation with him was through Mr. Gretsch as interpreter. He -is very intelligent and perfectly modest and unassuming in his manners. -In his appearance he is not more than thirty-five. His long beard was of -a most beautiful chestnut color, and made his appearance venerable -notwithstanding his comparative youth. I shall never forget the -impression which this man made upon me. - -He showed us all the antiquities himself; and first we made a circuit on -the ancient wall. It is a mile round and at least twenty-two feet thick, -and its great glory is that the Poles have never been able to pass it. -This he communicated to us with evident satisfaction. It was in ancient -times the strongest fortification in Russia, and was perfectly -impregnable before the use of artillery. An imperial palace formerly -existed within it, not a trace of which now remains. - -St. Sierge was a pious and patriotic hermit who, in the reign of Dimitri -Danshoy, retired to this spot, which was then a wilderness. Some well -authenticated facts exist which may well inspire a superstitious people -with great veneration for this spot. Among others of a recent date, when -the plague raged in Moscow during the days of the Empress Catharine, -notwithstanding the gates of the monastery were always open to the -crowds of pilgrims who then frequented the shrine, no case of plague -occurred within the walls. The same may be observed in regard to the -recent cholera. - -After the circuit of the walls, we passed through the different -churches. That where the reliques of St. Sierge are deposited was much -crowded. His shrine is very rich. The church was crowded with pilgrims. - -The interior of these churches resembles the others we had seen. The -iconostase is the covering ascending from the floor to the summit, which -conceals from public view the place where the sacrament is consecrated. -Upon it are uniformly painted, in several rows, holy pictures of the -Virgin and of the saints. In the ancient churches these are sufficiently -rude and barbarous, but richly ornamented. - -In passing from one church to another we saw a square brick wall covered -with boards, but without any inscription, which contains the remains of -Boris Goudounoff and his family. The bodies of the father and the son -were taken by the fury of the people from the cathedral of St. Michael, -where they were deposited with those of the other czars, and were -afterwards brought to Trostza. They were formerly within the walls of a -church; but, it needing repairs, in the time of the madman Paul, he -ordered the walls which extended over these remains to be taken down, -and the limits of this church to be restricted so as to leave them -without a covering. Whilst the good archimandrite was relating this -circumstance, he was evidently much affected by the barbarity of the -action. This was done because Paul believed Goudounoff to be a usurper. - -He has been charged with the crime of having caused the murder of the -true Dimitri, the last branch of the family of Rurick. But this is a -most obscure period of Russian history, and their great historian, -Karamsin, leaves the question in doubt. In all other respects he was an -excellent sovereign, and Peter the Great always spoke of him in terms of -the highest respect. - -We afterwards visited the sacristy and there saw a great many splendid -sacred robes and vessels. All the sovereigns in succession of the house -of Romanoff have presented their gifts, with the exception of Peter the -Great, and there are several prior to that period. The specimens of -embroidery wrought by the Empresses Elizabeth, Anne and Catharine the -Second are very rich and magnificent. Peter the Great deprived this -monastery of all its disposable wealth for which he gave them receipts, -and Catharine took their lands and their peasants from them. But Peter -built a church there, at least so the archimandrite said, and pointed it -out to us. - -The greatest curiosity in the sacristy is the miraculous crystal, or -white stone, in the body of which is clearly defined and represented in -black a monk in his black robes kneeling before a crucifix. It requires -no effort of the imagination to present this spectacle to the eye. It is -clearly and distinctly defined. I examined this stone with great care, -and certainly but with little faith, and yet I am under the impression -that the likeness of the monk and the crucifix are contained in the very -body of the crystal itself, and are not artificial...... Nature, amid -the infinite variety of her productions, has given birth to this curious -piece of workmanship. The Father Antoine, in a solemn and impressive -manner, presented each of us with a consecrated picture of St. Sierge. - -The Father Antoine then accompanied us to that portion of the buildings -destined for the students of divinity, of which there are 100 at -Trostza, and the same number of monks. There we were presented to the -archimandrites; Polycarpe, rector of the ecclesiastical academy, a fat -and jolly-looking monk, who laced his tea strong with cherry brandy and -took his wine kindly; to Peter, ancient archimandrite of the Russian -mission at Peking, who has a long white beard and venerable appearance, -and read Chinese aloud for our amusement; to Neophyte, formerly -substitute of Peter at Peking; and to the monk Tsidore, librarian of the -ecclesiastical academy. Their wine and their tea were both excellent, -and we spent an hour or two very pleasantly with them. There is a room -in these apartments, the ceiling of which contains paintings of the -different exploits of Peter the Great; a tribute of his daughter, the -Empress Elizabeth. Upon taking leave, Polycarpe presented me several -treatises in Russ as a keepsake. Upon taking leave of Antoine, I -submitted to be kissed by him according to the Russian fashion, first on -the right cheek, then on the left, and then on the mouth. This was my -first regular experiment of the kind. - - _Wednesday._ - -We dined at Mr. Cavenaugh’s with a party of English. Among others I met -Mr. Camidge there. His appearance, manners and conversation in private -society did not answer the expectations I had formed of him from his -preaching. - - _Thursday._ - -On the 20th of June we left Moscow at eight in the evening, and arrived -at St. Petersburg on Monday, the 24th, at 2 P. M., having slept two -nights on the road. At Vouischnije Volotschok we saw the sluice -connecting the Tivortza with the Atsta. It can only be used by vessels -going towards St. Petersburg. - -The following letter to one of his Pennsylvania friends was written -immediately after his return to St. Petersburg. - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO G. LEIPER, ESQ.] - - ST. PETERSBURG, July 3, 1833. - -MY GOOD FRIEND:— - -It was with no ordinary pleasure that I received a letter by Mr. Clay -with your well-known superscription. You make a strong mark, and your -writing would be known among a thousand. I now have the joyful -anticipation of being ere long once more among you. A land reposing -under the calm of despotism is not the country for me. An American of -proper feelings who visits any portion of Europe, must thank his God -that his lot has been cast in the United States. For my own part, I feel -that I am a much greater Republican than ever. - -I hope with the blessing of Heaven to be able to leave St. Petersburg in -perfect consistency with the interests of my country some time during -the next month. I shall then spend a few weeks in seeing other parts of -Europe, and embark for home the last of October or beginning of -November. - -I have recently returned from a short excursion to Moscow; the city -which rolled back the tide of victory upon Napoleon. St. Petersburg is a -cosmopolite city; but at Moscow you see Russia. It is a most picturesque -and beautiful city. Its numerous churches surmounted by cupolas of every -form and of every color give it a romantic and an Asiatic appearance. -Many of these are gilt, and when the rays of the sun are reflected from -them, the eye is dazzled with the richness and splendor of the -spectacle. From Moscow I made a pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Sierge, -a distance of forty miles. Going and returning I suppose we saw ten -thousand pilgrims upon the way. They were chiefly of the fair sex, and -nearly all on foot. This shrine is at the Monastery of the Trinity, a -place famous in Russian history, having been at the same time a convent, -a palace, and a fortification. Here the family of the czars have often -taken refuge. In passing round on the top of the walls with the abbot -(which is more than a mile in circumference), he told me in a tone of -triumph and national antipathy that these walls had never been taken by -the Poles; on taking leave he presented me with a consecrated picture of -St. Sierge, and from him I submitted to the operation of being kissed, -first on the right cheek, then on the left, and finally plump on the -mouth. This is the general custom of the country; but it was my first -experiment of the kind. The pious Catharine, although she seized the -peasants and the broad acres of this monastery, made a pilgrimage on -foot from Moscow to the shrine of St. Sierge. But enough of this -bagatelle. - -On Saturday last, the 29th ultimo, we had news from New York via London -up till the 1st, a wonderfully short passage. We then heard of the death -of Randolph, and of the appointment of Mr. Duane as Secretary of the -Treasury. I have no doubt the latter will make a good officer, and he -shows great courage in undertaking the Treasury at the present moment. -My best wishes attend him. - -I think it more than probable that my political life is drawing to a -close, and I confess I look upon the prospect without regret. Office is -not necessary for my happiness. I can enjoy myself with the blessing of -God, under my own vine and my own fig tree. Whoever embarks on the -stormy ocean of politics must calculate to make a shipwreck of -contentment and tranquility. I have served the old hero faithfully and -zealously, and he has done more for me than I could have expected. But I -hope ere long to talk over my travels and my ups and downs along with -Edwards and yourself and a few other friends in the good old county of -Delaware. By the bye, I have a crow to pick with Edwards. I wrote to him -and he has never answered my letter. - -I am obliged to write at full gallop. _Safe_ opportunities are so rare, -and when they occur, so much of my time is taken up in writing -despatches, that I have but little left for my private friends. - -Remember me kindly to Edwards and his charming wife, to Dick, the -doctor, your brothers, Kane, Lescine, Judge Engle, and my other friends. -Please to present my most respectful compliments to Mrs. Leiper, and -believe me, in whatever land my lot may be cast, to be always your -friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - -The following brief account of one of the national fêtes is recorded -soon after his return to St. Petersburg: - - THE FETE AT PETERHOFF, SATURDAY, JULY 1–13, 1833. - -The English palace was provided for the reception of the Diplomatic -Corps, where we lived with Count Daschkaw, the grand master of -ceremonies, Count Matuscervie, and some masters of the court. Everything -was provided for us in handsome style, for which, according to custom, I -paid the court servants two hundred roubles at my departure. - -In the morning we went to visit the gardens upon singular vehicles on -four wheels and drawn by two splendid horses. I can describe it no -better than by imagining a double sofa with a single back, on which ten -of us could sit back to back comfortably, five on each side. The -foot-board was within about a foot of the ground. - -The water-works are the chief object of attraction. The water is -conveyed in a canal for the distance of about thirty versts to the -palace of Peterhoff, which is situate at the summit and on the brink of -the second bank of the Gulf of Finland. From it there is a steep descent -of about thirty feet to the extensive plain on the southern shore of the -Gulf, which is covered by the immense garden. It is this descent which -has enabled them to present so many varieties of water-works. In the -gardens above, on a level with the palace (the English garden), the -water is tastefully distributed into several lakes, etc. - -The water falls in several broad sheets over different steps immediately -in front of the palace. One range of these is gilt, and in a clear day -must present a splendid spectacle. They place candles under the shutes -of the water and thus have an illumination under the water, which did -not, however, produce the effect I expected. - -There are many long walks in the gardens, I should say more than a verst -in length, at the intersection of which are little lakes, and in the -centre of them jet d’eaus. - -On the sides of these walks, and all around the little lakes, were -frame-works to a considerable elevation, destined for the candles. - -We rode all through these different walks. In front of one of the lakes -stands the little palace of Marly, built by Peter the Great. Everything -is preserved there just as he left it; and it was curious to observe the -progress of luxury in comparing his clothing and accommodations with -those of the imperial family in the present day. There is a carp which -has been in the lake for a century, with a collar round its neck. It, -with others, comes to the edge of the water at the sound of a bell, -every morning, to receive its breakfast. - -We went over to the ball about eight in the evening, where the emperor -and empress and the rest of us polonaised, and all things were conducted -as on the 1st January, only the crowd was not so great. After supper, -about half-past eleven, the emperor, empress, Prince Albert of Prussia, -and other members of the I. F., mounted one of these vehicles. They were -followed in others by the members of the court of D. C., and thus we -slowly promenaded through all these walks, the sides of which were -covered by immense crowds of spectators. The effect of the illumination -was brilliant. The Grand Duke Michel was on horseback, and great -precautions were evidently taken, on account of the Polish conspiracy. - -About half-past one we ended. The distance to Peterhoff 26 versts. Mr. -Lander and Captain Ranlett, Americans, were there in the ball room, in -dominos, etc., etc. - - [TO THE HON. E. LIVINGSTON, SECRETARY OF STATE.] - - AMERICAN LEGATION, } - ST. PETERSBURG, July 3, 1833, N. S. } - -SIR:— - -On the 28th ultimo I had an interview with Count Nesselrode on the -subject of the application which I made on the 5–17 May, in behalf of -Messrs. Shaw & Co., of Boston. The question has not yet been decided. - -After the conversation upon this subject, the count informed me that -Baron Krudener, in his last despatch, had acknowledged the receipt of -the emperor’s ratification of the treaty, and on the first instant I -received a note from him communicating the intelligence that the -ratifications had been exchanged at Washington on the 11th of May. At -this interview I had hoped he would say something concerning the -proposed treaty on neutral rights, and gave the conversation such a turn -as would naturally lead to the subject. - -I enquired when the emperor would leave St. Petersburg. He answered that -his majesty would not set out upon his journey into the interior until -after the commencement of August. I then replied that before his -departure, I should solicit my audience of leave, as I intended to -return to the United States during the approaching autumn. - -He expressed his regret at my determination and their satisfaction with -my conduct as a minister; but made no allusion whatever, either to the -treaty or to my note of the 18–30 of May. I felt that it would not be -becoming for me again to press this subject upon his attention, and thus -we parted. - -Perhaps it might have been better under the circumstances not to have -attempted a renewal of the negotiation at the present moment. - -This government has, for some time, been in possession of secret -information which has given them much concern. - -The impression is that it was first communicated to the emperor by Louis -Philippe. A number of Poles at Paris, driven to desperation by their -sufferings, have solemnly sworn before God, and pledged themselves to -each other, to assassinate the emperor, at any personal peril. - -The first intimation which the public had of the existence of the -conspiracy was the publication on the 8–20 June, in the St. Petersburg -_Journal_, of an address presented to the emperor at Helsingfors, during -his late visit to Finland; the subject was again referred to in the -succeeding number of the 15–27 of the same month. I herewith transmit -you both these numbers. - -From the desperation of the Poles, and their determined character, this -information has excited considerable alarm in St. Petersburg. The people -here, whilst they admire and respect the emperor as the author of their -security and prosperity, look with fearful apprehension to the future, -in the event of his assassination. - -The heir apparent is yet a minor, and although he possesses a most -amiable disposition, it is believed he is deficient both in talent and -strength of character. The Grand Duke Michel, who would become regent, -is as universally disliked as the emperor is esteemed. Indeed, in such -an event, many of the foreigners in St. Petersburg, knowing the deadly -hostility felt against them by the lower orders of Russians, would -entertain serious apprehensions for their lives and their property. Such -is the miserable condition of despotism; and such is the feeling here, -at the very moment when this government, more by its superior policy -than its power, has acquired a commanding influence throughout Europe. - -Still greater precautions now exist than did formerly, in regard to the -admission of strangers into the country. The emperor no longer appears -in the streets like a private citizen. It is said that he is always -surrounded by guards. But from what I have heard, he rather submits to -these regulations of his ministers than approves of them himself. He is -a bold and fearless man, and manifests no apprehension whatever. If the -Poles have determined to play the part of Scaevola, he at least will not -enact that of Porsenna. - -Three of the conspirators have been seized in Russia. After all I cannot -feel that there is much danger. I send you the _Journal_ of yesterday, -containing our latest news from Constantinople. - -This despatch will be carried to London by Mr. Gibson, our consul. He -has been ill for some time, and his disease is, I fear, now approaching -its crisis. He is very feeble, has a bad cough, and throws up much -blood. His physician informed him that his only hope was to leave St. -Petersburg, and that immediately. Mr. Clay will perform his duties -during his absence, and we are both happy to render all the services in -our power to so worthy a man and so good an officer. - -After having written the foregoing, I had the pleasure of receiving your -Despatch No. 11, dated on the 30th April. It has been long on the -passage. By the Hamburg _Reporter_ received on the 29th ultimo, we had -New York dates, via London, up till the first of that month. - -On the 19th of July, Mr. Buchanan received the melancholy news that his -mother had died in the previous May. - - [TO REV. EDWARD Y. BUCHANAN.] - - ST. PETERSBURG, July 20, 1833. - -MY DEAR BROTHER:— - -I received your kind letters, of the 7th and 17th May, on yesterday -afternoon; the latter communicating the melancholy intelligence of -mother’s death.[37] The news was a severe and unexpected blow. I had -hoped, by the blessing of God, to see her once more on this side of -eternity. Indeed, this desire was one of the chief reasons which made me -so reluctant to spend another winter in Russia. - -But it has been the will of the Almighty to take her to Himself, and we -must bow in humble reverence. I received at the same time a letter from -Mr. Henry, which gave me the consolatory assurance that she had died the -death of a Christian, and that her latter end was peace. - -It is my present intention to leave St. Petersburg on the 7th August, -and I feel almost confident, with the blessing of Heaven, that I shall -be able with propriety, to bring all the business of my mission to a -close before that day. - -My present purpose is to go by the steamboat to Lubeck, and thence by -Hamburg, Amsterdam, the Hague, and Brussels to Paris, where I shall -probably spend a fortnight. I shall then proceed to London, Edinburgh, -Glasgow, Belfast and Dublin, from which city I intend to cross over to -Liverpool, and sail for New York by the packet of the 24th October. It -is my intention, if possible, to see Romilton and Derry. I hope to reach -the United States in the beginning of December. - -I have recently returned from a very agreeable excursion to Moscow; but -I must defer a description of this city, the ancient capital of the -czars, until we meet again. Whilst there, I visited the celebrated -monastery of Iwitza, at the distance of forty miles. In the estimation -of the Russians, it is a very holy place. It was anciently a strong -fortress, which contained a palace as well as a convent, and is much -connected with the history of Russia. The sovereigns formerly made -pilgrimages on foot from Moscow to the shrine of St. Sierge, at this -monastery. The Empress Catharine the Second, was the last who performed -this act of devotion. Going and returning there, I am confident we met -at the least 10,000 pilgrims on foot. They appeared to be of a low order -of people, and the great majority were females. - -I have but little time before the departure of the boat, and must close. -Remember me affectionately to my sister, I don’t know her Christian -name, to the Doctor and Maria. I am glad to hear that the latter are so -comfortably situated, and hope you may all live together in Christian -peace and in prosperity. Remember me kindly to Judge and Mrs. Shippen, -Mr. and Mrs. Barlow, and believe me to be ever your affectionate -brother, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - -P. S.—I wrote to our dear mother on the 3d instant. - - [TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE.] - - LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, - ST. PETERSBURG, July 31, N. S. 1833. - -On Friday last, the 28th instant, I had an interview with Count -Nesselrode, for the purpose of making the necessary arrangements -previous to my departure from this country. - -After the usual salutations, he introduced the subject of the commercial -treaty, which is one of his favorite topics. The opposition made to it -in the imperial council, and the difficulties which he there encountered -and overcame, seem to have inspired him with a feeling of paternity -towards this treaty. After some general conversation, relating chiefly -to its favorable reception in the United States, I changed the subject, -and remarked, that in our last interview I had entirely forgotten to -mention that his explanation in regard to Baron Sacken’s note was -entirely satisfactory to the President. It might be proper to observe, -however, that Mr. Livingston differed materially from the baron in -relation to some of the facts attending this unpleasant transaction, and -it had, at first, been my intention to bring these points of difference -specially under the notice of his excellency; but after reflection, I -had determined that it was best upon the whole not to revive the -subject. He immediately replied it was wholly unnecessary; he wished the -whole subject to be buried in oblivion and there remain as if it had -never existed. He expressed his pleasure in the strongest terms that the -President was satisfied with the explanation, and then laughingly -observed that Baron Sacken and Mr. Livingston were now both _hors du -combat_: the one was no longer chargé nor the other Secretary of State. - -I felt the less inclined to enter into any detail upon this subject, as -Mr. Livingston admits that Baron Sacken did show him the offensive note -at New York, and _that he did not make any objections to its style_, -though he is convinced this took place after the note had been sent to -Mr. Brent and not before, as the baron had informed Count Nesselrode. -When I returned home, I discovered that the count, before our interview, -must have had in his possession a copy of Mr. Livingston’s Despatch No. -11, giving his own explanation of the whole transaction. During my -absence, the post-office had sent me the duplicate of that despatch -which, like all the communications I have ever received through the same -channel, had been evidently opened. How it got there, I know not, -because it had been forwarded to this city by the ship Birmingham from -New York _via Charleston_. - -After this subject was disposed of, I told the count that as all our -official intercourse had been of the most frank and friendly character, -I felt it to be my duty to explain to him the reasons which would induce -me to leave Russia sooner than I had at first intended. A short time -before the departure of Mr. Clay with the treaty last winter, I had -received information of my brother’s death and of the declining health -of my mother and eldest sister. These circumstances had naturally -produced a desire to return home, and had besides imposed upon me new -and urgent duties towards my family. In a private letter which I -addressed to the President by Mr. Clay, I suggested that these -considerations might induce me to ask for permission to leave St. -Petersburg sooner than I had intended; and upon his return in May last, -I had received my letter of recall with the discretionary power of -presenting it when I might think proper. The recent melancholy -intelligence of my mother’s death had increased my anxiety, and made the -reasons for my departure still more urgent. - -He expressed his sorrow that I had been so unfortunate as to have lost -my mother and my brother since my arrival in St. Petersburg, and his -regret that these circumstances should have rendered my departure -necessary. - -I told him I had not in the beginning intended to remain longer than two -years,—I was no diplomat, and had never any desire to pursue this -career. That I should now return to private life; but in whatever -circumstances I might hereafter be placed, it would always afford me -great pleasure to exert any humble influence I might possess in -cementing the bonds of friendship which now so happily united the two -countries. - -He complimented me by saying, I had shown myself to be both an able and -a successful diplomat, and he could assure me I had contributed much, -since my arrival in this country, to promote kindly feelings between the -two governments. He hoped I would carry with me agreeable souvenirs of -my residence in St. Petersburg, and that my influence at home might be -used in perpetuating the good understanding which now so happily -existed. - -I had taken with me a copy of my letter of recall and of the concluding -paragraph of Despatch No. 9, and upon presenting them, I read the latter -to the count, containing an assurance of the high consideration with -which the personal character of the emperor had inspired the President, -and of the wishes he formed for his happiness and the prosperity of his -empire. To this I added that such an assurance, proceeding from the -source it did, was in itself the strongest evidence of its own -sincerity...... - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - -All things being arranged for his departure, Mr. Buchanan had his -audience of leave of the emperor on the 5th of August, of which he gave -a striking account to the Secretary of State in the following despatch -written two days afterward: - - [TO THE HON. LOUIS McLANE, SECRETARY OF STATE.] - - ST. PETERSBURG, August 7, 1833, N. S. - -SIR:— - -On Monday last, the 5th instant, I had my audience of leave of the -emperor, at the Palace of Peterhoff, twenty-six versts distant from this -city. The conduct and conversation of his majesty throughout the -interview were highly gratifying to myself; because they convinced me -that I had conciliated his favorable opinion. This ought to be, next to -the honest and independent discharge of his duty, the first object of a -minister to Russia. Without it, he can never effectually serve his -country. - -Towards the conclusion of this interview, you will perceive that the -emperor appeared to lay aside his official dignity and conversed frankly -and with great feeling upon subjects which I could never have imagined -he would introduce. - -When I first entered he said: “What is the reason you are going to leave -us? I am very sorry for it. You have given us great satisfaction whilst -you have been amongst us.” After explaining to him the reason for my -departure, he expressed his sympathy for me on account of the recent -loss of my mother, and made some inquiries in relation to my family -which I need not repeat. I then observed that, at the first, I had not -intended to remain longer than two years. I was no diplomat, having -never been engaged in that service before, and it was probable I should -never again represent my country abroad. He said he liked me the better -for it. He was no diplomat himself; his policy was always frank and -open, and those who believed otherwise had greatly mistaken his -character. - -I then presented to him my letter of recall, and told him I had been -instructed to assure him on this occasion of the continued desire felt -by the President to foster the good understanding which now so happily -subsisted between the two nations; and to express the high consideration -with which his majesty’s personal character had inspired the President, -and the wishes which he cherished for his happiness and the prosperity -of his empire. - -He said it was very gratifying to his feelings to receive such an -assurance from General Jackson. He had shown himself to be a man both of -integrity and firmness, and he valued his good opinion very highly. He -felt a great respect for the people of the United States. They were a -true and loyal people, and he should always endeavor to promote the most -friendly relations with our country. - -I then added, to that of General Jackson, my own humble testimonial of -regard for his personal character, and the gratitude which I felt for -his uniform kindness towards myself upon all occasions when I had the -honor of meeting him. He replied that he felt much indebted to me for my -good opinion, and trusted I should never have occasion to change it. He -hoped I would remember him with kindness when I returned to my own -country. He entertained a high personal regard for myself; and it was a -source of peculiar pleasure to him, that it had fallen to my lot to -conclude the commercial treaty between the two countries. He was glad -this treaty had given satisfaction in the United States, and he believed -it would serve to strengthen the attachment between two nations who -ought always to be friends. - -I observed it was one of the most agreeable occurrences of my life, to -have been instrumental in concluding this treaty. I had no doubt it -would be mutually beneficial to both countries. That wherever I was and -whatever might be my lot, I should never cease to cherish the most -ardent wishes for his happiness, and to use my humble influence in -cementing the friendship between the two nations. This had been my -constant object throughout the period of my mission. He said I had been -eminently successful, and again assured me that my conduct had given him -great satisfaction. - -He then alluded, with considerable feeling, to the late debate in the -House of Commons concerning Polish affairs; he observed that he was the -representative of a great and powerful nation. This station imposed upon -him many and arduous duties. He had acted in his public character, and -upon views of public policy. But instead of considering the subject in -this light, they seemed to have been instigated by a desire to abuse him -personally. He could appeal to God and his own conscience for the purity -and correctness of his conduct; and whilst that was the case, he should -have peace within his own bosom, and would not regard the opinion of the -world. This was a delicate subject. I replied that I had read the debate -with considerable surprise. The distance at which my rank placed me from -his majesty had enabled me to know but comparatively little of his -personal character from my own observation; but judging from that -knowledge, as well as from the information I had been able to collect, -since my arrival in St. Petersburg, I entertained not a doubt he had -been treated with great injustice. Indeed, it was impossible for any -person who knew him, to believe that the representation made in that -debate could be true. - -And here permit me to declare that this is my honest conviction. I yield -to no man in abhorrence for the different partitions of Poland, and in a -desire to see the independence of that brave and gallant people -re-established; but truth compels me to say that the cruelties of the -Imperial Government towards them have been greatly exaggerated. It is -even notorious here that in several instances the sons of Polish -patriots who died fighting for national independence are receiving their -education at the expense of the emperor, and are treated by him with -distinguished kindness. The exaggerated impressions which have been -spread throughout the world upon this subject arise, in a great degree, -from the want of anything like a free press in Russia. From this cause, -the representations of the injured party pass every where current, -almost without contradiction. Still, it cannot be denied that whenever -Russian officers are entrusted with power over Poles, it will most -probably be abused. This arises from the ancient and malignant personal -hatred existing between the two races. - -The emperor afterwards observed that the English nation had, in his -opinion, been acting very unwisely. They had got tired of a constitution -under which they had risen to a high degree of greatness, and which had -secured them many blessings, and he feared they were now about to -prostrate their most valuable institutions. He then asked me what route -I intended to take on my return home. I told him I should pass through -Hamburg, Amsterdam, the Hague and Brussels to Paris, where I expected to -spend a few weeks. From thence I should pass over to London, and finally -embark from Liverpool for the United States. I said I had no particular -desire to visit Paris; on the contrary, I should rather spend what time -I had to spare in seeing a part of England, Scotland and Ireland; but it -would be considered strange for an American to return from Europe -without seeing Paris, the centre of so many attractions. This gave him -occasion to speak of France. He said I was quite right in my intention -to visit Paris. The French were a singular people. They were so fickle -in their character, and had such a restless desire to disturb the peace -of the world that they were always dangerous. They had tried every form -of government and could not rest satisfied with any. - -French emissaries were now endeavoring every where to excite -disturbances and destroy the peace all over Europe. - -I observed we had always pursued a different course in America. We were -no propagandists. Perfectly satisfied with our institutions, we left to -every other nation the task of managing their own concerns in their own -manner. This had been the uniform policy of our Government since its -origin. - -He replied that he knew the character of our nation well, and repeated -they were a true and loyal people: He had the greatest confidence in -them. His own policy was the same as ours. He was no propagandist -himself. All he desired was peace. He never interfered with the concerns -of other nations when it could possibly be avoided. He desired peace -above all things for Russia. But he said it seemed as if there were at -present an evil spirit abroad throughout the world. He appeared to be -particularly the object of its malevolence. (Evidently alluding to the -Polish conspiracy.) He was in the hands of the Almighty, and would -endeavor to do his duty fearlessly and honestly in the station where -Providence had placed him, and in humble submission would leave the -event to His will. Here he was evidently affected. - -He then bade me adieu, and embraced and saluted me according to the -Russian custom, a ceremony for which I was wholly unprepared, and which -I could not have anticipated. Whilst we were taking leave, he told me to -tell General Jackson to send him another minister exactly like myself. -He wished for no better. - -Upon leaving his presence I was sensibly impressed with the vanity of -human greatness. The circumstances brought forcibly to memory the -closing scene of the life of the Emperor Alexander. Throughout his last -illness he refused to take medicine, and thus suffered his disease, -which was not at the first considered dangerous, to become mortal. When -Sir James Wylie, his physician, told him that unless he would submit to -medical treatment his disease must prove fatal, the Emperor Alexander -regarded him earnestly, and exclaimed in the most solemn manner, “and -why should I desire to live?” He continued to reject all remedies, and -his death was the consequence. On the truth of this anecdote you may -rely. There was no foundation for the report that he had been poisoned. - -At the first, I had determined to suppress such parts of this -conversation as were evidently confidential, together with the kind -things which the emperor said to me personally; but I afterwards -concluded that it was my duty under my instructions to report the whole. -This is done, under a full conviction that it will never meet the public -eye. - -I had on the same day my audience of leave of the empress, who was very -gracious, but what passed upon this occasion is not properly the subject -for a despatch. - -I took leave of Count Nesselrode this morning, and presented Mr. Clay as -chargé-d’affaires. Time presses, and I shall leave him in his first -despatch to give you a particular account of this interview. It was -entirely satisfactory. - -Thus has my mission terminated; and I cannot be mistaken when I say that -these people now evince a much better feeling both towards our -Government and the head of it than they did on my arrival. I have taken -great pains, upon all proper occasions, to make the character and -conduct of General Jackson known. Nothing more was necessary to make the -man who enjoys the highest rank in our country stand also the first in -their esteem. - -I have not seen or heard anything of Baron Sacken since his arrival in -this city. - -Within the past few days it has been known here that the emperor had -refused to receive Sir Stratford Canning as ambassador from England. As -his reasons were altogether personal, this refusal can produce no -serious difficulty between the two nations. The Russians say that Sir -Stratford, when here before, evinced a captious and jealous disposition, -which rendered him very disagreeable. - -I expect to reach the United States about the last of November or -beginning of December. - - Yours very respectfully, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - ------ - -Footnote 34: - - General Jackson at his second election received 219 electoral votes - out of 288. - -Footnote 35: - - This I believe to have been a mistake, in respect to the nullification - ordinance. It was adopted by a State convention, and consequently - could only be repealed by another convention. This, I believe, was not - done; but the laws based upon this ordinance were probably repealed by - the legislature after Mr. Clay’s compromise. See the _Life of - Webster_, by the present writer, Vol. I, p. 156. - -Footnote 36: - - Louis McLane, of Delaware, became Secretary of State in May, 1833. He - was succeeded by John Forsyth, of Georgia, in June, 1834. - -Footnote 37: - - Mrs. Buchanan died on the 14th of May, 1833, at the house of her - daughter, Mrs. Lane, in Greensburg, Pennsylvania. The letters of Mrs. - Buchanan, of which I have seen many more than I have quoted, although - rather formal in expression, show a mind of much cultivation, imbued - with a fervent religious spirit, and of very decided and just - opinions. In one of her letters to her son James, written in 1822, she - says: “Harriet and myself, at the request of Mr. S., a clergyman, are - engaged in reading Neale’s History of the Puritans, in which I observe - a development of Queen Elizabeth’s character and management, not much - to her honor; however, it appears evident, in opposition to her own - intentions, she was made an instrument in the hands of Providence, of - promoting the Reformation, which has certainly rendered an essential - service to the world.” If the good lady had read Mr. Hallam’s very - impartial account of Elizabeth’s management of the two opposite - parties among the English Protestants, she would not have had much - reason for changing the opinion which she formed from reading Neale, - although it would not have been correct to say that the Queen’s course - was in any just sense dishonorable to her. The truth probably is, that - Elizabeth, in nearly everything that she did in regard to religion, - was governed by motives of policy, and not by convictions or special - inclinations. In many respects, she was not a Protestant, according to - the Puritan standard, and in many others she was not a Catholic. - ------ - - - - - CHAPTER X. - 1833. - -DEPARTURE FROM ST. PETERSBURG—JOURNEY TO PARIS—PRINCESS LIEVEN—POZZO DI - BORGO—DUC DE BROGLIE—GENERAL LAFAYETTE—LOUIS PHILIPPE—ARRIVAL IN - LONDON—DINNER AT PRINCE LIEVEN’S AND LORD PALMERSTON’S—PRINCE - TALLEYRAND. - - -Mr. Buchanan commenced his homeward journey on the 8th of August (1833). -Omitting what merely relates to places and things now well known to all -travelers, I select the following passages from his diary: - - _Thursday, August 8, 1833._ - -I left St. Petersburg. Mr. Bligh, Mr. Gevers and Mr. Clay accompanied me -as far as Cronstadt. At 6 o’clock in the afternoon we passed the guard -ship and arrived at Travemunde, on Tuesday, the 13th, between 12 and 1 -o’clock in the day, after a rough and stormy passage. The boat -(Alexandra) has not sufficient steam power for her tonnage, having only -140 horse-power for more than 700 tons, and the consequence is that she -can make but little way against a head wind. The price of the passage is -250 roubles ($50), the consequence of an indiscreet monopoly which has -been granted by the emperor. - -We had on board the Princess Lieven and her two youngest sons, the -Princes George and Arthur, called after the late king[38] and the Duke -of Wellington—the one about thirteen, the other nine—fine boys. Count -Matuscervie was also on board, bound for Aberdeenshire on a hunting -expedition. He is excessively fond of horse-racing, hunting and all -field sports, and seems to take much greater delight in talking of these -subjects, than those of a serious nature. The princess has in a great -degree lost that beauty which captivated the king and the Duke of W. Her -nose is now sharp and her face somewhat red; but her manners and -conversation are very fine. I consider her superior to Matuscervie as a -diplomatist.[39] I endeavored to cultivate her good graces, not by -assiduous attentions, which are often annoying, but by kind and -respectful conduct towards her whenever the opportunity occurred -unsought. I succeeded. She is a woman and possesses all the -superstitious feelings in regard to omens which distinguish the -Russians. The count and myself made a bet on the length of the voyage, -and drank the wine before its termination. This gave her much -uneasiness, and the wind became more violent immediately after. The -count wrote a complimentary certificate in the captain’s [log] book, and -it was signed before the close of the voyage. Immediately after we had -quite a storm, which continued the whole night. I should have been -alarmed myself, but thanks to the Yankee captain with whom I crossed the -Atlantic, who would carry sail in a hurricane. Captain Dietz, of the -boat, a round-faced and pleasant Dutchman, and a naturalized citizen of -the United States, attributed our bad voyage entirely to the -circumstance of having a parson aboard (The Rev. Mr. Kneill). He swore -he could show all his [log] books and prove that, since he commanded a -vessel, he had never made a single prosperous voyage with a clergyman on -board. This was added to the stock of the princess’s superstition, and I -found her uneasy at the idea of having him on board, on their passage -from Hamburg to London. I told her I considered it almost a moral -phenomenon to see such a woman believing in these presages. She said she -had not _un esprit fort_. She could not help it. She said Lady Holland -was as bad as herself in this respect. It was she [Lady Holland] who had -first informed her that it was bad luck to set out on a journey on -Friday. The princess did not believe it; but she had once tried it; her -carriage was broken, and she injured, so as not to be entirely recovered -for a year. - -Lord Wellington, she said, never thought himself wrong. He was always -right, in his opinion. He had committed three great blunders whilst he -was minister. - -The first was in sending Prince Polignac to govern France. The duke had -told her that this prince was the greatest man in France. Politeness -alone had prevented her from laughing in his face. He was _mediocre -parmi les mediocres_; besides, he was obstinate to the very last degree. -The second was on the Catholic emancipation question; and the third in -refusing all reform after having himself opened the door for it. - -Lord Lowther had called to see her in Hamburg, and informed her that -there would have been, a few days ago, a new ministry in England, but -for the timidity of Sir Robert Peel. I told her I thought this was -prudence in Sir Robert. The Tories could not now govern England. She -concurred in opinion with me; said the duke was now near seventy, and -could not afford to wait, but that was not the case with Sir Robert. We -talked of the Polish question, etc., etc...... Met Mr. Wheaton, his wife -and daughter in Hamburg.[40] - - _Tuesday, at 12 o’clock (day)._ - -We left Cologne and arrived in Aix-la-Chapelle, a distance of nine and a -quarter German miles, through Bergheim and Juliers. The latter strongly -fortified. - -The king of Prussia seems to be determined to strengthen himself in this -country. Judging from what I have observed myself and heard from others, -he cannot rely upon the affections of the people. Indeed, they talk very -freely. They all refer to the days of Napoleon; and compare their -situation then with what it is at present. The old maitre d’hotel at -Bergheim, who has kept a public house for fifty years, and who seems to -be a sensible and honest-hearted old man, told me that the taxes were -not half so heavy under Napoleon as they were at present. That he was -the greatest man there had ever been in the world, and they loved the -French much better than the Prussians. Other travelers, who understand -German, have told me that at the public tables they talk of a revolution -as certain; without pretending to conjecture when it will take place. - -But the king of Prussia is a wise man. He has been taught in the school -of misfortune, and has been greatly benefited by the lessons of that -stern mistress. There is great freedom of speech allowed throughout the -Prussian dominions, and in those east of the Rhine the king is popular, -notwithstanding the violation of his promise to give them a -constitution. This arises from a general conviction of his wisdom and -justice, and particularly from the equal conduct he has pursued towards -all classes of his subjects. The people are pleased with him, because -his conduct towards the nobles has given them no cause of jealousy. He -is a democratic despot, and this is perhaps the true policy of all -despots. - -In the Rhenish provinces, it is difficult for the people to rebel, in -the midst of strong and almost impregnable fortifications and of troops -faithful and well disciplined. - - _Saturday night, August 31, (1833)._ - -Arrived in Paris, and went to lodgings provided for me by Mr. -Harris,[41] in the Rue de Paix. - - _Sunday._ - -I walked to the Place Vendome, and saw the triumphal column. The statue -of Napoleon was again placed upon its summit during the anniversary of -what are called here the glorious days of the revolution of July (1830). -I also visited the garden of the Tuileries, the Champs Elysées, and the -Place of Louis XVI, between the two. Here this unfortunate monarch was -executed. - -A column is to be erected in the centre, exactly resembling Cleopatra’s -Needle. There is a model of it now standing. Dined with Mr. Harris—a man -sufficiently civil and ceremonious, but a mannerist...... He has been so -long in Europe as to have lost much of his American feelings, if he ever -possessed them in a strong degree. Not unskilful as a diplomatist. He is -remembered kindly in Russia, whilst such men as Bayard and Pinkney are -forgotten. He seems to have done his duty in relation to the -confirmation of the French treaty by the chambers. - - _Monday._ - -Called on the Duke of Treviso (Mortier) and General Lafayette; found -them both in the country; took a drive with Mr. Harris into the Bois de -Boulogne. He is exceedingly anxious to be appointed minister to Russia. -I also visited Notre Dame. - - _Tuesday._ - -Visited the Louvre. Whilst there, met very unexpectedly Walter -Patterson, Esq., of the State of New York, and Mr. Stevenson and Mr. -Burns, of the same State. - -Afterwards called with Mr. Harris on Count Pozzo di Borgo;[42] had an -interesting conversation with him. He thinks the French selfish, that -their courage proceeds from vanity, and that they are wholly unfit for -the enjoyment of constitutional liberty. He says they will fight well, -when seen, but are incapable of sustaining disasters. He has done -everything he could to preserve peace; but if war must come, he thinks -the French mistaken as to its result. If one were to judge merely from -the striking superiority of the Russian over the French troops in -appearance, this conclusion would seem very natural. - - _Saturday, Sunday and Monday._ - -So unwell that I could not go out. Mr. Harris made a dinner party of -Americans for me on Saturday, which, much to my regret, I could not -attend. General Lafayette called and sat nearly an hour with me before -he went to this dinner; but I was in great pain the whole time. - -Judging from what I have heard from the General, Major Poussin and -others, I have no doubt the Republican party are making rapid advances -in France. This is not confined to the lower orders, but extends to the -highest circles. From all I can observe and learn, they are wholly -unprepared for republican institutions. They want political virtue as -much as any people. They are very selfish, destitute in a great degree -of religion, and are always discontented with the present because they -hope something from change. Political virtue, with the exception of -Lafayette and a few others, don’t exist among them. - -The policy of the latter [Lafayette] is that France shall now school -herself preparatory to republican institutions, for fifteen or twenty -years. But I think he is afraid the change will take place sooner. He -has lost much of his popularity in France, because they believe him to -be an imbecile, and because he will not lead the Republican party to -immediate action. He has lost all confidence in Louis Philippe, who, in -my opinion, is as desirous of being a Legitimate as the Emperor -Alexander. - -In case of general republican commotions in France, a continental war -becomes inevitable. The three great powers of Europe are preparing for -it, and if one were to judge from the appearance of the Russian and -Prussian soldiers compared with the French, he would be tempted to doubt -the result. There is an energy in liberty, however, and there will -probably be such an aid to its cause among the oppressed of Germany, -Poland and other nations, that we may cherish the hope that France will -not be overrun. I do not consider the French either safe or good -apostles of liberty. I sincerely hope I am mistaken. Everything here is -now Bonaparte; and at present they appear to live upon the memory of -their greatness under him. - -I ought always to remember with gratitude the kindness of Mr. Emlen, -Doctor Fisher and Mr. Patterson[43] during my three days’ sickness. Hope -to be out to-morrow again. - - _Thursday, 12th._ - -Thank God! a fine day. Visited the Duc de Broglie, in company with Mr. -Harris. Conversation concerning the omission of the French Chamber to -ratify the treaty. - -I told him that, however the government here might be able to satisfy -that at Washington, and understand each other on the subject, their -explanations could not reach the people of the United States. I had no -doubt the transaction would give rise to much unpleasant feeling among -our people, and might lead to an unhappy state of feeling between the -two countries. That I should not be astonished if this were to manifest -itself on the meeting of Congress. He said that he was very sorry, Mr. -Harris could appreciate his exertions; he was happy to say that the -feeling in favor of the treaty was growing; the advantages of the -commerce were becoming more manifest, and he had no doubt that one of -the first acts which the Chamber would perform after its meeting, would -be to ratify it. He hoped it would come so soon that Congress would -receive the news before there was any expression of feeling. [He] -Criminated Mr. Dupin in relation to it—said he only called for the -papers because he knew that all the reports of previous commissions had -been against the treaty. He said, although not a member of the -administration which made it, he approved it and would now make such a -treaty.[44] - - _September 13th._ - -I dined to-day with Count Pozzo di Borgo. Before dinner he took Mr. -Harris and myself into a room apart from the rest of the company, and -told me he wished to communicate to me, so that I might inform the -President, on my return, what was the true condition of Europe at the -present moment. He said there did not exist at the present any immediate -apprehension of war; though from the state of things there was no -telling at what time war might take place. - -Everything was unsettled in France; they were a turbulent and restless -people, and busily employed with their propaganda. They were wholly -unfit for liberal institutions; and, in fact, these were not what they -wanted. They wished again for the glory of the times of Bonaparte. He -could himself, in a month, raise an insurrection in France; but what the -allied powers wanted was peace, and peace they would maintain so long as -they could consistently with propriety. That this they did not wish from -fear of the result. Far from it. They, to wit, Russia, Prussia and -Austria, were indissolubly united, and war with one would be war with -all. - -Those three powers, with the German Confederation, could, in three -months, bring an army of 600,000 men into the field, 500,000 infantry -and 100,000 cavalry, and have an army of reserve of the same number. The -French journals were continually attacking them without cause, for -interfering with foreign states, but I understood him to say that -Austria would interfere in Piedmont, and if the French should attempt to -prevent it, the allies would make common cause against them. They -disliked and distrusted France very much; England not so much. If the -latter would act a prudent and proper part, she might have great -influence on the affairs of Europe; but the English ministry were fools. -They were encouraging France, and yet it was almost certain they would -not fire a gun in defence of the latter. England depended upon her -commerce, and she could not afford to lose that of the whole continent -of Europe, which she would do in the event of war. She had acted very -foolishly in giving Belgium to France. - -What he wished me especially to tell the President was that he hoped the -United States in the event of a war would cause their neutrality to be -respected, and would not suffer the existence of illegal blockades. That -in the event of war, England would have every interest to cripple -American commerce; for, in that event, the commerce of the world would -fall into the hands of Americans. That the English must even use their -vessels to carry articles essentially necessary to them from the north -of Europe. - -I promised I would communicate all he had said to the President, and -observed that when we were comparatively feeble, we had gone to war for -the purpose of maintaining our neutral rights upon the ocean; and that -at this time of day, when we were much more powerful, neither the -President nor people of the United States would suffer them to be -violated with impunity. Our policy was peaceful; we never interfered -with the political concerns of other nations. The strictest neutrality -we should observe both from principle and from policy. This had been the -course of our Government ever since the celebrated proclamation of -neutrality of General Washington, which I explained to him. I was not -now afraid that England would, as she had done before, attempt to -violate the neutral rights of a nation which in six months could put to -sea fifty ships of the line and heavy frigates. He expressed some -admiration and astonishment at this statement, which was confirmed by -Mr. Harris, and observed he could not believe that they would. - -The conversation then turned upon the French treaty. He said he had been -speaking several times to Broglie, as he called him, upon the subject. -He had done what he could for us. Broglie was well disposed, and he -thought with the assistance of Lafayette and his friends, it would be -ratified very early in the next session. I told him I had understood -that Mr. Dupin, the President of the Chamber, was rather opposed to us. -He said that Dupin was an unprincipled man, I think he said a rascal, -very selfish, and fond of money. He was now receiving a pension of 200 -or 300 pounds. I did not understand exactly from whom. - -After we went to table, we had much conversation in nearly the same -strain. He told me he wished I could be present at two or three sittings -of the Chamber. They were like cats, all in a passion, and all making a -noise, and afterwards laughing; wholly unfit for liberty. They wanted -such a man as Bonaparte and glory again, not liberty. - -Before we went to table I asked him what he thought of Louis Philippe, -and whether the allied sovereigns had confidence in his character. He -answered equivocally. Said Louis Philippe might be well disposed; but he -might be controlled by the factions, and made to do what he did not -approve. His government wanted strength. - -At table, in speaking of the emperor [Nicholas], I said I had taken -occasion, since my arrival in France, to speak of the personal character -of the emperor to some persons, as I thought it deserved. He replied as -if I had mentioned the name of Lafayette, which I did not, and asked -what Lafayette had thought of that. I said that General Lafayette was -aware of the good personal character of the emperor, and that of the -empress, and the happy influence of their example on the Russian -nobility, and had freely admitted it. He said that the general had lost -his influence with Louis Philippe, and in a great degree in France. I -observed that whatever opinion others might express concerning him, I -considered it the duty of every American to speak with gratitude of him. -Mr. Harris here shook his head at me, but I continued to talk about him, -and the donation we had made him. The count said it was all spent, and I -replied I was very sorry for it. Various subjects were talked over, and -the count took leave of me in the kindest and most affectionate manner. -He was glad to have an opportunity of communicating this information to -a gentleman of my character, who had been sent on a special mission to -Russia, and acquitted himself in such a manner as I had done. General -Jackson might probably have never heard of him; but he had often [heard] -of the general, and respected his character very highly. I told him his -name was known throughout the political world. General Jackson would be -proud of his good opinion, which I should not fail to communicate. - -I forgot to mention that, at the proper place, I introduced the subject -of the treaty concerning maritime rights, and said one object of my -mission was to make a treaty which should assert these rights as between -the two nations. He replied that he presumed it had been explained to me -that the reason why Russia did not accede to this treaty at the present -moment was the delicate relations between them and England. Such a -treaty at this time would set England in a flame. Russia was but a -second-rate naval power. She agreed, however, entirely with the -principles concerning maritime rights maintained by us, and at the -proper time would assert them in the same manner as if she had entered -into the treaty. In the course of the conversation, he observed that the -influence of Russia was firmly established in Constantinople. Yes, I -observed, she had been acting whilst the other powers were talking. I -asked the true character of the sultan, and he spoke of him as rather a -wavering and weak man, etc. - -Mr. Buchanan, after visiting the interesting old city of Rouen, embarked -at Havre for Southampton, and arrived at Thompson’s Hotel in Cavendish -Square, London, on the 18th of September. A dinner at Prince Lieven’s -and another at Lord Palmerston’s are the only things worthy of note that -I find in his journal kept during this visit. - - _Monday, September 23._ - -Dined at Prince Lieven’s. - -The company were the Prince and Princess, Prince Talleyrand and the -Duchess de Dino[45], Prince Esterhazy, Baron Wessenberg, Lord -Palmerston, Baron Bülow, Mr. Dedal, Mr. Vail, the Earl and Countess of -Sefton, Mr. Lomonosoff and myself—fourteen. The whole London conference -there. A dinner given to Prince Talleyrand, who left London the next day -for Paris. - -They were all very civil and kind to me, particularly Princess Lieven, -Lord Palmerston and Prince Esterhazy. After dinner, I was introduced to -Prince Talleyrand by Lord Palmerston, at the solicitation of the latter. -He at once asked me, in French, if I could speak French. I told him not -well, but I could understand it. He then asked some questions about -America, and inquired particularly for the family of General Hamilton, -and about the descendants of General Schuyler. He said that when he was -minister for Foreign Affairs, Colonel Burr came to Paris and sent his -card to him. He returned the card, with a message that he had the -portrait of General Hamilton hanging up in his parlor. - -They told me, before I made his acquaintance, that though eighty-three, -by his own acknowledgment, his mind was as active as ever. This I doubt. -He has the appearance of a very old man, though not very thin, like the -French. At dinner he spoke very little, though he ate with a good -appetite. They say he eats but one meal a day. After dinner he was a -little more sprightly. He accepted an invitation to dine again with the -Prince and Princess on the 8th December, at half-past seven, with -pleasantry. Baron Bülow told me the next day that his ability and skill -in the conference were wonderful. He would lie down and say nothing -whilst all the rest were talking, but when they got tired and into -confusion, he would come out with great power, and restore all things to -their proper order. - -Lord Palmerston did not arrive at the dinner till after we had sat down, -about eight o’clock. They say he is never punctual. He is an agreeable -and open-hearted man to appearance. I had much conversation with him on -three occasions, particularly after his own dinner, and he must be a -great hypocrite if not in favor of promoting the most friendly relations -between England and the United States. Prince Esterhazy on this day -expressed his admiration of the President, and his warm friendship -towards the American people, and said this was the feeling of Prince -Metternich. He had recommended to the emperor to open diplomatic -relations with us, which the latter had acceded to, and a minister would -soon be sent. He spoke of his own country, Hungary, with great devotion, -and said he never would have been a diplomat but for the friendship of -the late king (George IV.). He pressed me several times to give -Americans letters of introduction to him. - - _Tuesday, 24._ - -Dined at Lord Palmerston’s. - -Lord Palmerston’s dinner consisted of his Lordship, Princes Esterhazy -and Lieven, Barons Bülow, Wessenberg and Ompteda, Mr. Backhouse, Mr. -Vail, Mr. Bacourt, Sir George Shea, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Sullivan, Jr. and -myself. - -I sat next Baron Bülow at table. He talked freely of the conduct of the -King of Holland. Blamed his obstinacy and perverseness. Said he might -yet bring ruin on his own head. The Dutch were an excellent people. He -had deceived them, induced them to believe that all he wanted was the -separation of Holland from Belgium upon fair terms, when he was only -keeping the question open in the hope that he might get Belgium under -his dominion again, which the Dutch did not wish. When they discovered -they had been deceived, he did not know what might be the consequence. -He said he could not anticipate when the conference would end. The King -of Holland could have got better terms formerly than it was possible for -him now. He told me _significantly_ that the King of Prussia would not -meet the emperors of Russia and Austria in conference. The whole -conversation coming from the Prussian minister to the conference -astonished me. - -Mr. Bates[46] told me the English were fifty years behind the Americans -in commercial enterprise and shipbuilding. He was examined before a -committee of the House of Commons. When questioned upon this subject, he -said he had been kindly received and treated in England, and did not -like to answer the question and have his answers published. They then -told him to give his opinion, and it should not be taken down. - -He told them the reason of the superiority was in the character of -masters and sailors. They were educated, had a sense of character and -responsibility, entirely different from the same classes in England. -Masters were respectable men, and sailors were now shipped from a -reading-room in Boston. - -He expressed his opinion to me that the Americans would, before long, -carry on the chief trade between England and China. Everything favored -them. The destruction of the East India Company’s charter and of the -West India merchants, etc. - -[He speaks of] The astonishment of the shipbuilder, when he gave the -dimensions of a vessel to him, and his astonishment afterwards at being -shown the American vessel which was his model, etc. - ------ - -Footnote 38: - - George IV. - -Footnote 39: - - This remarkable woman is regularly chronicled in Encyclopedias and - Biographical Dictionaries as a Russian diplomatist. She certainly - fulfilled that character in an extraordinary manner for a period of - about forty years. When Mr. Buchanan met her, on his passage down the - Baltic, she was on her way to join her husband in London. She was then - forty-nine. The children referred to both died in 1835. The princess - died at Paris, January 25, 1857, at the age of 73. She is said to have - been a Protestant. In her later years she was a very intimate friend - of M. Guizot, who was present at her death-bed. See further mention of - her, _post_. - -Footnote 40: - - Henry Wheaton, the learned author of “Elements of International Law,” - long in the diplomatic service of the United States. - -Footnote 41: - - At that time American chargé d’affaires in Paris. - -Footnote 42: - - Carlo Andrea Pozzo di Borgo was a native of Corsica, born at Ajaccio, - in 1764. His efforts, along with those of Paoli, to accomplish the - liberation of Corsica from the French power, and place it under the - protection of England, produced in him a decided leaning against - France through his whole career. In 1803 he entered the diplomatic - service of Russia, in which he continued for the remainder of his long - life, under both the emperors Alexander I and Nicholas I. He was - Russian ambassador at Paris from 1815 to the time of his death, with - temporary absences in London on special missions. He died in 1845. At - the period of Mr. Buchanan’s visit to Paris, di Borgo was seventy - years old, with as full and varied a diplomatic experience as any man - of his time. He was celebrated for the brilliancy of his conversation - in the French language. In the private journal of the late Mr. George - Ticknor, written at Paris in ——, I find the following passage: “I do - not know how a foreigner has acquired the French genius so completely - as to shine in that kind of conversation from which foreigners are - supposed to be excluded, but certainly I have seen nobody yet who has - the genuine French wit, with its peculiar grace and fluency, so - completely in his power, as M. Pozzo di Borgo.” In a note to this - passage Mr. Ticknor adds: “I have learned since that he is a Corsican, - and by a singular concurrence of circumstances, was born in the same - town with Bonaparte, and of a family which is in an hereditary - opposition to that of the emperor.” It was no doubt with singular - zest, that di Borgo, in 1814–15, took part in the great European - settlement which dethroned Bonaparte. - -Footnote 43: - - American friends. - -Footnote 44: - - See _post_, in relation to this collision between France and the - United States. - -Footnote 45: - - The wife of Prince Talleyrand’s nephew, the Duc de Dino. - -Footnote 46: - - Joshua Bates, Esq., long the American partner of the house of Baring - Brothers & Co., and for many years its head. - ------ - - - - - CHAPTER XI. - 1833–1836. - -MR. BUCHANAN RETURNS HOME—GREETING FROM GENERAL JACKSON—ELECTED TO THE - SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—STATE OF PARTIES—THE GREAT WHIG LEADERS - IN THE SENATE—PERIL OF A WAR WITH FRANCE. - - -Mr. Buchanan was greeted on his arrival at his home in Lancaster by the -following letter from General Jackson: - - [GENERAL JACKSON TO MR. BUCHANAN.] - - WASHINGTON, Nov. 18, 1833. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I have received your note by Mr. John Van Buren, and am delighted to -hear that you have reached your country in good health, after so long an -absence in her service. I anticipate much pleasure from the personal -interview, which you have promised me I shall have in the course of this -week, but do not desire to hasten you more than your convenience, or the -wishes of your friends will permit. I leave until then all else that I -would say, except my congratulation on your safe arrival, which I beg -you to accept with my best wishes for your health and happiness. - - Very sincerely and respectfully, - - ANDREW JACKSON. - -The winter of 1833–34 appears to have been passed in private occupations -which have left no traces. But in the latter part of the summer of 1834, -Mr. Buchanan was appointed one of the commissioners on the part of the -State of Pennsylvania, to arrange with commissioners of the State of New -Jersey, concerning the use of the waters of the Delaware. It was not -entirely convenient for him to accept this appointment; but as it was to -be a public service without any pecuniary compensation, he felt that he -had no alternative. How long he was occupied about it, I have not -discovered. In the following December, the election of a Senator of the -United States, to succeed Mr. Wilkins, who had been appointed minister -to Russia, was to be made by the Legislature of Pennsylvania. Mr. -Buchanan was chosen on the 6th of December (1834), upon the fourth -balloting; his principal competitors being Joel B. Sutherland, James -Clarke, and Amos Ellmaker. He was of course elected by the Democratic -members of the Legislature, and as a supporter of the administration of -President Jackson.[47] - -The correspondence which took place between him and those who elected -him, is of interest now, chiefly because it discloses that he held to -what has been called the doctrine of instruction; that is to say, the -right of a State Legislature to direct the vote of a Senator of the -State in Congress, and the duty of the Senator to obey the direction. - - [TO THE HON. JAMES BUCHANAN.] - - HARRISBURG, Dec. 8, 1834. - -DEAR SIR:— - -Ere this reaches you, doubtless you will have been notified of your -election to the Senate of the United States, by the Legislative body of -this State to which we have the honor to belong. And it is with -unfeigned gratification that we individually can claim a participation -in the confidence which has on this occasion been reposed in your -talents and integrity. Nor is that gratification by any means lessened, -from the consideration that you are the personal as well as the -political friend of both our State and National Executives, who have -done so much within their respective spheres to exalt the character and -promote the interests of our State and Nation. And above all, who, in -their official relations, so nobly stood forth in the rescue of our -common country from the grasp of a corrupt moneyed monopoly, as reckless -as it was aristocratical, and as merciless as it was powerful. And it is -with no less pride than pleasure that we shall look to you, in your new -and high relations, as the champion of the measures projected by our -venerable President, Andrew Jackson, and seconded by our worthy -Executive, George Wolf. - -Respectfully your friends and obedient servants, - - (Signed by) JACOB KERN, - - and Seventy other Members. - -The following communication, in reply, was laid before the members, at a -meeting held in the Capitol on the 7th instant, by Col. Jacob Kern, -Speaker of the Senate: - - [TO JACOB KERN, ESQ., AND OTHERS, MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE OF - PENNSYLVANIA.] - - WASHINGTON, Dec. 22, 1834. - -GENTLEMEN:— - -I want language to express my feelings on the perusal of your kind -letter, which was delivered to me at the moment I was about to leave -Harrisburg. Elevated by your free and unsolicited suffrages to the only -public station I desire to occupy, it shall be my constant endeavor to -justify, by my conduct, the generous confidence which you have thus -reposed. The interest and the honor of Pennsylvania, so far as you have -committed them to my hands, shall never be wilfully abandoned or -betrayed. - -Although you have not asked me for any pledge or promise relating to my -course in the Senate, yet I am sensible that many of you desire I should -express my opinion publicly in regard to the right of legislative -instruction. I shall do so with the utmost frankness. On this question I -have not, and never have had, any serious difficulties. The right -results from the very nature of our institutions. The will of the -people, when fully and fairly expressed, ought to be obeyed by all their -_political agents_. This is the very nature and essence of a -representative democracy. - -Without entering into an argument upon the general question, which would -be altogether misplaced upon the present occasion, it may not be -improper to observe that the principle applies with redoubled force to -Senators in Congress. They represent the sovereign States, who are the -parties to that constitutional compact which called the federal union -into existence. In the Senate, these States are represented as distinct -communities, each entitled to the same number of votes, without regard -to their population. In that body they are all equal, as they were -before the adoption of the federal constitution. Here, emphatically, if -any where, the voice of the States ought to be heard, and ought to be -obeyed. Shall it then be said that a Senator possesses the -constitutional right to violate the express instructions of the -sovereign State which he represents, and wield the power and the vote -which have been conferred upon him for the benefit of his constituents -in a manner which they have solemnly declared to be ruinous to their -dearest interests, or dangerous to their liberties! The bare statement -of the proposition carries conviction to my mind. All, or nearly all the -State Legislatures, have long been in the practice of instructing their -Senators, and this affords the strongest evidence of the principle upon -which the custom is founded. - -It has been objected, that the right of instruction may destroy the -tenure of the Senatorial office, and render it subject to all the -political fluctuations in the several States. But the Senator is only -bound to obey: he is not called upon to resign. And although there may -be circumstances in which a man of honor might feel himself constrained -to retire from the public service rather than give the vote of his State -against his own convictions, yet these cases must, from their nature, be -of rare occurrence. - -Besides, this objection implies an entire want of confidence in the -State legislatures. It supposes that they may become the instruments of -faction for the purpose of harassing Senators, and compelling them to -resign. In fact, it results in the principle that the people are -incapable of managing their own concerns, and are, therefore, under the -necessity of conferring an irresponsible political power upon one of -their own number, to save them from themselves. From the nature of our -institutions, we must repose such a degree of confidence in the State -legislatures as to presume that they will not abuse the power with which -they have been intrusted. - -If it should ever clearly appear, in any case, that the immediate -representatives of the people have not obeyed their will in voting -instructions, this might present an exception to the general rule. Such -an occurrence, however, though possible, is highly improbable. It is not -to be presumed that State legislatures will exercise this important -power, unless upon grave and solemn occasions, after mature deliberation -and a thorough knowledge of the public will. - -I have thus expressed my opinion freely upon this important question, -though I am well aware it differs from that of some of the ablest and -best men of our country.[48] - -In relation to the course which I intend to pursue in the Senate, I -shall say but little. My conduct must speak for itself. I feel sensible -that in point of ability I shall disappoint the partial expectations of -my friends. To become distinguished in that body, the ablest in the -world in proportion to its numbers, requires a stretch of intellect and -a range of political knowledge and experience, which I do not pretend to -possess. Whilst, therefore, I cannot become “the champion of the -measures projected by our venerable President,” I shall, both from -principle and inclination, give them an honest and consistent support. - -Before concluding this letter, permit me to state my entire concurrence -in the sentiments you have expressed concerning “our worthy executive, -George Wolf.” In the darkest hour of pressure and of panic during the -last winter, when the internal improvements of the State were, to all -appearance, about to be arrested, he stood unmoved, and met the storm in -a manner which proved him to be the able, faithful, and fearless -representative of Pennsylvania Democracy. His message contributed much -to dispel the gloom which, for a time, seemed to have settled on our -country. It was the bright dawn of that glorious day of prosperity which -we have since enjoyed. - -With sentiments of the most profound gratitude and respect, I remain - - Your obedient servant, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - -As I am now to trace a long senatorial career, which began at a period -when the Senate of the United States contained men of the very highest -ability and renown, it is proper to give a brief account of the state of -parties and the questions of the time, and to fix Mr. Buchanan’s -position among the statesmen whom he had to meet. When he took his seat -in the Senate, on the 15th of December, 1834, General Jackson was in his -second term of office, which began on the 4th of March, 1833. He had -received a very large majority of the electoral votes—seventy-four more -than were necessary to a choice. Mr. Van Buren had become Vice-President -by a majority of electoral votes less than General Jackson’s, by the -number of thirty. He was, of course, in the chair of the Senate. In -Congress and throughout the country, the supporters of the -administration had become known as the Democratic party, the old term of -“Republicans,” and the more recent one of “Jackson men,” being generally -dropped.[49] The opposition had become classified and consolidated under -the name of the Whig party, a term substituted for that of “National -Republicans.” Their leader and candidate in the presidential election of -1832 was Mr. Clay.[50] There was a third party, known as the -“Anti-Masons,” who gave the seven electoral votes of Vermont to Mr. -Wirt, as their candidate for the Presidency, and to Amos Ellmaker of -Pennsylvania as their candidate for the Vice-Presidency. - -Notwithstanding General Jackson’s great popularity and influence -throughout the country, a large majority of the Senate were opposed to -his administration and his measures. This opposition became concentrated -and intensified by the President’s removal of the public deposits from -the Bank of the United States, into certain selected State banks. A -resolution, strongly condemning this act, had been carried in the -Senate, by twenty-eight yeas against eighteen nays, on the 28th of -March, 1834, nine months before Mr. Buchanan entered the Senate. This -vote may therefore be regarded as a general index of the relative -strength of parties in that body when Mr. Buchanan became a member of -it. How this great opposition majority became so changed three years -afterward, that the friends of General Jackson were able to expunge this -resolution from the records of the Senate, will appear hereafter. The -leading Senators of the opposition at the commencement of the session, -in December, 1834, and distinctly classified as Whigs, were Mr. Clay, -Mr. Webster, Mr. Clayton of Delaware, Mr. Ewing of Ohio, and Mr. -Frelinghuysen and Mr. Southard of New Jersey. - -The most important Democratic or administration Senators were, Messrs. -Wright of New York, Benton of Missouri, and Mr. King of Alabama. Calhoun -stood apart from both the political parties. He had been chosen -Vice-President in 1828 by the same party which then elected General -Jackson for the first time, and he then had the same electoral votes, -with the exception of seven of the votes of Georgia. He was consequently -in the Chair of the Senate in 1830, when the great debate took place -between Mr. Webster and Colonel Hayne on the subject of nullification. -In 1833, when the South Carolina doctrine of nullification culminated in -a threatened resistance to collection of the Federal revenue within her -borders, and made it necessary for General Jackson to issue his -celebrated proclamation, Mr. Calhoun was elected as a senator in -Congress from South Carolina, and he determined to resign the -Vice-Presidency. In December, 1832, he took his seat in the Senate. The -breach between him and the President, which was caused by the attitude -of the latter towards the “Nullifiers,” was understood to be widened by -the probability that Mr. Van Buren would be the Democratic candidate for -the Presidency, to succeed General Jackson in 1837, and by the -well-known wish of the latter that Mr. Van Buren should become his -successor. The breach between Mr. Calhoun and the President became still -farther widened, when the State of South Carolina adopted her famous -ordinance for preventing the collection of the Federal revenue within -her limits. From General Jackson’s known firmness of character and -tendency to severe measures, Mr. Calhoun found himself in some personal -danger. Then followed Mr. Clay’s interposition, by means of his -compromise tariff, which was designed to ward off an actual collision -between the federal executive and the nullifying leaders of South -Carolina. Mr. Calhoun was thus saved from personal humiliation, and -perhaps from some personal peril. But no real reconciliation took place -between him and General Jackson, and he remained in an isolated position -in the Senate, a great and powerful debater, vindicating with singular -ability, when a proper occasion offered, his peculiar views of the -nature of the Constitution, always discharging his duties as a senator -with entire purity, but never acting upon any measure as a member of -either of the political parties into which the Senate was divided. - -Taking the entire composition of the Senate at that period, with the -opposing forces of the Democratic and the Whig parties, and with Mr. -Calhoun’s intermediate position, there has never been a period in the -history of that body, when there was more real power of debate -displayed, or when public measures were more thoroughly considered. If -Mr. Clay, Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Webster towered above the other senators, -there were not wanting men who may be said to have approached them in -ability; and if Mr. Clay and Mr. Webster, on the Whig side, sometimes -appeared to give to the opposition a preponderating intellectual force, -it was not always a supremacy that could be said to be undisputed by -their Democratic opponents, although they did for a long time control -the action of the Senate. The country looked on upon these great -senatorial contests with predilections which varied, of course, with the -political feelings and associations of men; but the President, his -measures and his policy, notwithstanding the power of the Senatorial -opposition, continued to grow in the popular favor, and to receive -constant proofs of the popular support. To some of the principal -questions of the time I now turn. The first in which Mr. Buchanan took -part, soon after he entered the Senate, related to the conduct of -France. - -In 1831 a convention was concluded between the United States and the -government of King Louis Philippe, by which the latter bound itself to -pay to the United States twenty-five millions of francs, for the -liquidation of certain claims of American citizens against France, and -to be distributed to the claimants by the American Government, as it -should determine. The Government of the United States, on its part, -engaged to pay to the French government one million five hundred -thousand francs, to liquidate the claims, urged by the French government -for its citizens, on the United States, and to be distributed by the -French government, as it should determine. Each party bound itself to -pay its stipulated sum in six annual instalments: those payable by the -United States to be deducted from the larger sums payable by France. The -first French instalment, $4,166,666.66, became due at the expiration of -one year next following the exchange of ratifications. The exchange of -ratifications took place February 2d, 1832, and consequently the first -French instalment became due on the 3d of February, 1833. A bill of -exchange was drawn by the Secretary of the Treasury on the French -Minister of Finance, for the amount of the instalment, and sold to the -Bank of the United States. Payment was refused at the French Treasury -when the bill was presented, for the reason that the Legislative -Chambers had made no appropriation to meet the instalment. We have seen -that when Mr. Buchanan was in Paris, in the summer of 1833 he held -conversations on this matter with the Duc de Broglie and Count Pozzo di -Borgo; from which it appears that moderate and rational persons in -France then believed that the Chambers would at the next session make -the necessary appropriation. In December, 1833, President Jackson, in -his annual message to Congress, adverted to this subject, and said that -he had despatched an envoy to the French government to attend to it, and -that he had received from that government assurances that at the next -meeting of the Chambers it would be brought forward and satisfactorily -disposed of. He added that if he should be disappointed in this hope, -the subject would be again brought before Congress, “in such manner as -the occasion might require.” The opposition in France regarded this as a -menace. The subject was brought before the Chambers several times, but -in April, 1834, the appropriation necessary to carry the treaty into -effect was refused. The king’s government then sent a national vessel to -this country, bearing the king’s assurance that the Chambers should be -called together, after the election of new members, as soon as the -charter would permit, and that the influence of the executive should be -exerted to procure the necessary appropriation, in time to be -communicated to the President before the assembling of Congress in -December, 1834. The Chambers met on the 31st of July, but this matter -was not acted upon, and they were prorogued to the 29th of December. New -assurances were given by the French government that at the ensuing -session the appropriation should be pressed. In his annual message of -December, 1834, the President made severe comments on the course of all -branches of the French government, and recommended a law authorizing -reprisals on French property, in case the appropriation should not be -made at the ensuing session of the Chambers. This was the attitude of -the matter when Mr. Buchanan entered the Senate.[51] - -The Senate’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, at the head of which was Mr. -Clay, had made a report against the adoption of the President’s -recommendation. On the 14th of January, (1835) on a resolution -introduced by Mr. Cuthbert of Georgia, Mr. Buchanan took occasion to -say: - - IN SENATE, January 14, 1835. - -France had, before the close of the last session of Congress, declared -that it was the unanimous determination of the king’s government to -appear before the new legislature with its treaty and its bill in hand, -and that its intention was to do all that the charter allowed to hasten, -as much as possible, the period of the new presentation of the rejected -law. The President rested satisfied with this assurance, and, on the -faith of it, did not present the subject to Congress. How has France -redeemed this pledge? Has that government hastened, as much as possible, -the presentation of the rejected law? At the first meeting of the new -legislature the law was not presented; and in the face of this -engagement, the Chambers were prorogued, not to meet in the autumn, but -on the 29th of December, the very latest day which custom had -sanctioned. If this assurance had any meaning at all, it was that the -Chambers should be convened at least in sufficient time to communicate -to the President information that they had assembled, before the meeting -of Congress. The President, at the date of the message, was not aware -that the Chambers would assemble on the first of the month. No such -information had been communicated to him. It now appears that they did -assemble on that day. And the only reason that he should vote for the -resolution was, that he was willing to wait until the result of their -deliberations could be known. - -What effect this circumstance might have had on the President’s mind, -had he known of its existence, he was not prepared to say. He had no -information to give on that subject. - -There is a point, sir, said Mr. Buchanan, in the intercourse between -nations, at which diplomacy must end, and a nation must either consent -to abandon her rights, or assert them by force. After having negotiated -for a quarter of a century to obtain a treaty to redress the wrongs of -our injured citizens, and after the French Chamber has once deliberately -rejected that treaty, will not this point have been reached, should the -Chamber again refuse to make the appropriation? If this be so, is it not -right, is it not fair, to present the alternative to France? Would she -not have just cause to complain if we should not adopt this very course? -To inform her frankly and freely that we have arrived at this point, I -am solemnly convinced, is the best diplomacy to which we can resort to -obtain redress for the wrongs of the injured claimants. France will then -have the alternative fairly presented; and it will be for her to decide -whether she will involve herself in war with her ancient ally, rather -than pay those claims which the Executive branch of her Government have -determined to be just by a solemn treaty. Such an attitude on the part -of America will do more for the execution of the treaty than any -temporizing measures of policy which we can adopt. I never was more -clearly impressed with the truth of any proposition. - -France, from the language of the President, will have no right to -consider this a menace. It is no more than to say, diplomacy has ended, -and the treaty must be executed, or we shall, however reluctantly, be -compelled to take redress into our own hands. France is a brave and a -chivalrous nation; her whole history proves that she is not to be -intimidated, even by Europe in arms; but she is wise as well as warlike. -To inform her that our rights must be asserted, is to place her in the -serious and solemn position of deciding whether she will resist the -payment of a just debt by force. Whenever she is convinced that this -result is inevitable, the money will be paid; and although I hope I may -be mistaken, I believe there will be no payment until she knows we shall -assume this attitude. France has never appeared to regard the question -in this serious light. - -It has been asked what the American Congress would do placed in similar -circumstances. Would they appropriate money with a menace impending over -their heads? I answer, no, never. But I should never consider it a -menace, if, after refusing to vote an appropriation to carry a treaty -into effect, a foreign government in the spirit of candor, in language -mild and courteous, such as that used by the President, were to inform -us they could not abandon their rights, and, however painful it may be, -they should be compelled, by a sense of duty, to assert them by force. - -After some further discussion, the resolution was so modified as to -declare that it was at that time inexpedient to adopt any legislative -measure in regard to the state of affairs between the United States and -France. In this form the resolution was unanimously adopted. - -The President’s message was received in Paris in the early part of -January (1835). It was resented as a threat. The French minister at -Washington was recalled, and on the 13th of January, the day before the -vote in the Senate, Mr. Livingston, the minister of the United States at -Paris, was informed that his passports were at his service. But a bill -was introduced by the ministry in the Chambers, to make the necessary -appropriation. It was passed in the latter part of April, but with an -amendment making the payment conditional upon an apology from President -Jackson for the language of his message of the previous December. There -was little likelihood that any such apology would be made for language -addressed by the President to the people of the United States through -their representatives in Congress. On the contrary, in the early part of -the next session (January, 1836) the world was somewhat startled by a -recommendation made to Congress by the President, of partial -non-intercourse with France.[52] On the 18th of January, on a motion by -Mr. Clay to refer this recommendation to the Committee on Foreign -Affairs, - -Mr. Buchanan said that he had been so much gratified with the message -which had just been read, that he could not, and he thought he ought -not, at this the very first moment, to refrain from expressing his -entire approbation of its general tone and spirit. He had watched with -intense anxiety the progress of our unfortunate controversy with France. -He had hoped, sincerely hoped, that the explanations which had been made -by Mr. Livingston, and officially approved by the President of the -United States, would have proved satisfactory to the French government. -In this he had found his hopes to be vain. After this effort had failed, -he felt a degree of confidence, almost amounting to moral assurance, -that the last message to Congress would have been hailed by France, as -it was by the American people, as the olive branch which would have -restored amity and good understanding between us and our ancient ally. -Even in this, he feared, he was again doomed to be disappointed. The -government of France, unless they change their determination, will not -consider this message as sufficient. We have the terms clearly -prescribed by the Duke de Broglie, upon which, and upon which alone, the -French government will consent to comply with the treaty, and to pay the -five millions of dollars to our injured fellow-citizens. Speculation is -now at an end. The clouds and darkness which have hung over this -question have vanished. It is now made clear as a sunbeam. The money -will not be paid, says the organ of the French government, unless the -Government of the United States shall address its claim officially in -writing to France, accompanied by what appeared to him, and he believed -would appear to the whole American people, without distinction of party, -to be a degrading apology. The striking peculiarity of the case, the one -which he would undertake to say distinguished it from any other case -which had arisen in modern times, in the intercourse between independent -nations, was, that the very terms of this apology were dictated to the -American Government by the French Secretary of Foreign Affairs. One of -these terms was, that it had never entered into the intention -(_pensée_), the thought of this Government, to call in question the good -faith of the government of France. - -But the French Government proceed still further. Upon the refusal to -make this apology, which they ought to have known would never be -made—could never be made—they are not content to leave question where it -then was. They have given us notice in advance that they will consider -our refusal to make this degrading apology an evidence that the -misunderstanding did not proceed on our part from mere error and -mistake. - -In addition to all this, the last note of the Duke de Broglie to Mr. -Barton declares that the Government of the United States knows that -henceforward the execution of the treaty must depend upon itself. They -thus leave us to decide whether we shall make the apology in the -prescribed terms, or abandon our claim to the fulfillment of the treaty. - -He would not allow himself to express the feelings which were excited in -his mind upon hearing these letters of the Duke de Broglie read. Most -sincerely, most ardently, did he hope that the French government, when -this message reached them, if not before, might reconsider their -determination, and that all our difficulties might yet pass away. But -their language is now clear, specific, incapable of ambiguity or doubt. -It would, then, become our duty calmly, but firmly, to take such a stand -as the interests and the honor of the country may require. - -Mr. B. had already said much more than he intended when he rose. He -would, however, make another remark before he took his seat. He felt a -proper degree of confidence, he might add a great degree of confidence, -in the President of the United States. He knew him to be honest and -firm, and faithful to his country; prompt to resent its injuries and -avenge its wrongs. He confessed he had anticipated a message of a -stronger character. He had supposed that a general non-intercourse with -France would, at least, have been recommended. But the recommendation -was confined to the mere refusal to admit French ships or French -productions to enter our ports. It left France free to receive her -supplies of cotton from the United States, without which the -manufacturers of that country could not exist. This was wise, it was -prudent; it left to France to judge for herself if this unnatural -contest must still continue, whether she would close her ports against -our vessels and our productions. - -In the spring of 1832 (Mr. B. did not recollect precisely the time) -Congress passed an act to carry into effect our part of the treaty. -Under this treaty, the wines of France had ever since been admitted into -the United States upon the favorable terms therein stipulated. Her silks -were imported free of duty, in contradistinction to those which came -from beyond the Cape of Good Hope. She had for years been enjoying these -privileges. Nothing milder, then, could possibly be recommended than to -withdraw these advantages from her, and to exclude her vessels and her -productions from our ports. - -Mr. Buchanan said that when he made the observations which had called -forth the remarks of the Senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun) he -had believed the message to be the harbinger of peace, and not of war. -This was still his opinion. In this respect he differed entirely from -the gentleman. Under this impression, he had then risen merely to remark -that, considering the provocation which we had received, the tone, the -spirit, and the recommendations themselves, of the message, were mild -and prudent, and were well calculated to make an impression upon France, -and to render her sensible of her injustice. - -It had been far from his intention to excite a general debate on the -French question, and he would not be drawn into it now by the remarks of -the Senator from South Carolina. He must, however, be permitted to say, -he was sorry, very sorry, that the gentleman had proclaimed that, if war -should come, we are the authors of that war, and it would be the fault, -not of the French, but of the American Government. Such a declaration, -proceeding from such a source, from a voice so powerful and so potent, -would be heard on the other side of the Atlantic, and there might -produce a most injurious effect. He was happy to say that this sentiment -was directly at war with the opinion of our Committee on Foreign -Relations, who, in their report of the last session, had expressed the -decided opinion that the American Government, should it become -necessary, must insist upon the execution of the treaty. It was at war -with the unanimous resolution of the House of Representatives of the -same session, declaring that the treaty must be maintained. He believed -it was equally at war with the feelings and opinions of the American -people. - -Whilst he expressed his hope and his belief that this message would -prove to be the olive branch of peace, still there was so much -uncertainty in the event, that it now became our imperative duty to -prepare for the worst. Shall we (said Mr. B.) whilst a powerful fleet is -riding along our southern coast, in a menacing attitude, sit here and -withhold from the President the means which are necessary to place our -country in a state of defence? He trusted this would never, never be the -case. - -The messages and documents were then read, and referred to the Committee -on Foreign Relations, as moved by Mr. Clay. - -On the last night of the session, which terminated on the 3d-4th of -March, 1835, an amendment made in the House of Representatives, to the -Fortification bill, was before the Senate. It proposed: - -“That the sum of three millions of dollars be and the same is hereby -appropriated, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise -appropriated, to be expended, in whole or in part, under the direction -of the President of the United States, for the military and naval -service, including fortifications and ordnance and increase of the navy: -Provided such expenditures shall be rendered necessary for the defence -of the country, prior to the next meeting of Congress.” - -The motive of this amendment was to enable the President to put the -country into a more efficient state of defence, in view of the danger of -a war with France. It was opposed by Mr. Webster and Mr. Clay as an -unconstitutional mode of action, and also because the state of the -French question did not require such action. Mr. Buchanan (on the 3d of -March, 1835,) vindicated the amendment in the following manner: - -Mr. Buchanan said he was astonished at the remarks which had been made -by gentlemen on the subject of this appropriation. The most fearful -apprehensions had been expressed, the destruction of our liberties had -been predicted, if we should grant to the President three millions of -dollars to defend the country, in case it should become necessary to -expend it for that purpose, before the next meeting of Congress. For his -part, he could realize no such dangers. - -Gentlemen have said, and said truly, that the Constitution of the United -States has conferred upon Congress, and Congress alone, the power of -declaring war. When they go further, and state that this appropriation -will enable the executive to make war upon France, without the consent -of Congress, they are, in my humble judgment, entirely mistaken. - -Sir, said Mr. B., what is the true nature, and what are the legitimate -objects of this appropriation? Do we not know that, although the -President cannot make offensive war against France, France may make war -upon us; and that we may thus be involved in hostilities in spite of -ourselves, before the next meeting of Congress? If the Chamber of -Deputies should determine to violate the treaty, and to fix an enduring -stigma upon the public faith of the French nation, is it certain that -France may not proceed a step further, and strike the first blow? Mr. -Livingston himself, in the correspondence which had been communicated to -us by the President, has expressed serious apprehensions that this may -be the result. France may consider war, eventually, to be inevitable; -she may, and I trust does, believe that we have determined not to submit -patiently to her violation of a solemn treaty and thus abandon the just -claims of our injured citizens; and taking advantage of our unprepared -condition, she may commence hostilities herself. The first blow is often -half the battle between nations as well as individuals. Have we any -security that such will not be her conduct? Have we any reason to -believe she will wait until we are ready? Her past history forbids us to -indulge too securely in any such belief. If she should adopt this -course, in what a fearful condition shall we place the country, if we -adjourn without making this appropriation! The Senate will observe that -not a dollar of this money can be drawn from the Treasury, unless it -shall become necessary for the defence of the country, prior to the next -meeting of Congress. - -Another circumstance which renders this appropriation indispensable is, -that Congress cannot possibly be convened by the President much before -their usual time of meeting. There are, I believe, nine States in this -Union, who have not yet elected their representatives to the next -Congress. Some of these elections will take place in April, and others -not till August, and even October. We have now arrived almost at the -last hour of our political existence; and shall we leave the country -wholly defenceless until the meeting of the next Congress? Gentlemen -have warned us of the fearful responsibility which we should incur in -making this appropriation. Sir, said Mr. B., I warn them that the -responsibility will be still more dreadful, should we refuse it. In that -event, what will be our condition should we be attacked by France? Our -sea-coast, from Georgia to Maine, will be exposed to the incursions of -the enemy; our cities may be plundered and burned; the national -character may be disgraced; and all this whilst we have an overflowing -Treasury. When I view the consequences which may possibly flow from our -refusal to make this grant, I repeat that the responsibility of -withholding it may become truly dreadful. No portion of it shall rest -upon my shoulders. - -Our constitutional right to appropriate this money is unquestionable. -Whilst I express this opinion, I am sorry that the present appropriation -is not more specific in its objects. Appropriation bills ought to be -passed in such a manner as to leave as little to executive discretion as -possible. The purposes for which the money is to be applied ought to be -clearly and distinctly stated. If there were time to do it, the bill -might be improved in this respect. But, sir, this is an extraordinary -crisis, and demands prompt action. We must now take it as it is, or not -take it at all. There is no time left to make the changes which might be -desired. - -Gentlemen have contended that, under this appropriation, the President -would be authorized to increase the army, and appoint as many new -officers to command it as he thought proper. But this is not the case. -He could not, under any just construction of this bill, raise a single -new company, or appoint a single officer, not authorized by existing -laws. No such power is conferred upon him by its terms. It will -authorize him to expend three millions of the public money, should the -contingency happen which it contemplates, for putting the vessels of war -now in ordinary in a condition for actual service, and for completing -those the building of which has already been authorized by Congress. The -money may also be applied to the completion and repair of our -fortifications, and in placing them in a state of security and defence -against any attack. Should it become necessary to call out the militia -under existing laws, to garrison these fortifications, or defend our -coast, this money may also be expended for that purpose. There is -nothing in the language of the appropriation to justify the construction -that the President might raise new armies, and create new officers to -command them. - -It is my own impression that there will be no necessity for expending -any portion of this money. If there should be, however: and it is the -part of wisdom to provide against such a contingency; let the -responsibility rest upon those who refuse the appropriation. The country -will be left defenceless, and the very knowledge of this circumstance -may invite an attack. - -The entire Fortification Bill failed to be passed at this session, in -consequence of the disagreement between the two houses in regard to this -three million appropriation. At the next session, which began in -December, 1835, Colonel Benton of Missouri introduced in the Senate -certain resolutions for setting apart so much of the surplus revenue as -might be necessary for the defence and permanent security of the -country. On the 1st and 2d of February, 1836, Mr. Buchanan addressed the -Senate on these resolutions as follows: - -Mr. PRESIDENT: I am much better pleased with the first resolution -offered by the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Benton) since he has modified -it upon the suggestion of the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Grundy). When -individuals have more money than they know how to expend, they often -squander it foolishly. The remark applies, perhaps, with still greater -force to nations. When our Treasury is overflowing, Congress, who are -but mere trustees for the people, ought to be especially on their guard -against wasteful expenditures of the public money. The surplus can be -applied to some good and useful purpose. I am willing to grant all that -may be necessary for the public defence but no more. I am therefore -pleased that the resolution has assumed its present form. - -The true question involved in this discussion is, on whom ought the -responsibility to rest for having adjourned on the 3d of March last -without providing for the defence of the country. There can be no doubt -a fearful responsibility rests somewhere. For my own part, I should have -been willing to leave the decision of this question to our constituents. -I am a man of peace; and dislike the crimination and recrimination which -this discussion must necessarily produce. But it is vain to regret what -cannot now be avoided. The friends of the administration have been -attacked; and we must now defend ourselves. I deem it necessary, -therefore, to state the reasons why I voted, on the 3d of March last, in -favor of the appropriation of three millions for the defence of the -country, and why I glory in that vote. - -The language used by Senators in reference to this appropriation has -been very strong. It has been denounced as a violation of the -Constitution. It has been declared to be such a measure as would not -have received the support of the minority, had they believed it could -prevail, and they would be held responsible for it. It has been -stigmatized as most unusual—most astonishing—most surprising. And -finally, to cap the climax, it has been proclaimed that the passage of -such an appropriation would be virtually to create a dictator, and to -surrender the power of the purse and the sword into the hands of the -President. - -I voted for that appropriation under the highest convictions of public -duty, and I now intend to defend my vote against all these charges. - -In examining the circumstances which not only justified this -appropriation, but rendered it absolutely necessary, I am forced into -the discussion of the French question. We have been told, that if we -should go to war with France, we are the authors of that war. The -Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Southard), has declared that it will be -produced by the boastful vanity of one man, the petulance of another, -and the fitful violence of a third. It would not be difficult to -conjecture who are the individuals to whom the Senator alludes. - -He has also informed us, that in the event of such a war, the guilt -which must rest somewhere will be tremendous. - -Now, sir, I shall undertake to prove, that scarcely an example exists in -history of a powerful and independent nation having suffered such wrongs -and indignities as we have done from France, with so much patience and -forbearance. If France should now resort to arms,—if our defenceless -seacoast should be plundered,—if the blood of our citizens should be -shed,—the responsibility of the Senate, to use the language of the -gentleman, will be tremendous. I shall not follow the example of the -Senator, and say, their guilt,—because that would be to attribute to -them an evil intention, which I believe did not exist. - -In discussing this subject, I shall first present to the view of the -Senate the precise attitude of the two nations towards each other, when -the appropriation of three millions was refused, and then examine the -reasons which have been urged to justify this refusal. After having done -so, I shall exhibit our relations with France as they exist at the -present moment, for the purpose of proving that we ought now to adopt -the resolutions of the gentleman from Missouri, and grant all necessary -appropriations for the defence of the country. - -In discussing this subject, it is not my intention to follow the -fortification bill either into the chamber of the committee of -conference, or into the hall of the House of Representatives. It is not -my purpose to explain the confusion which then existed, and which always -must exist after midnight, on the last evening of the session. I shall -contend that the Senate ought to have voted the three millions; that the -fortification bill ought to have passed the Senate with this amendment; -and that, therefore, the Senate is responsible not only for the loss of -this appropriation, but for that of the entire bill. - -What then was the attitude in which we stood towards France at the -moment when the Senate rejected this appropriation for the defence of -the country? What, at that moment, was known, or ought to have been -known, in regard to this question by every Senator on this floor? - -The justice of our claims upon France are now admitted by all mankind. -Our generosity was equal to their justice. When she was crushed in the -dust by Europe in arms—when her cities were garrisoned by a foreign -foe—when her independence was trampled under foot, we refused to urge -our claims. This was due to our ancient ally. It was due to our grateful -remembrance of the days of other years. The testimony of Lafayette -conclusively establishes this fact. In the Chamber of Deputies, on 13th -June, 1833, he declared that we had refused to unite with the enemies of -France in urging our claims in 1814 and 1815; and that, if we had done -so, these claims would then have been settled. This circumstance will -constitute one of the brightest pages of our history. - -Was the sum secured to our injured fellow-citizens by the treaty of the -4th July, 1831, more than they had a right to demand? Let the report of -our Committee on Foreign Relations, at the last session, answer this -question. They concur entirely with the President, in the statement he -had made in his message, that it was absolutely certain the indemnity -fell far short of the actual amount of our just claims, independently of -damages and interest for the detention; and that it was well known at -the time that in this respect, the settlement involved a sacrifice. But -there is now no longer room for any conjecture or doubt upon this -subject. The commissioners under the treaty have closed their labors. -From the very nature of their constitution, it became the interest of -every claimant to reduce the other claims as much as possible, so that -his own dividend might thus be increased. After a laborious and patient -investigation, the claims which have been allowed by the commissioners -amount to $9,352,193.47. Each claimant will receive but little more than -half his principal, at the end of a quarter of a century, after losing -all the interest. - -Why then has this treaty remained without execution on the part of -France, until this day? Our Committee on Foreign Relations, at the last -session, declared their conviction that the King of France “had -invariably, on all suitable occasions, manifested an anxious desire, -faithfully and honestly, to fulfil the engagements contracted under his -authority and in his name.” They say, that “the opposition to the -execution of the treaty, and the payment of our just claims, does not -proceed from the king’s government, but from a majority in the Chamber -of Deputies.” - -Now, sir, it is my purpose to contest this opinion, and to show, as I -think I can conclusively, that it is not a just inference from the -facts. - -And here, to prevent all possible misconstruction, either on this side, -or on the other side of the Atlantic, if by any accident my humble -remarks should ever travel to such a distance, permit me to say that I -am solely responsible for them myself. These opinions were in a degree -formed while I was in a foreign land, and were there freely expressed -upon all suitable occasions. I was then beyond the sphere of party -influence and felt only as an American citizen. - -Is it not then manifest, to use the language of Mr. Livingston in his -note to the Count de Rigny of the 3d August, 1834, that the French -government have never appreciated the importance of the subject at its -just value? There are two modes in which the king could have manifested -this anxious desire faithfully to fulfil the treaty. These are, by words -and by actions. When a man’s words and his actions correspond, you have -the highest evidence of his sincerity. Even then he may be a hypocrite -in the eyes of that Being before whom the fountains of human action are -unveiled. But when a man’s words and his actions are at variance,—when -he promises and does not perform or even attempt to perform,—when “he -speaks the word of promise to the ear and breaks it to the hope,”—the -whole world will at once pronounce him insincere. If this be true in the -transactions of common life, with how much more force does it apply to -the intercourse between diplomatists? The deceitfulness of diplomacy has -become almost a proverb. In Europe the talent of over-reaching gives a -minister the glory of diplomatic skill. The French school has been -distinguished in this art. To prove it, I need only mention the name of -Talleyrand. The American school teaches far different lessons. On this -our success has, in a great degree, depended. The skillful diplomatists -of Europe are foiled by the downright honesty and directness of purpose -which have characterized all our negotiations. - -Even the established forms of diplomacy contain much unmeaning language, -which is perfectly understood by everybody, and deceives nobody. If -ministers have avowed their sincerity, and their ardent desire to -execute the treaty; to deny them, on our part, would be insulting, and -might lead to the most unpleasant consequences. In forming an estimate -of their intentions, therefore, every wise man will regard their -actions, rather than their words. By their deeds they shall be known. -Let us then test the French government by this touchstone of truth. - -The ratifications of the treaty of the 4th July, 1831, were exchanged at -Washington, on the 2d February, 1832. When this treaty arrived in Paris, -the French Chambers were in session, and they continued in session for -several weeks. They did not adjourn, until the 19th of April. No time -more propitious for presenting this treaty to the Chambers, could have -been selected, than that very moment. Europe then was, as I believe it -still is, one vast magazine of gunpowder. It was generally believed, -that the Polish revolution was the spark which would produce the -explosion. There was imminent danger of a continental war, in which -France, to preserve her existence, would have to put forth all her -energies. Russia, Prussia, and Austria, were armed and ready for the -battle. It was then the clear policy of France to be at a good -understanding with the United States. If it had been the ardent desire -of the king’s government, to carry into effect the stipulations of the -treaty, they would have presented it to the Chambers before their -adjournment. This would undoubtedly have been the course pursued by any -President of the United States, under similar circumstances. But the -treaty was not presented. - -I freely admit, that this omission, standing by itself, might be -explained by the near approach of the adjournment, at the time the -treaty arrived from Washington. It is one important link, however, in -the chain of circumstances, which cannot be omitted. - -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 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. - -By the same act of the 13th July, 1832, a board of commissioners was -established to receive, examine, and decide the claims of our citizens -under the treaty, who were to meet on the first day of the following -August. This act also directed the Secretary of the Treasury to cause -the several instalments, with the interest thereon, payable to the -United States in virtue of the convention, to be received from the -French government and transferred to the United States in such manner as -he may deem best. In this respect the provisions of the act corresponded -with the terms of the treaty, which prescribe that the money shall be -paid into the hands of such person or persons as shall be authorized to -receive it by the Government of the United States. - -Were the French government immediately informed of all these -proceedings? Who can doubt it? Certainly no one at all acquainted with -the vigilance and zeal of their diplomatic agents. - -The 19th of November, 1832, the day for the meeting of the Chambers, at -length arrived.—Every American was anxious to know what the king would -say in his speech concerning the treaty. No one could doubt but that he -would strongly recommend to the Chambers to make the appropriation of -twenty-five millions of francs, the first instalment of which would -become due on the 2d of February following. All, however, which the -speech contains in relation to the treaty is comprised in the following -sentences: “I have also ordered my minister to communicate to you the -treaty concluded on the 4th July, 1831, between my government and that -of the United States of America. This arrangement puts an end to the -reciprocal claims of the two countries.” Now, sir, I am well aware of -the brevity and non-committal character of kings’ speeches in Europe. I -know the necessity which exists there for circumspection and caution. -But making every fair allowance for these considerations, I may at least -say, that the speech does not manifest an anxious desire to carry the -treaty into effect. What might the king have said; what ought he have -said; what would he have said had he felt this anxious desire? It might -all have been embraced in a single additional sentence, such as the -following: “The Congress of the United States have already provided for -the admission of French wines into their ports upon the terms of this -treaty, and have voluntarily reduced their duties upon French silks, I -must, therefore, request you to grant me the means of discharging the -first instalment which will become due, under this treaty, on the 2d day -of February next.” The king did not even ask the Chambers for the money -necessary to redeem the faith of France. In this respect the debt due to -the United States is placed in striking contrast to the Greek -loan.—Immediately after the two sentences of the speech, which I have -already quoted, the king proceeds: “You will likewise be called to -examine the treaty by which Prince Otho of Bavaria is called to the -throne of Greece. _I shall have to request from you the means of -guaranteeing, in union with my allies, a loan which is indispensable for -the establishment of the new State founded by our cares and -concurrence._” - -The establishment of the new State founded by our cares and concurrence! -Russia, sir, has made greater advances by her skill in diplomacy than by -her vast physical power. Unless I am much mistaken, the creation of this -new State, with Prince Otho as its king, will accomplish the very object -which it was the interest and purpose of France to defeat. It will, in -the end, virtually convert Greece into a Russian province. I could say -much more on the subject, but I forbear. My present purpose is merely to -present in a striking view, the difference between the king’s language -in relation to our treaty, and that treaty which placed the son of the -king of Bavaria on the throne of Greece. - -Time passed away, and the 2d February, 1833, the day when the first -instalment under the treaty became due, arrived. It was to be paid “into -the hands of such person or persons as shall be authorized by the -Government of the United States to receive it.” The money on that day -ought to have been ready at Paris. But strange, but most wonderful as it -may appear, although the Chambers had been in session from the 19th of -November until the 2d of February, the king’s government had never even -presented the treaty to the Chambers,—had never even asked them for a -grant of the money necessary to fulfil its engagements. Well might Mr. -Livingston say, that they had never properly appreciated the importance -of the subject. - -The Government of the United States, knowing that the king in his speech -had promised to present the treaty to the Chambers, and knowing that -they had been in session since November, might have taken means to -demand the first instalment at Paris on the 2d day of February. Strictly -speaking, it was their duty to do so, acting as trustees for the -claimants. But they did not draw a bill of exchange at Washington for -the first instalment, until five days after it had become due at Paris. -This bill was not presented to the French government for payment until -the 23d of March, 1833. Even at that day the French ministry had not -presented either the treaty, or a bill to carry it into effect, to the -Chambers. The faith of France was thus violated by the neglect of the -king’s government, long before any bill was presented. They, and not the -Chambers, are responsible for this violation. It was even impossible for -the Chambers to prevent it. Had this treaty and bill been laid before -them in time to have enabled them to redeem the faith of France, the -loyalty of the French character would never have permitted them to be -guilty of a positive violation of national honor. The faith of the -nation was forfeited before they were called upon to act. The -responsibility was voluntarily assumed by the king’s ministers. The -Chambers are clear of it. Besides, the ministry were all powerful with -the Chambers during that session. They carried everything they urged. -Even the bill providing the means of guaranteeing the Greek loan became -a law. Can it then for a single moment be believed that if a bill to -carry into effect our treaty—a treaty securing such important advantages -to France—had been presented at an early period of the session, and had -been pressed by the ministry, that they would have failed in the -attempt? At all events, it was their imperative duty to pursue this -course. The aspect of the political horizon in Europe was still -lowering. There was still imminent danger of a general war. France was -still in a position to make her dread any serious misunderstanding with -the United States. - -After all this, on the 26th March, the Duke de Broglie, in a note to Mr. -Niles, our chargé d’affaires at Paris, stated that it was “a source of -regret, and, indeed, of astonishment, that the Government of the United -States did not think proper to have an understanding with that of -France, before taking this step.” What step? The demand of an honest -debt, almost two months after it had been due, under a solemn treaty. -Indeed, the duke, judging from the tone of his note, appears almost to -have considered the demand an insult. To make a positive engagement to -pay a fixed sum on a particular day, and when that sum is demanded -nearly two months after, to express astonishment to the creditor, would, -in private life, be considered trifling and evasive. - -The excuse made by the French ministry for their conduct is altogether -vain. Had they dreaded the vote of the Chambers—had they been afraid to -appear before them with their treaty and their bill, they would, and -they ought to have communicated their apprehensions to this Government, -and asked it to suspend the demand of the money. But they had never -whispered such a suspicion, after the exchange of their ratifications of -the treaty; and the first intimation of it on this side of the Atlantic, -was accompanied by the astounding fact that the French government had -dishonored our bill. It is true, that before the treaty was signed, they -had expressed some apprehensions to Mr. Rives on this subject. These, it -would seem, from their subsequent conduct, were merely diplomatic, and -intended to produce delay; because, from the date of the treaty, on the -4th July, 1831, until after our bill of exchange was dishonored in -March, 1833, no intimation of danger from that quarter was ever -suggested. These circumstances made a great noise throughout Europe, and -soon became the subject of general remark. - -On the 6th of April, 1833, a year and more than two months after the -exchange of the ratifications at Washington, the treaty and bill were -first presented to the French Chambers. The session closed on the 25th -of April, without any further action on the subject. No attempt was made -by the ministry to press it; and as the session would terminate so soon, -perhaps no attempt ought to have been made. But, as a new session was to -commence the day after the termination of the old, and to continue two -months, a favorable opportunity was thus presented to urge the passage -of the law upon the Chambers. Was this done? No, sir. The ministry still -continued to pursue the same course. They suffered the remainder of the -month of April to pass, the month of May to pass, and not until the -eleventh of June, only fifteen days before the close of the session, did -they again present the bill to carry into effect the treaty. It was -referred to a committee, of which Mr. Benjamin Delessert was the -chairman. On the 18th of June, he made a report. This report contains a -severe reprimand of the French government for not having presented the -bill at an earlier period of the session; and expresses the hope that -the treaty may be communicated at the opening of the next session. If we -are to judge of the opinion of the Chamber from the tone and character -of this report, instead of being hostile to the execution of the treaty, -had it been presented to them in proper time, they felt every -disposition to regard it in a favorable light. I shall read the whole -report—it is very short, and is as follows: - -“Gentlemen: The committee charged by you, to examine the bill relative -to the treaty, concluded on the 4th of July, 1831, between France and -the United States, has demanded a number of documents and reports, which -must be examined, in order to obtain a complete knowledge of so -important a transaction. - -“The committee was soon convinced that a conscientious examination of -these papers would require much time; and that, at so advanced a period -of the session, its labors would have no definitive result. It regrets -that, from motives which the government only can explain, the bill was -not presented earlier to the Chamber for discussion. It regrets this so -much the more as it is convinced of the importance of the treaty, which -essentially interests our maritime commerce, our agriculture, and our -manufactures. - -“Several chambers of commerce, particularly those of Paris and Lyons, -have manifested an ardent desire that the business should be speedily -terminated. - -“The committee would be satisfied if, after a deeper study of the -question, it could enlighten the Chamber with regard to the justice of -the claims alleged by each of the parties to the treaty, and which form -the basis of it; but as time does not allow a definitive report to be -made on the subject, it considers itself as the organ of the Chamber, in -expressing the wish that this treaty be communicated, at the opening of -the next session; and that its result may be such as to strengthen the -bonds of friendship, which must ever exist between two nations so long -united by common interest and sympathy.” - -After a careful review of this whole transaction, I am convinced that -the government of France never would have pursued such a course towards -us, had they entertained a just sense of our power, and our willingness -to exert it in behalf of our injured fellow-citizens. Had Russia or -Austria been her creditors, instead of ourselves, the debt would have -been paid when it became due; or, at the least, the ministers of the -king would have exerted themselves, in a far different manner, to obtain -the necessary appropriation from the Chambers. I am again constrained, -however reluctantly, to adopt the opinion which I had formed at the -moment. Our fierce political strife in this country is not understood in -Europe; and least of all, perhaps, in France. During the autumn of 1832, -and the session of 1832–3, it was believed abroad that we were on the -very eve of a revolution; that our glorious Union was at the point of -dissolution. I speak, sir, from actual knowledge. Whilst the advocates -of despotism were looking forward, with eager hope, to see the last free -republic blotted out from the face of nations, the friends of freedom -throughout the world were disheartened, and dreaded the result of our -experiment. The storm did rage in this country with the utmost violence. -It is no wonder that those friends of liberty, on the other side of the -Atlantic, who did not know how to appreciate the recuperative energies -of a free and enlightened people, governed by Federal and State -institutions of their own choice, should have been alarmed for the -safety of the Republic. For myself I can say that I never felt any -serious apprehension; yet the thrill of delight with which I received -the news of the passage of the famous compromise law of March, 1833, can -never be effaced from my memory. I did not then stop to inquire into the -nature of its provisions. It was enough for me to know that the Republic -was safe, not only in my own opinion, but in the opinion of the world. - -Suppose, sir, that the President of the United States, under similar -circumstances, had withheld a treaty from Congress requiring an -appropriation, for fourteen months after it had been duly ratified, and -had thus forfeited the national faith to a foreign government, what -would have been the consequence? Sir, he ought to have been, he would -have been impeached. No circumstances could ever have justified such -conduct in the eyes of the American Congress or the American people. - -After all the provocation which the President had received, as the -representative of his country, what was his conduct? It might have been -supposed that this violent man, as the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. -Southard) has designated him, would at once have recommended decisive -measures. Judging from his energy,—from his well-known devotion to the -interests of his country,—and above all, from his famous declaration to -ask nothing from foreign nations but what was right, and to submit to -nothing wrong, I should have expected from him an indignant message at -the commencement of the next session of Congress. Instead of that, the -message of December, 1833, in relation to French affairs, is of the -mildest character. It breathes a spirit of confident hope that our -ancient ally would do us justice during the next session of the -Chambers. His exposition of the subject is concluded by the following -declaration: - -“As this subject involves important interests, and has attracted a -considerable share of the public attention, I have deemed it proper to -make this explicit statement of its actual condition; and should I be -disappointed in the hope now entertained, the subject will be again -brought to the notice of Congress in such a manner as the occasion may -require.” - -And thus ends the first act of this astonishing historical drama. -Throughout the whole of it, beginning, middle and end, the French -government, and not the French Chambers, were exclusively to blame. - -We have now arrived at the mission of Mr. Livingston. He reached Paris -in September, 1833. The Duc de Broglie assured him “that the king’s -government would willingly and without hesitation promise to direct the -deliberations of the Chambers to the _projet de loi_ relative to the -execution of the convention of July 4, 1831, on the day after the -Chamber is constituted, and to employ every means to secure the happy -conclusion of an affair, the final determination of which the United -States cannot desire more ardently than ourselves.” After this -assurance, and after all that had passed, it was confidently expected -that the king would, in strong terms, have recommended the adoption of -the appropriation by the Chambers. In this we were again doomed to -disappointment. In his opening speech he made no direct allusion to the -subject. He simply says, that, “the financial laws, and those required -for the execution of treaties, will be presented to you.” - -The bill was presented, and debated, and finally rejected by the Chamber -of Deputies on the 1st day of April, 1834, by a vote of 176 to 168. It -is not my present purpose to dwell upon the causes of this rejection. No -doubt the principal one was that the French ministers were surrounded -near the conclusion of the debate, and were unable at the moment to show -that the captures at St. Sebastians were not included in our treaty with -Spain. I am sorry they were not better prepared upon this point; but I -attribute to them no blame on that account. - -It has been urged over and over again, both on this floor and elsewhere, -that the rejection of the treaty was occasioned by the publication in -this country of Mr. Rives’s letter to Mr. Livingston of the 8th of July, -1831. Is this the fact? If it be so it ought to be known to the world. -If it be not, both the character of this Government and of Mr. Rives -should be rescued from the imputation. What is the opinion expressed in -this letter? Is it that the American claimants would obtain, under the -treaty, more than the amount of their just claims? No such thing. Is it -that they would obtain the amount of their just claims with interest? -Not even this. The negotiator merely expresses the opinion that they -would receive every cent of the principal. He does not allege that they -would receive one cent of interest for a delay of nearly a quarter of a -century. This opinion is evidently founded upon that expressed by Mr. -Gallatin in a despatch dated on the 14th January, 1822, cited by Mr. -Rives, in which the former expresses his belief that five millions of -dollars would satisfy all our just claims. It ought to be observed that -the sum stipulated to be paid by the treaty is only 25,000,000 of -francs, or about $4,700,000; and that more than nine years had elapsed -between the date of Mr. Gallatin’s despatch and the signing of the -treaty. These facts all appear on the face of the letter, with the -additional fact that the statements of the claimants, which have from -time to time been presented to Congress, carry the amount of the claims -much higher. These statements, however, Mr. Rives did not believe were a -safe guide. - -This is the amount of the letter, when fairly analyzed, which, it is -alleged, destroyed the treaty before the French Chambers. If a copy of -it had been placed in the hands of every Deputy, it could not possibly -have produced any such effect. - -That it did not occasion the rejection of the treaty is absolutely -certain. I have examined the whole debate for the purpose of discovering -any allusion to this letter; but I have examined it in vain. Not the -slightest trace of the letter can be detected in any of the numerous -speeches delivered on that occasion. The topics of opposition were -various, and several of them of a strange character; but the letter is -not even once alluded to throughout the whole debate. If its existence -were known at the time in the French Chamber, this letter, written by a -minister to his own government, expressing a favorable opinion of the -result of his own negotiations, was a document of a character so -natural, so much to be expected, that not one Deputy in opposition to -the treaty believed it to be of sufficient importance even to merit a -passing notice. Still, I have often thought it strange it had never been -mentioned in the debate. The mystery is now resolved. The truth is, this -letter, which is alleged to have produced such fatal effects, was -entirely unknown to the members of the French Chamber when they rejected -the treaty. This fact is well established by a letter from Mr. Jay, the -chairman of the committee appointed by the Chamber of Deputies to -investigate our claims, addressed to Mr. Gibbes, and dated at Paris on -the 24th January, 1835. I shall read it. - -(_Extract of a letter from Mr. Jay to Mr. Gibbes, dated 24th January, -1835._)—“It is asserted in the American prints that the rejection of the -American treaty by the Chamber of Deputies, at their last session, was -chiefly owing to the publication of a letter from Mr. Rives to his own -Government. This is an error, which justice to that distinguished -statesman, and a sense of his unremitting exertions to promote the -interests of his Government while here, induce me formally to -contradict. No such evidence appears in the debates; and in none of my -conversations with the members have I heard his letter alleged as the -motive for disputing the amount due. I much question, indeed, if any -other Deputy than myself ever read the letter alluded to.” - -We have now arrived at that point of time when a majority of the French -Chambers arrayed themselves against the treaty. This decision was made -on the 1st April, 1834. Some apprehensions then prevailed among the king -and his ministers. The business was now becoming serious. New assurances -had now become necessary to prevent the President from presenting the -whole transaction to Congress, which they knew would still be in -session, when the information of the rejection would reach the United -States. In his annual message, at the commencement of the session, it -will be recollected, he had declared that should he be disappointed in -the hope then entertained, he would again bring the subject before -Congress, in such a manner as the occasion might require. They knew that -he was a man who performed his promises, and a great effort was to be -made to induce him to change his purpose. - -Accordingly a French brig of war, the Cuirassier, is fitted out with -despatches to Mr. Serrurier. They reached him on the 3d June. On the -4th, he has an interview with Mr. McLane, and makes explanations which -the latter very properly requests may be reduced to writing. In -compliance with this request, the French minister, on the 5th, addresses -a note to Mr. McLane. After expressing the regrets of the French -government at the rejection of the bill, he uses the following language: -“The king’s government, sir, after this rejection, the object of so much -painful disappointment to both governments, has deliberated, and its -unanimous determination has been to make an appeal from the first vote -of the present Chamber to the next Chamber, and to appear before the -next legislature with its treaty and its bill in hand. - -“It flatters itself that the light already thrown upon this serious -question, during these first debates, and the expression of the public -wishes becoming each day more clear and distinct, and, finally, a more -mature examination, will have, in the mean time, modified the minds of -persons, and that its own conviction will become the conviction of the -Chambers. The king’s government, sir, will make every loyal and -constitutional effort to that effect, and will do all that its -persevering persuasion of the justice and of the mutual advantages of -the treaty authorizes you to expect from it. Its intention, moreover, is -to do all that our constitution allows, to hasten, as much as possible, -the period of the new presentation of the rejected law. - -“Such, sir, are the sentiments, such the intentions of his majesty’s -government. I think I may rely that, on its part, the Government of the -Republic will avoid, with foreseeing solicitude, in this transitory -state of things, all that might become a fresh cause of irritation -between the two countries, compromit the treaty, and raise up an -obstacle perhaps insurmountable, to the views of reconciliation and -harmony which animate the king’s council.” - -Now, sir, examine this letter, even without any reference to the answer -of Mr. McLane, and can there be a doubt as to its true construction? It -was not merely the disposition, but “it was the _intention_ of the -king’s government to do all that their constitution allows; to hasten, -as much as possible, the period of the new presentation of the rejected -law.” The President knew that under the constitution of France the king -could at any time convoke the Chambers upon three weeks’ notice. It was -in his power, therefore, to present this law to the Chambers whenever he -thought proper. The promise was to hasten this presentation as much as -possible. Without any thing further the President had a right -confidently to expect that the Chambers would be convoked in season to -enable him to present their decision to the Congress of the United -States in his next annual message. The assurance was made on the 5th -June, and Congress did not assemble until the beginning of December. But -the letter of Mr. McLane, of the 27th June, removes all possible doubt -from this subject. He informs Mr. Serrurier that “the President is still -unable to understand the causes which led to the result of the -proceeding in the Chamber, especially when he recollected the assurances -which had so often been made by the king and his ministers, of their -earnest desire to carry the convention into effect, and the support -which the Chamber had afforded in all the other measures proposed by the -king.” And again: - -“The assurances which M. Serrurier’s letter contains, of the adherence -of the king’s government to the treaty, of its unanimous determination -to appeal from the decision of the present to the new Chamber, and its -conviction that the public wish, and a mature examination of the -subject, will lead to a favorable result, and its intention to make -every constitutional effort to that effect, and finally, its intention -to do all that the constitution allows to hasten the presentation of the -new law, have been fully considered by the President. - -“Though fully sensible of the high responsibility which he owes to the -American people, in a matter touching so nearly the national honor, the -President, still trusting to the good faith and justice of France, -willing to manifest a spirit of forbearance so long as it may be -consistent with the rights and dignity of his country, and truly -desiring to preserve those relations of friendship, which, commencing in -our struggle for independence, form the true policy of both nations, and -sincerely respecting the king’s wishes, will rely upon the assurances -which M. Serrurier has been instructed to offer, and will therefore -await with confidence the promised appeal to the new Chamber. - -“The President, in desiring the undersigned to request that his -sentiments on this subject may be made known to his majesty’s -government, has instructed him also to state his expectation that the -king, seeing the great interests now involved in the subject, and the -deep solicitude felt by the people of the United States respecting it, -will enable him, when presenting the subject to Congress, as his duty -will require him to do at the opening of their next session, to announce -at that time the result of that appeal, and of his majesty’s efforts for -its success.” - -Had this letter of Mr. McLane placed a different construction upon the -engagement of the French government from that which Mr. Serrurier -intended to communicate, it was his duty to make the necessary -explanations without delay. He, in that case, would have done so -instantly. It was a subject of too much importance to suffer any -misapprehension to exist concerning it for a single moment. - -Notwithstanding all which had passed, the President, on the faith of -these assurances of the French government, suffered Congress to adjourn -without presenting the subject to their view. This rash, this violent -man, instigated by his own good feelings towards our ancient ally, and -by his love of peace, determines that he would try them once more, that -he once more would extend the olive branch before presenting to Congress -and the nation a history of our wrongs. I confess I do not approve of -this policy. I think the time had then arrived to manifest to France -some sensibility on our part on account of her delay in executing the -treaty. I believe that such a course would have been dictated by sound -policy. - -What were the consequences of this new manifestation of the kindly -feelings of the President towards France? Was it properly appreciated by -the French government? Was it received in the liberal and friendly -spirit from which it had proceeded? Let the sequel answer these -questions. I shall read you Mr. Livingston’s opinion on the subject. In -a letter to Mr. Forsyth, under date of the 22d November, 1834, he thus -expresses himself: - -“I do not hope for any decision on our affairs before the middle of -January. One motive for delay is an expectation that the message of the -President may arrive before the discussion, and that it may contain -something to show a strong national feeling on the subject. _This is not -mere conjecture: I know the fact_; and I repeat now, from a full -knowledge of the case, what I have more than once stated in my former -despatches as my firm persuasion, that the moderate tone taken by our -Government, when the rejection was first known, was attributed by some -to indifference, or to a conviction on the part of the President that he -would not be supported in any strong measure by the people, and by -others to a consciousness that the convention had given us more than we -were entitled to ask.” - -I shall now proceed to show in what manner the French government -performed the engagement which had been made by their representative in -Washington to hasten the presentation of the rejected law as much as -possible. - -The Chambers met on the 31st July, and the king made them a speech. This -speech contains no allusion to the subject of the treaty except the -following: “The laws necessary for carrying treaties into effect, and -those still required for the accomplishment of the promises of the -Chamber, will be presented to you in the course of this session.” The -rejected bill was not presented. After a session of two weeks, the -Chambers were prorogued on the 16th August until the 29th December,—a -day, almost a month after the next meeting of Congress. - -I admit that strong reasons existed for dispensing with that part of the -obligation which required the French government to present the bill at -this short session. No good reason has ever been alleged to excuse them -for proroguing the Chambers until so late a day as the 29th of December. -They might have met, and they ought to have met, at an early period of -the autumn. They have heretofore met, on different occasions, for the -despatch of business, in every month of the year. It was in vain that -Mr. Livingston urged the necessity of an earlier meeting on the Count de -Rigny. It was in vain that he appealed to the positive engagement of the -French government made by Mr. Serrurier. It was in vain that he declared -to him, “that the President could not, at the opening of the next -session of Congress, avoid laying before that body a statement of the -then position of affairs on this interesting subject, nor, under any -circumstances, permit that session to end, as it must, on the third of -March, without recommending such measures as he may deem that justice -and the honor of the country may require.” All his remonstrances were -disregarded. Instead of hastening the presentation of the rejected law -as much as possible, they refused to assemble the Chambers in time even -to present the bill before the meeting of Congress. Their meeting was so -long delayed, as to render it almost impossible that their determination -should be known in this country before the close of the session, -notwithstanding the President had agreed not to present the subject to -Congress at the previous session, under a firm conviction that he would -receive this determination in time to lay it before them at the -commencement of their next session. Is there a Senator in this hall, who -can believe for a moment, that if the President had been informed the -rejected bill would not be laid before the Chambers until the 29th -December, he would have refrained from communicating to Congress, at -their previous session, the state of the controversy between the two -countries? Upon this construction, the engagement of the French -government was mere words, without the slightest meaning; and the -national vessel which brought it in such solemn form, might much better -have remained at home. - -What was the apology—what was the pretext under which the king’s -government refused to assemble the Chambers at an earlier period? It -was, that Mr. Serrurier had made no engagement to that effect, and that -the intention which he had expressed in behalf of his government to do -all that the constitution allows, to hasten, as much as possible, the -period of the new presentation of the rejected law, meant no more than -that this was their disposition. The word “intention” is thus changed -into “disposition” by the Count de Rigny, and the whole engagement which -was presented to the President in such an imposing form, was thus -converted into a mere unmeaning profession of their desire to hasten -this presentation as much as possible. - -Sir, at the commencement of the session of Congress, it became the duty -of the President to speak, and what could any American expect that he -would say? The treaty had been violated in the first instance, by the -ministers of the French king, in neglecting to lay it before the -Chambers until after the first instalment was due. It was then twice -submitted, at so late a period of the session, that it was impossible -for the Chambers to examine and decide the question before their -adjournment. On the last of these occasions, the chairman of the -committee, to which the subject was referred, had reported a severe -reprimand against the government, for not having sooner presented the -bill, and expressed a hope that it might be presented at an early period -of the next session. It was then rejected by the Chamber of Deputies; -and when the French government had solemnly engaged to hasten the -presentation of the rejected law, as soon as their constitution would -permit, they prorogue the Chambers to the latest period which custom -sanctions, in the very face of the remonstrances of the minister of the -United States. I ask again, sir, before such an array of circumstances, -what could any man, what could any American expect the President would -say in his message? The cup of forbearance had been drained by him to -the very dregs. It was then his duty to speak so as to be heard and to -be regarded on the other side of the Atlantic. If the same spirit which -dictated the message, or anything like it, had been manifested by -Congress, the money, in my opinion, would ere this have been paid. - -The question was then reduced to a single point. We demanded the -execution of a solemn treaty; it had been refused. France had promised -again to bring the question before the Chambers as soon as possible. The -Chambers were prorogued until the latest day. The President had every -reason to believe that France was trifling with us, and that the treaty -would again be rejected. Is there a Senator, within the sound of my -voice, who, if France had finally determined not to pay the money, would -have tamely submitted to this violation of national faith? Not one! - -The late war with Great Britain elevated us in the estimation of the -whole world. In every portion of Europe, we have reason to be proud that -we are American citizens. We have paid dearly for the exalted character -we now enjoy among the nations, and we ought to preserve it and transmit -it unimpaired to future generations. To them it will be a most precious -inheritance. - -If, after having compelled the weaker nations of the world to pay us -indemnities for captures made from our citizens, we should cower before -the power of France, and abandon our rights against her, when they had -been secured by a solemn treaty, we should be regarded as a mere Hector -among the nations. The same course which you have pursued towards the -weak, you must pursue towards the powerful. If you do not, your name -will become a by-word and a proverb. - -But under all the provocations which the country had received, what is -the character of that message? Let it be scanned with eagle eyes, and -there is nothing in its language at which the most fastidious critic can -take offence. It contains an enumeration of our wrongs in mild and -dignified language, and a contingent recommendation of reprisals, in -case the indemnity should again be rejected by the Chambers. But in -this, and in all other respects, it defers entirely to the judgment of -Congress. Every idea of an intended menace is excluded by the -President’s express declaration. He says: “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.” - -I ask again, is it not forbearing in its language? Is there a single -statement in it not founded upon truth? Does it even state the whole -truth against France? Are there not strong points omitted? All these -questions must be answered in the affirmative. On this subject we have -strong evidence from the Duke de Broglie himself. In his famous letter -to Mr. Pageot of June 17th, 1835,—the arrow of the Parthian as he -flew,—this fact is admitted. He says: - -“If we examine in detail the message of the President of the United -States, (I mean that part of it which concerns the relations between the -United States and France,) it will possibly be found, that passing -successively from phrase to phrase, none will be met that cannot bear an -interpretation more or less plausible, nor of which, strictly speaking, -it cannot be said that it is a simple exposé of such a fact, true in -itself, or the assertion of such or such a right which no one contests, -or the performance of such or such an obligation imposed on the -President by the very nature of his functions. There will certainly be -found several in which the idea of impeaching the good faith of the -French government, or of acting upon it through menace or intimidation, -is more or less disavowed.” - -It was the whole message, and not any of the detached parts, at which -the French government chose to take offence. - -It is not my present purpose to discuss the propriety of the -recommendation of reprisals, or whether that was the best mode of -redress which could have been suggested. Some decided recommendation, -however, was required from the executive, both by public opinion and by -the wrongs which we had so long patiently endured. - -Who can suppose that the executive intended to menace France, or to -obtain from her fears what would be denied by her sense of justice? The -President, in this very message, expressly disclaims such an idea. Her -history places her far above any such imputation. The wonder is, how she -could have ever supposed the President, against his own solemn -declaration, intended to do her any such injustice. She ought to have -considered it as it was, a mere executive recommendation to Congress, -not intended for her at all—not to operate upon her fears, but upon -their deliberations in deciding whether any and what measures should be -adopted to secure the execution of the treaty. But on this subject I -shall say more hereafter. - -We have now arrived at the special message of the President to Congress -of the 26th February last; a document which has a most important bearing -on the appropriation of the three millions which was rejected by the -Senate. I have given this historical sketch of our controversy with -France, for the purpose of bringing Senators to the very point of time, -and to the precise condition of this question, when the Senate negatived -that appropriation. - -What had Congress done in relation to the French question when this -message was presented to us? Nothing, sir, nothing. The Senate had -unanimously passed a resolution on the 15th January, that it was -inexpedient, at present, to adopt any legislative measure, in regard to -the state of affairs between the United States and France. This -unanimity was obtained by two considerations. The one was, that the -French Chambers had been convened, though not for the purpose of acting -upon our treaty, on the first, instead of the twenty-ninth of December, -a fact unknown to the President at the date of his message. The other, -that this circumstance afforded a reasonable ground of hope, that we -might learn their final determination before the close of our session on -the 3d March. But whatever may have been the causes, the Senate had -determined that, for the present, nothing should be done. - -In the House of Representatives, at the date of the special message, on -the 26th February, no measure whatever had been adopted. The President -had just cause to believe that the sentiments contained in his message -to Congress, at the commencement of their session, were not in unison -with the feelings of either branch of the legislature. He therefore -determined to lay all the information in his possession before Congress, -and leave it for them to decide whether any or what measures should be -adopted for the defence of the country. I shall read this message. It is -as follows: - -“I transmit to Congress a report from the Secretary of State, with -copies of all the letters received from Mr. Livingston since the message -to the House of Representatives of the 6th instant, of the instructions -given to that minister, and of all the late correspondence with the -French government in Paris, or in Washington, except a note of Mr. -Serrurier, which, for the reasons stated in the report, is not now -communicated. - -“It will be seen that I have deemed it my duty to instruct Mr. -Livingston to quit France with his legation, and return to the United -States, if an appropriation for the fulfilment of the convention shall -be refused by the Chambers. - -“The subject being now, in all its present aspects, before Congress, -whose right it is to decide what measures are to be pursued on that -event, I deem it unnecessary to make further recommendation, being -confident that, on their part, every thing will be done to maintain the -rights and honor of the country which the occasion requires.” - -The President leaves the whole question to Congress. What was the -information then communicated? That a very high state of excitement -existed against us in France. That the French minister had been recalled -from this country; an act which is generally the immediate precursor of -hostilities between nations. Besides, Mr. Livingston, who was a -competent judge and on the spot, with the best means of knowledge, -informed his Government that he would not be surprised, should the law -be rejected, if they anticipated our reprisals, by the seizure of our -vessels in port, or the attack of our ships in the Mediterranean, by a -superior force. Such were his apprehensions, upon this subject, that he -felt it to be his duty, without delay, to inform Commodore Patterson of -the state of things, so that he might be upon his guard. - -Ought these apprehensions of Mr. Livingston to have been disregarded? -Let the history of that gallant people answer this question. How often -has the injustice of their cause been concealed from their own view by -the dazzling brilliancy of some grand and striking exploit? Glory is -their passion, and their great emperor, who knew them best, often acted -upon this principle. To anticipate their enemy, and commence the war -with some bold stroke, would be in perfect accordance with their -character. - -Every Senator, when he voted upon the appropriation, must have known, or -at least might have known, all the information which was contained in -the documents accompanying the President’s message. - -It has been objected, that if the President desired this appropriation -of three millions, he ought to have recommended it in his message. I -protest against this principle. He acted wisely, discreetly, and with a -becoming respect for Congress, to leave the whole question to their -decision. This was especially proper, as we had not thought proper to -adopt any measure in relation to the subject. - -Suppose the President had, in his special message, recommended this -appropriation, what would have been said, and justly said, upon the -subject? Denunciations the most eloquent would have resounded against -him throughout the whole country, from Georgia to Maine. It would have -everywhere been proclaimed as an act of executive dictation. In our then -existing relations with France, it would have been said, and said with -much force, that such a recommendation from the executive might have had -a tendency to exasperate her people, and produce war. Besides, I shall -never consent to adopt the principle that we ought to take no measures -to defend the country, without the recommendation of the executive. This -would be to submit to that very dictation, against which, on other -occasions, gentlemen themselves have so loudly protested. No, sir, I -shall always assert the perfect right of Congress to act upon such -subjects, independently of any executive recommendation. - -This special message was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, -in the House of Representatives, on the 26th February. On the next day -they reported three resolutions, one of which was, “that contingent -preparation ought to be made, to meet any emergency growing out of our -relations with France.” The session was rapidly drawing to a close. But -a few days of it then remained. It would have been vain to act upon this -resolution. It was a mere abstraction. Had it been adopted, it could -have produced no effect; the money was wanted to place the country in a -state of defence, and not a mere opinion that it ought to be granted. -The chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, therefore, on the -28th February, had this resolution laid upon the table, and gave notice -that he would move an amendment to the fortification bill, appropriating -three millions of dollars, one million to the army, and two millions to -the navy, to provide for the contingent defence of the country. - -It has been urged, that because the President, in his last annual -message, has said that this contingent appropriation was inserted -according to his views, that some blame attaches to him from the mode of -its introduction. Without pretending to know the fact, I will venture -the assertion, that he never requested any member, either of this or the -other branch of the legislature, to make such a motion. He had taken his -stand—he had left the whole subject to Congress. From this he never -departed. If the chairman of any committee, or any other member of the -Senate or the House, called upon him to know his views upon the subject, -he no doubt communicated them freely and frankly. This is his nature. -Surely no blame can attach to him for having expressed his opinion upon -this subject to any member who might ask it. It has been the uniform -course pursued on such occasions. - -On the 2d of March, the House of Representatives, by a unanimous vote, -resolved that, in their opinion, the treaty with France, of the 4th -July, 1831, should be maintained, and its execution insisted on. This -was no party vote. It was dictated by a common American feeling, which -rose superior to party. After this solemn declaration of the House, made -in the face of the world, how could it be supposed they would adjourn, -without endeavoring to place the country in an attitude of defence? -What, sir! The representatives of the people, with an overflowing -treasury, to leave the country naked and exposed to hostile invasion, -and to make no provision for our navy, after having declared unanimously -that the treaty should be maintained! Who could have supposed it? - -On the 3d of March, upon the motion of the chairman of the Committee on -Foreign Relations (Mr. Cambreleng) and in pursuance of the notice which -he had given on the 28th of February, this appropriation of three -millions was annexed as an amendment to the fortification bill. The vote -upon the question was 109 in the affirmative, and 77 in the negative. -This vote, although not unanimous, like the former, was no party vote. -The bill, thus amended, was brought to the Senate. Now, sir, let me ask, -if this appropriation had proceeded from the House alone, without any -message or any suggestion from the executive, would this not have been a -legitimate source? Ought such an appropriation to be opposed in the -Senate, because it had not received executive sanction? Have the -Representatives of the people no right to originate a bill for the -defence and security of their constituents and their country, without -first consulting the will of the President? For one, I shall never -submit to any such a slavish principle. It would make the Executive -every thing, and Congress nothing. - -Had the indemnity been absolutely rejected by the Chambers, the two -nations would have been placed in a state of defiance towards each -other. In such a condition it was the right—nay, more, it was the -imperative duty of the House of Representatives to make contingent -preparation for the worst. The urgency of the case was still more -striking, because in ten or eleven of the States Representatives could -not be elected until months after the adjournment, and, therefore, -Congress could not have been assembled to meet any emergency which might -occur. - -But, sir, does it require a recommendation of the Executive, or a vote -of the House of Representatives, to originate such an appropriation? Any -individual Senator or member of the House may do it with the strictest -propriety. Did the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Clayton) ask the -approbation of the President, before he made the motion at the last -session, which does him so much honor, to increase the appropriation for -fortifications half a million? How did the amendments proposed by the -Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster) to the fortification bill of -the last session originate? I presume from the Committee of Finance, of -which he was the chairman. No doubt he conferred with the head of the -proper Executive Department, according to the custom in such cases; but -still these appropriations of more than four hundred thousand dollars -had their origin in that committee. It was a proper, a legitimate -source. Is then the ancient practice to be changed, and must it become a -standing rule that we are to appropriate no money without the orders or -the expressed wish of the Executive? I trust not. - -The form of this appropriation has been objected to. I shall read it. - -“_And be it further enacted_, That the sum of three millions of dollars -be, and the same is hereby, appropriated out of any money in the -Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be expended, in whole or in -part, under the direction of the President of the United States, for the -military and naval service, including fortifications and ordnance, and -increase of the navy; Provided, such expenditures shall be rendered -necessary, for the defence of the country, prior to the next meeting of -Congress.” - -It has been urged that to grant money in such general terms would have -been a violation of the Constitution. I do not understand that the -Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster), at the present session, has -distinctly placed it upon this ground. Other Senators have done so in -the strongest terms. Is there any thing in the Constitution which -touches the question? It simply declares that “no money shall be drawn -from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” -Whether these appropriations shall be general or specific, is left -entirely, as it ought to have been, to the discretion of Congress. I -admit that, _ex vi termini_, an appropriation of money must have a -reference to some object. But whether you refer to a class, or to an -individual, to the genus or to the species, your appropriation is -equally constitutional. The degree of specification necessary to make -the law valid never can become a constitutional question. The terms of -the instrument are as broad and as general as the English language can -make them. In this particular, as in almost every other, the framers of -the Constitution have manifested their wisdom and their foresight. Cases -may occur and have occurred in the history of this Government, demanding -the strictest secrecy; cases in which to specify, would be to defeat the -very object of the appropriation. A remarkable example of this kind -occurs in the administration of Mr. Jefferson, to which I shall -presently advert. - -There are other cases in which from the very nature of things you cannot -specify the objects of an appropriation without the gift of prophecy. I -take the present to be a clear case of this description. The -appropriation was contingent; it was to be for the defence of the -country. How then could it have been specific? How could you foresee -when, or where, or how the attack of France would be made? Without this -foreknowledge, you could not designate when, or where, or how it would -become necessary to use the money. This must depend upon France, not -upon ourselves. She might be disposed to confine the contest merely to a -naval war. In that event it would become necessary to apply the whole -sum to secure us against naval attacks. She might threaten to invade -Louisiana or any other portion of the Union. The money would then be -required to call out the militia, and to march them and the regular army -to that point. Every thing must depend upon the movements of the enemy. -It might become necessary, in order most effectually to resist the -contemplated attack, to construct steam frigates or steam batteries, or -it might be deemed more proper to increase your ordinary navy and -complete and arm your fortifications. In a country where Congress cannot -be always in session, you must in times of danger, grant some -discretionary powers to the Executive. This should always be avoided -when it is possible, consistently with the safety of the country. But it -was wise, it was prudent in the framers of the Constitution, in order to -meet such cases, to declare in general terms that “no money shall be -drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by -law.” Not specific appropriations. The terms are general and -unrestricted. If the amendment had appropriated one million to -fortifications, the second million to the increase of the navy, and the -third to the purchase of ordnance and arms, it might have been found -that a great deal too much had been appropriated to one object, and a -great deal too little to another. - -As a matter of expediency, as a means of limiting the discretion of -executive officers, I am decidedly friendly to specific appropriations, -whenever they can be made. I so declared in the debate at the last -session. I then expressed a wish that this appropriation had been more -specific; but upon reflection, I do not see how it could have been made -much more so, unless we had possessed the gift of prophecy. But the -Constitution has nothing to do with the question. - -After all, I attached more value to specific appropriations before I had -examined this subject, than I do at the present moment. Still I admit -their importance. The clause which immediately follows in the -Constitution, is the true touchstone of responsibility. Although the -appropriation may be general; yet “a regular statement and account of -the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published -from time to time.” No matter in what language public money may be -granted to the Executive, in its expenditure, he is but the mere trustee -of the American people, and he must produce to them his vouchers for -every cent entrusted to his care. This constitutional provision holds -him to a strict responsibility, to a responsibility much more severe -than if Congress had been required in all cases to make specific -appropriations. - -How Senators can create a dictator, and give him unlimited power over -the purse and the sword out of such an appropriation, I am at a loss to -conceive. It is a flight of imagination beyond my reach. What, sir, to -appropriate three millions for the military and naval defence of the -country in case it should become necessary during the recess of -Congress, and at its next meeting to compel the President to account for -the whole sum he may have expended; is this to create a dictator? Is -this to surrender our liberties into the hands of one man? And yet -gentlemen have contended for this proposition. - -What has been the practice of the Government in regard to this subject? -During the period of our first two Presidents, appropriations were made -in the most general terms. No one then imagined that this was a -violation of the Constitution. When Mr. Jefferson came into power, this -practice was changed. In his message to Congress, of December 8th, 1801, -he says: “In our care too of the public contributions entrusted to our -discretion, it would be prudent to multiply barriers against their -dissipation, by appropriating specific sums to every specific purpose -_susceptible of definition_.” _Susceptible of definition._ Here is the -rule, and here is the exception. He treats the subject not as a -constitutional question, but as one of mere expediency. In little more -than two short years after this recommendation, Mr. Jefferson found it -was necessary to obtain an appropriation from Congress in the most -general terms. To have made it specific, would necessarily have defeated -its very object. Secrecy was necessary to success. Accordingly on the -26th February, 1803, Congress made the most extraordinary appropriation -in our annals. They granted to the President the sum of two millions of -dollars, “for the purpose of defraying any extraordinary expenses which -may be incurred in the intercourse between the United States and foreign -nations.” Here, sir, was a grant almost without any limit. It was -co-extensive with the whole world. Every nation on the face of the earth -was within the sphere of its operation. The President might have used -this money to subsidize foreign nations to destroy our liberties. That -he was utterly incapable of such conduct it is scarcely necessary to -observe. I do not know that I should have voted for such an unlimited -grant. Still, however, there was a responsibility to be found in his -obligation under the Constitution to account for its expenditure. Mr. -Jefferson never used any part of this appropriation. It had been -intended for the purchase of the sovereignty of New Orleans and of other -possessions in that quarter; but our treaty with France of the 30th -April, 1803, by which Louisiana was ceded to us, rendered it unnecessary -for him to draw any part of this money from the Treasury, under the act -of Congress, by which it had been granted. - -Before the close of Mr. Jefferson’s second term, it was found that -specific appropriations in the extent to which they had been carried, -had become inconvenient. Congress often granted too much for one object, -and too little for another. This must necessarily be the case, because -we cannot say beforehand precisely how much shall be required for any -one purpose. On the 3d of March, 1809, an act was passed, which was -approved by Mr. Jefferson, containing the following provision: - -“_Provided, nevertheless_, That, during the recess of Congress, the -President of the United States may, and he is hereby authorized, on the -application of the Secretary of the proper department, and not -otherwise, to direct, if in his opinion necessary for the public -service, that a portion of the moneys appropriated for a particular -branch of expenditure in that department, be applied to another branch -of expenditure in the same department; in which case, a special account -of the moneys thus transferred, and of their application, shall be laid -before Congress during the first week of their next ensuing session.” - -Is this act constitutional? If it be so, there is an end of the -question. Has its constitutionality ever been doubted? It authorizes the -President to take the money appropriated by Congress for one special -object and apply it to another. The money destined for any one purpose -by an appropriation bill, may be diverted from that purpose by the -President, and be applied to any other purpose entirely different, with -no limitation whatever upon his discretion, except that money to be -expended by one of the Departments, either of War, or of the Navy, or of -the Treasury, could not be transferred to another Department. - -It is not my intention to cite all the precedents bearing upon this -question. I shall merely advert to one other. On the 10th of March, -1812, Congress appropriated five hundred thousand dollars “for the -purpose of fortifying and defending the maritime frontier of the United -States.” This was in anticipation of the late war with Great Britain, -and is as general in its terms, and leaves as much to executive -discretion, as the proposed appropriation of three millions. - -I trust, then, that I have established the positions that this -appropriation originated from a legitimate source—was necessary for the -defence and honor of the country, and violated no provision of the -constitution. If so, it ought to have received the approbation of the -Senate. - -When the fortification bill came back to the Senate, with this -appropriation attached to it by the House, the Senator from -Massachusetts (Mr. Webster), instantly moved that it should be rejected. -I feel no disposition to make any harsh observations in relation to that -gentleman. I think, however, that his remark, that if the enemy had been -thundering at the gates of the capitol, he would have moved to reject -the appropriation, was a most unfortunate one for himself. I consider it -nothing more than a bold figure of speech. I feel the most perfect -confidence that the gentleman is now willing to vote all the money which -may be necessary for the defence of the country. - -Of the gentleman’s sincerity in opposing this appropriation, I did not -then, nor do I now entertain a doubt. He was ardent and impassioned in -his manner, and was evidently in a state of highly excited feeling. -Probably strong political prejudices may have influenced his judgment -without his knowledge. He thought that a high constitutional question -was involved in the amendment, and acted accordingly. - -When the bill returned again to the Senate, after we had rejected, and -the House had insisted upon their amendment, the Senator immediately -moved that we should adhere to our rejection. I well recollect, sir, -that you (Mr. King, of Alabama, was in the chair), remarked at the time, -that this was a harsh motion, and should it prevail, would be well -calculated to exasperate the feelings of the House, and to defeat the -bill. You then observed that the proper motion would be to insist upon -our rejection, and ask a conference; and that the motion to adhere ought -not to be resorted to until all gentler measures had failed. - -The Senator now claims the merit, and is anxious to sustain the -responsibility, of having moved to reject this appropriation. He also -asks, in mercy, that when the expunging process shall commence, his -vote, upon this occasion, may be spared from its operation. - -For the sake of my country, and in undisguised sincerity of purpose, I -declare, for the sake of the gentleman, I am rejoiced that the -responsibility which he covets will, probably, not be so dreadful as we -had just reason to apprehend. Had France attacked us, or should she yet -attack us, in our present defenceless condition; should our cities be -exposed to pillage, or the blood of our citizens be shed, either upon -the land or the ocean; should our national character be dishonored, -tremendous, indeed, would be the responsibility of the gentleman. In -that event, he need not beseech us to spare his vote from the process of -expunging. You might as well attempt to expunge a sunbeam. That vote -will live for ever in the memory of the American people. - -It was the vote of the Senate which gave the mortal blow to the -fortification bill. Had they passed this appropriation of three -millions, that bill would now have been a law. Where it died, it is -scarcely necessary to inquire. It was in mortal agony when the -consultation of six political doctors was held upon it at midnight, in -our conference chamber, and it probably breathed its last, on its way -from that chamber to the House of Representatives, for want of a quorum -in that body. - -Its fate, in one respect, I hope may yet be of service to the country. -It ought to admonish us, if possible, to do all our legislative business -before midnight on the last day of the session. I never shall forget the -night I sat side by side, in the House of Representatives, with the -Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster), until the morning had nearly -dawned. The most important bills were continually returning from the -Senate with amendments. It would have been in the power of any one -member remaining in the House to have defeated any measure by merely -asking for a division. This would have shown that no quorum was present. -The members who still remained were worn down and exhausted, and were -thus rendered incapable of attending to their duties. It was legislation -without deliberation. I trust that this evil may be now corrected. -Should it not, I do not know that, at the conclusion of a Congress, my -conscience would be so tender as to prevent me from voting, as I have -done heretofore, after midnight on the third of March. - -I have one other point to discuss. I shall now proceed to present to the -Senate the state of our relations with France, at the present moment, -for the purpose of proving that we ought to adopt the resolutions of the -Senator from Missouri (Mr. Benton), and grant all appropriations -necessary for the defence of the country. For this purpose, we must -again return to Paris. The President’s annual message of December, 1834, -arrived in that city on the 8th of January—a day propitious in our -annals. The attack upon the British troops on the night of the 23d of -December did not surprise them more than this message did the French -ministers. After the most patient endurance of wrongs for so many years, -they seemed to be astounded that the President should have asserted our -rights in such a bold and manly manner. That message, sir, will produce -the payment of the indemnity. What effect had it upon the character of -our country abroad? Let Mr. Livingston answer this question. In writing -to the Secretary of State, on the 11th January, 1835, he says: “It has -certainly raised us in the estimation of other powers, if I may judge -from the demeanor of their representatives here; and my opinion is, that -as soon as the first excitement subsides, it will operate favorably on -the councils of France.” There was not an American in Paris, on that -day, who, upon the perusal of this message, did not feel the flush of -honest pride of country mantling in his countenance. - -On the 22d of November previous, Mr. Livingston was convinced that the -king was sincere in his intention of urging the execution of the treaty, -and then had no doubt of the sincerity of his cabinet. The Chambers -assembled on the 1st of December; and after an arduous struggle for two -days against the opposition, victory perched upon the banner of the -ministers. They were thus securely seated in their places. On the 6th of -December Mr. Livingston again writes, that “The conversations I have had -with the king and all the ministers convince me that now they are -perfectly in earnest, and united on the question of the treaty, and that -it will be urged with zeal and ability.” In a few short days, however, a -change came over their spirit. On the 22d December Mr. Livingston uses -the following language in writing to the Department of State: “My last -despatch (6th December) was written immediately after the vote of the -Chamber of Deputies had, as it was thought, secured a majority to the -administration; and it naturally excited hopes which that supposition -was calculated to inspire. I soon found, however, both from the tone of -the administration press and from the language of the king and all the -ministers with whom I conferred on the subject, that they were not -willing to put their popularity to the test on our question; it will not -be made one on the determination of which the ministers are willing to -risk their portfolios. The very next day, after the debate, the -ministerial gazette (_Des Debats_) declared that, satisfied with the -approbation the Chamber had given to their system, it was at perfect -liberty to exercise its discretion as to particular measures which do -not form _an essential part of that system_; and the communications I -subsequently had with the king and the ministers confirmed me in the -opinion that the law for executing our convention was to be considered -as one of those free questions. I combated this opinion, and asked -whether the faithful observance of treaties was not _an essential part -of their system_; and, if so, whether it did not come within their -rule.” - -The observance of treaties was not an essential part of their system! -Victorious and securely fixed, the ministers would not risk their places -in attempting to obtain from the Chambers the appropriation required to -carry our treaty into execution. It would not be made a cabinet -question. It was evident they had determined to pursue the same course -of delay and procrastination which they had previously pursued. But the -message arrived, and it roused them from their apathy. All doubts which -had existed upon the subject of making the payment of our indemnity a -cabinet question at once vanished. We have never heard of any such -since; and it was not until some months after that the French ministers -thought of annexing any condition to this payment. - -On the 13th of January, Mr. Livingston had a conference with the Count -de Rigny. He then explained to him the nature of a message from our -President to Congress. He compared it to a family council under the -French law, and showed that it was a mere communication from one branch -of our Government to another, with which a foreign nation had no right -to interfere, and at which they ought not to take offence. They parted -on friendly terms, and again met on the same terms in the evening, at -the Austrian Ambassador’s. Mr. Livingston was, therefore, much -astonished when, about ten o’clock at night of the same day, he received -a note from the count, informing him that Mr. Serrurier, the French -minister at Washington, had been recalled, and that his passports were -at his service. This seems to have been a sudden determination of the -French cabinet. - -Now, sir, upon the presumption that France had been insulted by the -message, this was the proper mode of resenting the insult. Promptly to -suspend all diplomatic intercourse with the nation who had menaced her -or questioned her honor, was a mode of redress worthy of her high and -chivalrous character. The next impulse of wounded pride would be -promptly to pay the debt which she owed, and release herself from every -pecuniary obligation to the nation which had done her this wrong. These -were the first determinations of the king’s ministers. - -France has since been placed before the world, by her rulers, in the -most false position ever occupied by a brave and gallant nation. She -believes herself to be insulted, and what is the consequence? She -refuses to pay a debt now admitted to be just by all the branches of her -government. Her wounded feelings are estimated by dollars and cents, and -she withholds twenty-five millions of francs, due to a foreign nation, -to soothe her injured pride. How are the mighty fallen! Truly it may be -said, the days of chivalry are gone. Have the pride and the genius of -Napoleon left no traces of themselves under the constitutional monarchy? -In private life, if you are insulted by an individual to whom you are -indebted, what is the first impulse of a man of honor? To owe no -pecuniary obligation to the man who has wounded your feelings—to pay him -the debt instantly, and to demand reparation for the insult, or at the -least, to hold no friendly communication with him afterwards. - -This course the king’s ministers had, at first, determined to pursue. -The reason why they abandoned it, I shall endeavor to explain hereafter. - -Mr. Livingston, in his letter to Mr. Forsyth of the 14th January, 1835, -says: “The law, it is said, will be presented to-day, and I have very -little doubt that it will pass. The ministerial phalanx, reinforced by -those of the opposition (and they are not a few), who will not take the -responsibility of involving the country _in the difficulties which they -now see must ensue_, will be sufficient to carry the vote.” - -Did Mr. Livingston intend to say France would be terrified into this -measure? By no means. But, in the intercourse between independent -States, there is a point at which diplomacy must end, and when a nation -must either abandon her rights, or determine to assert them by the -sword, or by such strong and decided measures as may eventually lead to -hostilities. When this point is reached, it becomes a serious and -alarming crisis for those to whom, on earth, the destiny of nations is -entrusted. When the one alternative is war, either immediate or -prospective, with all the miseries which follow in its train, and the -other the payment of a just debt to an ancient ally and firm friend, who -could doubt what must be the decision? Such was the position in which -France stood toward the United States. Not only justice, but policy -required the payment of the debt. In the event of war, or, of a -non-intercourse between the two nations, her wine-growers, her producers -and manufacturers of silk, and all her other manufacturing interests, -especially those of her southern provinces, would be vitally injured. -The payment of five millions of dollars would be but a drop in the -ocean, compared with the extent of their sufferings. In France, they -then believed that the time for diplomacy—the time for procrastination -had ended. The President’s message had opened their eyes to the -importance of the subject. It was under this impression that Mr. -Livingston predicted that the bill would pass the Chambers. That it -would have done so without any condition, had Congress responded to the -President’s message, I do not say, by authorizing reprisals, but by -manifesting a decided resolution to insist upon the execution of the -treaty, will, I think, appear abundantly evident hereafter. - -The French ministry having manifested their sensibility to the supposed -insult, by recalling Mr. Serrurier, proceeded immediately to present the -bill for the execution of the treaty to the Chambers. In presenting it -on the 15th January, Mr. Humann, the minister of finance, addressed the -Chamber. His speech contains the views then entertained by the French -cabinet. I shall read an extract from it. He says: - -“General Jackson has been in error respecting the extent of the -faculties conferred upon us, by the constitution of the State; but if he -has been mistaken as to the laws of our country, we will not fall into -the same error with regard to the institutions of the United States. -Now, the spirit and letter of those institutions authorize us to regard -the document above named [the message], as the expression of an opinion -merely personal, so long as that opinion has not received the sanction -of the other two branches of the American Government. The message is a -Government act, which is still incomplete, and should not lead to any of -these determinations, which France is in the habit of taking in reply to -a threat or insult.” - -The French ministry, at that time, considered the President’s message, -merely his personal act, until it should receive the sanction of -Congress. They, then, had not dreamt of requiring an explanation of it, -as the only condition on which they would pay the money. This was an -after thought. The bill presented by Mr. Humann merely prescribed that -the payment should not be made, “until it shall have been ascertained -that the Government of the United States has done nothing to injure the -interests of France.” This bill was immediately referred to a committee, -of which Mr. Dumon was the chairman. On the 28th of March, he reported -it to the Chamber, with a provision, that the money should not be paid, -if the Government of the United States shall have done anything -“contrary to the dignities and the interests of France.” Still we hear -nothing of an explanation of the message being made a condition of the -payment of the money. The clauses in the bill to which I have adverted -were evidently inserted to meet the contingency of reprisals having been -sanctioned by Congress. - -The debate upon the bill in the Chamber of Deputies commenced on the 9th -of April and terminated on the 18th. On that day General Valazé proposed -his amendment declaring that “the payments in execution of the present -law cannot be made until the French government shall have received -satisfactory explanations with regard to the message of the President of -the United States, dated the 2d December, 1834.” - -The Duke de Broglie, the minister of foreign affairs, accepted this -amendment. I shall read his remarks on this occasion. He says: “The -intention of the government has always been conformable with the desire -expressed by the author of the amendment which is now before the -Chambers (_great agitation_), the government has always meant that -diplomatic relations should not be renewed with the Government of the -United States until it had received satisfactory explanations. The -government, therefore, does not repulse the amendment itself.” After -this, on the same day, the bill passed the Chamber by a vote of 289 to -137. - -Well might the Chamber be agitated at such an annunciation from the -minister of foreign affairs. Why this sudden change in the policy of the -French government? The answer is plain. Congress had adjourned on the -4th of March, without manifesting by their actions any disposition to -make the fulfilment of the treaty a serious question. Whilst our -Treasury was overflowing, they had refused to make any provision for the -defence of the country. They had left the whole coast of the United -States from Maine to Georgia in a defenceless condition. The effect upon -the French Chamber and the French people was such as might have been -anticipated. To prove this, I shall read an extract from a speech -delivered by Mr. Bignon, one of the Deputies, on the 10th April. I -select this from many others, because it contains nothing which can be -offensive to any Senator. It will be recollected that Mr. Bignon is the -gentleman who had been more instrumental in defeating the bill at the -previous session than any other member. - -“President Jackson’s message has astonished them (the Americans) as well -as us; they have seen themselves thrown by it into a very hazardous -situation. What have they done? They are too circumspect and -clear-headed to express, by an official determination, their disapproval -of an act which, in reality, has not received their assent. Some of -them, for instance Mr. Adams, in the House of Representatives, may -indeed, from a politic patriotism, have even eulogized the President’s -energy, and obtained from the Chamber the expression that the treaty of -1831 must be complied with; but at a preceding sitting the same member -took pains to declare that he was not the defender of a system of war; -he proclaimed aloud that the resolution adopted by the Senate was an -expedient suggested by prudence, and he thought the House of -Representatives should pursue the same course. Gentlemen, the American -legislature had to resort to expedients to get out of the embarrassing -dilemma in which the President’s message had placed them; and they acted -wisely.” - -From the conduct of Congress, the French Chambers were under the -impression that the people of the United States would not adopt any -energetic measures to compel the fulfilment of the treaty. They had no -idea that the nation would sustain the President in his efforts. They -had reason to believe that he was almost left alone. They appear ever -since to have acted under this delusion. According to the impression of -Mr. Bignon, the nation was astounded at President Jackson’s message. -This is the true reason why the ministry accepted the amendment -requiring President Jackson to make an explanation. - -The best mode of obtaining justice from the powerful as well as from the -weak—the best mode of elevating this nation to the lofty position she is -destined to occupy among the nations of the earth—the best mode of -preventing war and preserving peace, is to stand up firmly for our -rights. The assertion of these rights, not by threats, but boldly, -manfully, and frankly, is the surest method of obtaining justice and -respect from other nations. - -At so early a day as the 29th of January, Mr. Livingston had addressed a -note to the Duke de Broglie, distinctly disavowing any intention on the -part of the President, by his message, to intimidate France, or to -charge the French government with bad faith. On the 25th of April, in -another letter to the duke, he communicated to him the President’s -official approbation of his former note. In this last letter, he -reiterates his explanations, and assures the duke that, whilst the -President intended to use no menace, nor to charge any breach of faith -against the king’s government, he never could and never would make any -explanation of his message on the demand of a foreign government. This -letter would, of itself, be sufficient to give its author a high rank -not only among the diplomatists, but the statesmen of his country. The -sentiments it contains were unanimously approved by the American people. -Although it was received by the duke before the bill had been acted upon -by the Chamber of Peers, it produced no effect upon the French ministry. -The bill was finally passed and obtained the sanction of the king in a -form requiring the President to explain his message before the money -could be paid. - -This state of fact distinctly raises the important question, whether a -President of the United States can be questioned by a foreign government -for anything contained in a message to Congress. The principle that he -cannot, has already been firmly established by the practice of our -Government. Even in our intercourse with France, in former times, the -question has been settled. This principle results from the very nature -of our institutions. It must ever be maintained inviolate. Reverse it, -and you destroy the independent existence of this Republic, so far as -its intercourse with foreign nations is concerned. - -The Constitution requires that the President of the United States -“shall, from time to time, give to the Congress information of the state -of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he -shall judge necessary and expedient.” This information is intended not -only for the use of Congress, but of the people. They are the source of -all power, and from their impulse all legitimate legislation must -proceed. Both Congress and the people must be informed of the state of -our foreign relations by the executive. If the President cannot speak -freely to them upon this subject; if he cannot give them all the -information which may be necessary to enable them to act, except under -the penalty of offending a foreign government, the Constitution of the -United States, to this extent, becomes a dead letter. The maintenance of -this principle is an indispensable condition of our existence, under the -present form of Government. - -If we are engaged in any controversy with a foreign nation, it is not -only the right, but it is the imperative duty, of the President to -communicate the facts to Congress, however much they may operate against -that nation. Can we then, for a single moment, permit a foreign -government to demand an apology from the President for performing one of -his highest duties to the people of the United States? - -Let us put an extreme case. Suppose the President, after giving a -history of our wrongs to Congress, recommends not merely a resort to -reprisals, but to war, against another nation. Shall this nation, which -has inflicted upon us injury, be permitted to change her position, to -cancel all our claims for justice, and to insist that we have become the -aggressors, because a resort to arms has been recommended? I feel the -most perfect confidence that not a single Senator will ever consent to -yield this position to France or to any other nation. I need not labor -this question. The subject has been placed in the clearest and strongest -light by Mr. Livingston, in his letter to the Duke de Broglie of the -25th of April. - -If any possible exemption to the rule could be tolerated, surely this -would not present the case. The Duke de Broglie himself, in his letter -to Mr. Pageot, is constrained to admit that there is not a single -offensive sentence respecting France in the message; but yet he -complains of the general effect of the whole. - -With a full knowledge, then, that the President could not, would not, -dare not explain his message, on the demand of any foreign government, -the Duke de Broglie addresses his famous letter to the chargé d’affaires -at Washington. It bears date at Paris on the 17th June, 1835. Before I -proceed to make any remarks upon this letter, I wish to bring its -character distinctly into view of the Senate. It commences by declaring, -in opposition to the principle that the President of the United States -cannot be called upon by a foreign government to make explanations of a -message to Congress, that, “by virtue of a clause inserted in the -article first, by the Chamber of Deputies, the French government must -defer making the payments agreed upon, _until that of the United States -shall have explained the true meaning and real purport of divers -passages inserted by the President of the Union in his message at the -opening of the last session of Congress, and at which all France, at the -first aspect, was justly offended_.” - -It proceeds still further, and announces that, “the government, having -discovered nothing in that clause at variance with its own sentiments, -or the course it had intended to pursue, the project of law thus amended -on the 18th April, by the Chamber of Deputies, was carried on the 27th, -to the Chamber of Peers.” - -The duke, after having thus distinctly stated that an explanation of the -message was required as a condition of the payment of the money, and -after presenting a historical sketch of the controversy, then -controverts, at considerable length, the position which had been -maintained by Mr. Livingston, that the President could not be questioned -by a foreign government for anything contained in a message to Congress. -He afterwards asserts, in the broadest terms, that the explanations -which had been voluntarily made by Mr. Livingston, and sanctioned by the -President, were not sufficient. - -In suggesting what would satisfy France, he says, “we do not here -contend about this or that phrase, this or that allegation, this or that -expression; we contend about the intention itself, which has dictated -that part of the message.” And again, speaking of Mr. Livingston’s -letters of the 29th January and 25th April, he adds: - -“You will easily conceive, sir, and the Cabinet of Washington will, we -think, understand it also, that such phrases incidentally inserted in -documents, the purport and tenor of which are purely polemical, -surrounded, in some measure, by details of a controversy, which is -besides not always free from bitterness, cannot dispel sufficiently the -impression produced by the perusal of the message, nor strike the mind -_as would the same idea expressed in terms single, positive, direct, and -unaccompanied by any recrimination concerning facts or incidents no -longer of any importance_. Such is the motive which, among many others, -has placed the French government in the impossibility of acceding to the -wish expressed by Mr. Livingston, towards the conclusion of his note of -the 29th of April, by declaring (to the Chamber of Peers probably) that -previous explanations given by the minister of the United States, and -subsequently approved by the President, had satisfied it.” - -After having thus announced the kind of explanation which would be -expected, he states, that the French government “in pausing then for the -present, and waiting for the fulfilment of those engagements to be -claimed, (the engagements of the treaty) and expecting those to be -claimed _in terms consistent with the regard due to it_, it is not -afraid of being accused, nor France, which it represents, of being -accused of appreciating national honor by any number of millions, which -it could withhold as a compensation for any injury offered to it.” The -letter concludes by authorizing Mr. Pageot to read it to Mr. Forsyth, -_and if he be desirous, to let him take a copy of it_. - -It is impossible to peruse this letter, able and ingenious as it is, -without at once perceiving that it asks what the President can never -grant, without violating the principle that France has no right to -demand an explanation of his message. - -On the 11th of September, Mr. Pageot, the French chargé d’affaires, -called at the Department of State and read this despatch to Mr. Forsyth. -The latter did not think proper to ask a copy of it; and for this he has -been loudly condemned. In my judgment, his conduct was perfectly -correct. - -No objection can be made to this indirect mode of communication with the -Government of the United States adopted by the duke. It is sanctioned by -diplomatic usage. The rules, however, which govern it, are clearly -deducible from its very nature. It is a mere diplomatic feeler thrown -out to ascertain the views of another government. The duke himself -justly observes that its object is “to avoid the irritation which might -involuntarily rise from an exchange of contradictory notes in a direct -controversy.” - -Had Mr. Forsyth asked and received a copy of this despatch, he must have -given it an answer. Respect for the source from which it proceeded would -have demanded this at his hands. If this answer could have been nothing -but a direct refusal to comply with the suggestions of the French -government, then he was correct in not requesting leave to take a copy -of it. Why was this the case? Because it would have added to the -difficulties of the question, already sufficiently numerous, and would -have involved him in a direct controversy, which it is the very object -of this mode of communication to prevent. This is the reason why it was -left by the despatch itself, within his own option whether to request a -copy or not; and his refusal to make this request ought to have given no -offence to the French government. - -Now, sir, what answer could he have given to this communication, but a -direct refusal? Had not the duke been fully apprised before he wrote -this despatch, that it could receive no other answer? It required -explanations as a condition of the payment of the money, which he had -been informed the President could never make. On this ground, then, and -for the very purpose of avoiding controversy, the conduct of Mr. Forsyth -is correct. - -But there is another reason to justify his conduct, which, I think, must -carry conviction to every mind. The President proposed, in his annual -message, voluntarily to declare, that he had never intended to menace -France, or to impeach the faith of the French government. This he has -since done in the strongest terms. As offence was taken by the French -government at the language of a former message, it was believed that -such a declaration in a subsequent message would be, as it ought to be, -entirely satisfactory to France. Had Mr. Forsyth taken a copy of this -despatch, and placed it among the archives of the Government, how could -the President have made, consistently with his principles, the -disclaimer which he has done? A demand for an explanation would thus -have been interposed by a foreign government, which would have compelled -him to remain silent. The refusal of Mr. Forsyth to ask a copy of the -despatch, left the controversy in its old condition; and, so far as our -government was concerned, left this letter from the Duke de Broglie to -Mr. Pageot as if it never had been written. The President, therefore, -remained at perfect liberty to say what he thought proper in his -message. - -If this letter had proposed any reasonable terms of reconciling our -difficulties with France—if it had laid any foundation on which a -rational hope might have rested that it would become the means of -producing a result so desirable, it would have been the duty of Mr. -Forsyth to request a copy. Upon much reflection, however, I must declare -that I cannot imagine what good could have resulted from it in any -contingency; and it might have done much evil. Had it prevented the -President from speaking as he has done in his last message, concerning -France, it might have involved the country in a much more serious -misunderstanding with that power than existed at the present moment. - -I should be glad to say no more of this despatch, if I could do so -consistently with a sense of duty. Mr. Pageot did not rest satisfied -with Mr. Forsyth’s omission to request a copy of it, as he ought to have -done. He deemed it proper to attempt to force that upon him which the -despatch itself had left entirely to his own discretion. Accordingly, on -the 1st of December last, he enclosed him a copy. On the third, Mr. -Forsyth returned it with a polite refusal. On the fifth, Mr. Pageot -again addressed Mr. Forsyth, and avowed that his intention in -communicating the document, “was to make known the real disposition of -my government to the President of the United States, _and through him to -Congress and the American people_.” Thus it is manifest that his purpose -was to make the President the instrument by which he might appeal to the -American people against the American Government. After he had failed in -this effort, what is his next resort? He publishes this despatch to the -people of the United States through the medium of our public journals. I -now hold in my hand the number of the _Courier des Etats Unis_ of the -20th of January, a journal published in New York, which contains the -original despatch in the French language. In a subsequent number of the -same journal, of the 24th January, there is an editorial article on the -subject of the President’s special message to Congress, and of this -despatch, of a part of which I shall give my own translation. It is as -follows: - -“Our last number contained the despatch of M. the Duke de Broglie to the -chargé d’affaires of France at Washington, concerning which the Senate -had demanded such explanations as were in the power of the executive. On -the same day, the late message of the President of the United States, -which had been expected with so much impatience and anxiety, arrived at -New York. To this document are annexed many letters of the Duke de -Broglie, of Mr. Forsyth, and of Mr. Pageot, which will be read with -great interest. We give a simple analysis of the least important, _and -an exact copy of those which have been written originally in French_.” - -“The public attention was first occupied with the letter of the Minister -of Foreign Affairs, which was known here some hours before the message -of the President of the United States; and if some journals of the -Government have found this publication unseasonable, _made by the -legation of France according to the orders which it had received_, -nobody, at least, has been able to deny the talent, the moderation, and -the force of reasoning which have presided at its preparation.” - -By whom was the legation of France ordered to publish this despatch? Who -alone had the power of issuing such an order? The French government. -Against this positive language, I can still scarcely believe that the -Duke de Broglie has given an order so highly reprehensible. - -The publication of this despatch was an outrage upon all diplomatic -usage. It ought to have been intended as the harbinger of peace, and not -of renewed controversy. From its very nature it was secret and -confidential. If not received, it ought to have been as if it never had -existed. Upon any other principle, it would aggravate the controversy -which such communications are always intended to prevent. It has now -been diverted from its natural purpose by the French legation, and has -been made the subject of an appeal by France to the American people -against their own Government. It has thus greatly increased the -difficulties between the two countries. It has proclaimed to the world -that France requires from the President of the United States, an apology -of his message as an indispensable condition of the execution of our -treaty. It has, therefore, rendered it much more difficult for her to -retract. - -The true meaning of this despatch is now rendered manifest to the most -sceptical. The Duke de Broglie, in his interview with Mr. Barton, on the -12th October last, has placed his own construction upon it. The apology -which he then required from the President contains his own commentary -upon this despatch. I need not read the history of that interview to the -Senate, to prove that I am correct in this assertion. It must be fresh -in the recollection of every Senator. - -Considered as an appeal to the American people against their own -Government, the publication of this despatch deserves still more serious -consideration. Foreign influence, in all ages, has been the bane of -republics. It has destroyed nearly all of them which have ever existed. -We ought to resist its approaches on every occasion. In the very infancy -of our existence as a nation, a similar attempt was made by France. It -was then repulsed as became a nation of freemen. The present attempt -will have the same effect on the American people. It will render them -still more firm and still more united in the cause of their country. - -Of Mr. Barton’s recall, I need say but little. It was the direct -consequence of the refusal of France to execute the treaty, without an -apology from the President of his message. - -Diplomatic relations between the two countries had been first -interrupted by France. On this subject, hear what the Count de Rigny -said in his exposé read to the Chamber of Peers, on the 27th April last, -on presenting the bill for the execution of our treaty. I give my own -translation: - -“You know the measure which the government of the king adopted at the -very instant when the message, presented by the President of the Union, -at the opening of the last Congress, arrived in Europe. You know that -since that time, a similar measure had been adopted by President Jackson -himself. The two ministers, accredited near the two governments, are -reciprocally recalled; the effect of this double recall is at this -moment, if not to interrupt, in all respects, the diplomatic -communications between the two States, at least to interrupt them in -what regards the treaty of the 4th July. If these relations ought to be -renewed, and we doubt not that they ought, it is not for us hereafter to -take the initiative.” - -On the 5th of June, the President had officially sanctioned the -explanations which had been made to the French government by Mr. -Livingston, in his letter of the 25th of April, as he had previously -sanctioned those which had been made by the same gentleman, in his note -of the 29th of January. These were considered by the President, amply -sufficient to satisfy the susceptible feelings of France. In order to -give them full time to produce their effect, and to afford the French -ministry an ample opportunity for reflection, he delayed sending any -orders to demand the money secured by the treaty until the middle of -December. On the 14th of that month, Mr. Barton was instructed to call -upon the Duke de Broglie, and request to be informed what were the -intentions of the French government, in relation to the payment of the -money secured by the treaty. He expected these instructions on the 20th -of October. The special message has communicated to us the result. “We -will pay the money,” says the Duke de Broglie, “when _the Government of -the United States is ready on its part, to declare to us, by addressing -its claim to us officially in writing, that it regrets the -misunderstanding which has arisen between the two countries; that this -misunderstanding is founded on a mistake; that it never entered into its -intention to call in question the good faith of the French government, -nor to take a menacing attitude towards France_;” and he adds, “_if the -Government of the United States does_ _not give this assurance, we shall -be obliged to think that this misunderstanding is not the result of an -error_.” - -Is there any American so utterly lost to those generous feelings which -love of country should inspire, as to purchase five millions with the -loss of national honor? Who, for these or any number of millions, would -see the venerable man, now at the head of our Government, bowing at the -footstool of the throne of Louis Philippe, and like a child, prepared to -say its lesson, repeating this degrading apology? First, perish the five -millions,—perish a thousand times the amount. The man whose bosom has -been so often bared in the defence of his country will never submit to -such degrading terms. His motto has always been, death before dishonor. - -Why, then, it may be asked, have I expressed a hope, a belief, that this -unfortunate controversy will be amicably terminated when the two nations -are now directly at issue? I will tell you why. This has been called a -mere question of etiquette; and such it is, so far as France is -concerned. She has already received every explanation which the most -jealous susceptibility ought to demand. These have been voluntarily -tendered to her. - -Since the date of the Duke de Broglie’s letter to Mr. Pageot of the 17th -June, we have received from the President of the United States his -general message at the commencement of the session, and his special -message on French affairs. Both these documents disclaim, in the -strongest terms, any intention to menace France, or to impute bad faith -to the French government by the message of December, 1834. Viewing the -subject in this light; considering that at the interview with Mr. -Barton, the duke could not have anticipated what would be the tone of -these documents, I now entertain a strong hope that the French -government have already reconsidered their determination. If a mediation -has been proposed and accepted, I cannot entertain a doubt as to what -will be the opinion of the mediator. He ought to say to France, you have -already received all the explanations, and these have been voluntarily -accorded, which the United States can make without national degradation. -With these you ought to be satisfied. With you, it is a mere question of -etiquette. All the disclaimers which you ought to desire have already -been made by the President of the United States. The only question with -you now is not one of substance, but merely whether these explanations -are in proper form. But in regard to the United States, the question is -far different. What is with you mere etiquette, is a question of life -and death to them. Let the President of the United States make the -apology which you have dictated,—let him once admit the right of a -foreign government to question his messages to Congress, and to demand -explanations of any language at which they may choose to take offence, -and their independent existence as a Government, to that extent, is -virtually destroyed. - -We must remember that France may yield with honor; _we_ never can, -without disgrace. Will she yield? That is the question. I confess I -should have entertained a stronger belief that she would, had she not -published the duke’s letter to Mr. Pageot as an appeal to the American -people. She must still believe that the people of this country are -divided in opinion in regard to the firm maintenance of their rights. In -this she will find herself entirely mistaken. But should Congress, at -the present session, refuse to sustain the President by adopting -measures of defence; should the precedent of the last session be -followed for the present year, then I shall entertain the most gloomy -forebodings. The Father of his country has informed us that the best -mode of preserving peace is to be prepared for war. I firmly believe, -therefore, that a unanimous vote of the Senate in favor of the -resolutions now before them, to follow to Europe the acceptance of the -mediation, would, almost to a certainty, render it successful. It would -be an act of the soundest policy as well as of the highest patriotism. -It would prove, not that we intend to menace France, because such an -attempt would be ridiculous; but that the American people are unanimous -in the assertion of their rights, and have resolved to prepare for the -worst. A French fleet is now hovering upon our coasts; and shall we sit -still, with an overflowing Treasury, and leave our country defenceless? -This will never be said with truth of the American Congress. - -If war should come, which God forbid,—if France should still persist in -her effort to degrade the American people in the person of their Chief -Magistrate,—we may appeal to Heaven for the justice of our cause, and -look forward with confidence to victory from that Being in whose hands -is the destiny of nations. - -Previous to the delivery of this speech, the President had, on the 15th -of January, recommended to Congress a partial non-intercourse with -France. But in a short time the government of Great Britain made an -offer of mediation, which was accepted, and the whole difficulty with -France was amicably adjusted. - ------ - -Footnote 47: - - General Jackson’s first term extended from March 4th, 1829, to March - 4th, 1833. His second term ended March 4th, 1837. - -Footnote 48: - - Upon this vexed question of instruction there is perhaps no more - important distinction than that which was drawn by Mr. Webster in his - celebrated speech of March 7, 1850: namely, that where a State has an - interest of her own, not adverse to the general interest of the - country, a Senator is bound to follow the direction which he receives - from the legislature; but if the question be one which affects her - interests, and at the same time affects equally the interests of all - the other States, the Senator is not bound to obey the will of the - State, because he is in the position of an arbitrator or referee. The - first proposition seems evident enough, but of course it embraces none - but a limited class of questions. It is in the far more numerous cases - which fall under the second proposition that the difficulty inherent - in the doctrine of instruction arises. Mr. Buchanan, it will be seen - hereafter, consistently acted upon the view with which he began his - senatorial career. - -Footnote 49: - - General Jackson himself continued, during his Presidency and after his - retirement, in his correspondence to apply to his party the term - “Republican.” - -Footnote 50: - - John Sargent of Pennsylvania was the Whig candidate for the - Vice-Presidency along with Mr. Clay, and he received the same - electoral vote. - -Footnote 51: - - The secret history of such collisions between governments not - infrequently throws an unexpected light upon their public aspects. - When General Jackson was preparing his annual message of December, - 1834, some of his friends in Washington were very anxious that it - should not be too peremptory on the subject of the French payment. At - their request, Mr. Justice Catron, of the Supreme Court, waited upon - the President, and advised a moderate tone. The President took from - his drawer an autograph letter from King Louis Philippe, and handed it - to the judge to read. In this letter the king represented that a war - between the United States and France would be especially disastrous to - the wine-growing districts, and that the interests of those provinces - could be relied upon to oppose it; but that it was necessary that the - alternative of war should be distinctly presented as certain to follow - a final refusal of the Chambers to make the payment demanded. The king - therefore urged General Jackson to adopt a very decided tone in his - message, being confident that, if he did so, the opposition would give - way and war would be avoided. - - Another anecdote concerning this message was communicated to the - writer from an entirely authentic source. After the message had been - written, some of its expressions were softened by a member of the - Cabinet, before the MS. was sent to the printer, without the - President’s knowledge. When it was in type, the confidential - proof-reader of the _Globe_ office took the proof-sheets to the - President; and he afterwards, said that he never before knew what - profane swearing was. General Jackson promptly restored his own - language to the proof-sheets. - -Footnote 52: - - Mr. Ticknor, writing from Paris, February, 1836, said: “One thing, - however, has done us much honor. General Jackson’s message, as far as - France is concerned,—for they know nothing about the rest of it,—has - been applauded to the skies. The day it arrived I happened to dine - with the Russian minister here, in a party of about thirty persons, - and I assure you it seemed to me as if nine-and-twenty of them came up - to me with congratulations. I was really made to feel awkward at last; - but this has been the tone all over the Continent, where they have - been confoundedly afraid we might begin a war which would end no - prophecy could tell where.” (_Life, &c., of George Ticknor_, I. 480.) - Count Pozzo di Borgo’s company would not be likely to be composed of - persons sympathizing with the French opposition. - ------ - - - - - CHAPTER XII. - 1835–1837. - -REMOVAL OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS—BENTON’S “EXPUNGING” RESOLUTION. - - -Among the exciting topics of this period, there was no ground on which -the Whigs attacked the administration of General Jackson with greater -severity than that which related to his removal of executive officers. -In the remarkable protest, which he sent to the Senate in 1834, against -the censure which that body had passed upon his executive acts, and -especially his removal of one Secretary of the Treasury who would not, -and the appointment of another who would, remove the public deposits -from the Bank of the United States, he had claimed a general executive -power of supervision and control over all executive officers. He had -made many other removals from office, which were complained of as -dictated by purely political motives; and in the session of 1834–5, a -bill was introduced into the Senate, one of the objects of which was to -require the President, when making a nomination to fill a vacancy -occasioned by the removal of any officer, to state the fact of such -removal, and to render reasons for it. On this bill, Mr. Buchanan, on -the 17th of February, 1835, made the following speech, which is of value -now, because it relates to a topic that has not yet ceased to be a -matter of controversy: - -Mr. PRESIDENT: It is with extreme diffidence and reluctance that I rise -to address you on the present occasion. It was my intention to suffer -this bill to pass, contenting myself with a simple vote in the negative. -This course I should have pursued, had the constitutional question been -fully discussed by any gentleman on our side of the Senate. As this has -not been done, I feel it to be a duty which I owe to those who sent me -here, as well as to myself, to express my opinion on the subject, and -the reasons on which that opinion is founded. - -The present bill presents a most important question concerning our -fundamental institutions. It attacks a construction of the Constitution -of the United States which has been considered settled for almost half a -century. Has the President, under the Constitution, the power of -removing executive officers? If any question can ever be put at rest in -this country, this, emphatically, ought to be considered that one. It -was solemnly settled in 1789 by the first Congress of the United States. -Of whom was that Congress composed? Of the men who had sustained the -toils and dangers of the revolutionary war—of the men who sat in the -convention which framed the Constitution, and who passed from that -convention into the first Congress. These men, who laid the foundations -of our Republic broad and deep, most solemnly and deliberately decided, -that to the President, and to him alone, belonged the power of removal. -This was not at a moment when the country was convulsed by party spirit. -Very far from it. The Fathers of the Republic were then occupied in -putting the Government in motion, and in establishing such principles as -might preserve the liberties and promote the best interests of the -American people for ages. In what condition are we, at the present -moment, to rejudge the judgment of those men and reverse their solemn -decision? Is not party spirit raging throughout the land? Are there not -high party feelings in this body? Are we in a condition calmly and -deliberately, without prejudice and without passion, to review and to -condemn their judgment? - -Why, sir, even if there were no authority in the Constitution for the -power of removal, the decision of this body, at this time, would have -but little influence among the people. They would compare the -calmness—the self-possession—the freedom from political excitement of -the sages who established the precedent, with the party violence and the -high political feeling of the Senate at the present day; and the weight -of authority would be all against us. - -The debate in the first Congress was very long and very able. Every -argument which patriotism and ingenuity could suggest was exhausted. The -question was at length decided in the House of Representatives on the -22d June, 1789. On the yeas and nays, thirty voted in affirmance of the -President’s power of removal, and eighteen against it;—a large majority, -considering the comparatively small number of which the House was then -composed. - -The question arose on the bill to establish the Department of Foreign -Affairs. It contained a clause declaring the Secretary of State “to be -removable from office by the President of the United States.” From this -clause it might have been inferred that the power of removal was -intended to be conferred upon the President by Congress, and not -acknowledged to exist in him under the Constitution. To remove every -difficulty,—to place doubt at defiance in all future time, the words “to -be removable from office by the President of the United States” were -stricken from the bill, and this right was expressly acknowledged to -exist independently of all legislation. By the second section of the -bill, which became a law on the 27th July, 1789, it is declared that -“the Chief Clerk in the Department of Foreign Affairs, _whenever the -principal officer shall be removed from office by the President of the -United States_, or in any other case of vacancy, shall, during such -vacancy, have the charge and custody of all records, books, and papers, -appertaining to the said Department.” Here then is a clear, strong, -distinct recognition by the House of Representatives of the President’s -power of removal, not by virtue of law, but under the Constitution. This -phraseology was carefully adopted for the purpose of putting this very -question at rest forever, so far as Congress could effect this purpose. - -The bill, having passed the House of Representatives, was sent to the -Senate for their concurrence. The power of removal was there solemnly -considered. This was the very body which, according to the doctrine of -gentlemen, has a right to control this power; and yet they affirmed the -principle that it was vested in the President, and in him alone. It is -true that the question was determined by the casting vote of Mr. -Adams,—then the Vice-President: but the act was approved by General -Washington, and the power has ever since been exercised without dispute -by him and his successors in office, until after the election of the -present President. Washington, the elder Adams, Jefferson, Madison, -Monroe, and the younger Adams removed whom they pleased from office; but -after the accession of Jackson, the existence of this power is denied. -We are now required to believe that all which former Presidents have -done was wrong;—that the first Congress were entirely mistaken in their -construction of the Constitution:—and that the President does not -possess the power of removal except with the concurrence of the Senate. - -If ever a question has occurred in the history of any country which -ought to be considered settled, this is that one. A solemn decision at -first, adopted in practice afterwards by all branches of the Government, -for five and forty years, makes the precedent one of almost irresistible -force. - -What then have we a right to expect on our side of the House from the -opposition? Not merely that they shall prove it to be a doubtful -question, but they shall present a case so clear as to render it -manifest that all which has been done has been without authority, and -all the removals which have ever been made, have been in violation of -the Constitution. The burden rests entirely upon the gentlemen, and a -ponderous load they have to sustain. - -But, sir, if the question were entirely new, if it never had been -decided either by precedent or by practice, I think it may be made -abundantly clear, that the strength of the argument is greatly on the -side of those who maintain the power. - -What is the nature of the Constitution of the United States? The powers -which it devolves upon the Government, are divided into three distinct -classes, the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial. To preserve -the liberties of any country, it is necessary that these three branches -of the government should be kept distinct and separate as far as -possible. When they are all united in the same person—this is the very -definition of despotism. As you approximate to this state of things, in -the same proportion you advance towards arbitrary power. These are -axioms which cannot—which will not be denied. - -Doubtless for wise purposes, the framers of our Constitution have in a -very few excepted cases, blended these powers together. The executive, -by his veto, has a control over our legislation. The Senate, although a -branch of the legislature, exercises judicial power in cases of -impeachment. The President nominates, “and by and with the advice and -consent of the Senate,” appoints all officers, except those of an -inferior nature, the appointment of which may be vested by Congress “in -the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of -departments.” - -Now, sir, my position is, that when the Constitution of the United -States, in a special case, has conferred upon the Senate, which is -essentially a branch of the legislature, a participation in executive -power, you cannot by construction extend this power beyond the plain -terms of the grant. It is an exception from the general rule pervading -the whole instrument. Appointment to office is in the strictest sense an -executive power. But it is expressly declared that the assent of the -Senate shall be necessary to the exercise of this power on the part of -the President. The grant to the Senate is special. In this particular -case, it is an abstraction from the general executive powers granted -under the Constitution to the President. According to the maxim of the -common law, _expressio unius est exclusio alterius_—it follows -conclusively that what has not been given is withheld, and remains in -that branch of the Government which is the appropriate depository of -executive power. The exception proves the rule. And the grant of -executive power to the Senate is confined to appointments to office, and -to them alone. This necessarily excludes other executive powers. It -cannot, therefore, be contended with any force, as the gentleman from -Massachusetts (Mr. Webster) has contended, that because the consent of -the Senate is made necessary by the Constitution to appointments of -officers,—that, therefore, by implication, it is necessary for their -removal. Besides, these two things are very distinct in their nature, as -I shall hereafter have occasion to demonstrate. - -But to proceed with the argument. I shall contend that the sole power of -removing executive officers is vested in the President by the -Constitution. First, from a correct construction of the instrument -itself; and second, even if that were doubtful, from the great danger -resulting to the public interest from any other construction. - -The Constitution declares in express language that “the executive power -shall be vested in a President of the United States.” Under these -general terms, I shall, once for all, disclaim the idea of attempting to -derive any portion of the power of the Chief Magistrate from any other -fountain than the Constitution itself. I therefore entirely repel the -imputation, so far as I am concerned, which would invest him with -executive powers derived from the prerogatives of the kings or emperors -of the old world. Such arguments are entirely out of the question. - -The Constitution also declares that “he shall take care that the laws be -faithfully executed.” These two clauses of the Constitution confer the -executive power on the President, and define his duties. Is, then, the -removal from office an executive power? If it be so, there is an end of -the question; because the Constitution nowhere declares that the Senate, -or any other human tribunal, shall participate in the exercise of this -power. It will not be contended but that the power of removal exists, -and must exist, somewhere. Where else can it exist but in the executive, -on whom the Constitution imposes the obligation of taking care that the -laws shall be faithfully executed? It will not be pretended that the -power of removal is either of a legislative or judicial character. From -its very nature, it belongs to the executive. In case he discovers that -an officer is violating his trust—that instead of executing the laws, -his conduct is in direct opposition to their requisition, is it not, -strictly speaking, an executive power to arrest him in his career, by -removing him from office? How could the President execute the trust -confided to him, if he were destitute of this authority? If he possessed -it not, he would be compelled to witness the executive officers -violating the laws of Congress without the power of preventing it. - -On this subject, it is impossible for me to advance anything new. It was -exhausted by Mr. Madison, in the debate of 1789, in the House of -Representatives. I am confident the Senate will indulge me whilst I read -two extracts from his speeches on that occasion, delivered on the 16th -and 17th June, 1789. The first was delivered on the 16th June, 1789, and -is as follows: - -“By a strict examination of the Constitution, on what appears to be its -true principles, and considering the great departments of the Government -in the relation they have to each other, I have my doubts whether we are -not absolutely tied down to the construction declared in the bill. In -the first section of the first article, it is said that all legislative -powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United -States. In the second article, it is affirmed that the executive power -shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. In the -third article, it is declared that the judicial power of the United -States shall be vested in one Supreme Court; and in such inferior courts -as Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. - -“I suppose it will be readily admitted, that so far as the Constitution -has separated the powers of these great departments, it would be -improper to combine them together; and so far as it has left any -particular department in the entire possession of the powers incident to -that department, I conceive we ought not to qualify them further than -they are qualified by the Constitution. The legislative powers are -vested in Congress, and are to be exercised by them uncontrolled by any -other department, except the Constitution has qualified it otherwise. -The Constitution has qualified the legislative power, by authorizing the -President to object to any act it may pass, requiring, in this case, -two-thirds of both Houses to concur in making a law; but still the -absolute legislative power is vested in the Congress with this -qualification alone. - -“The Constitution affirms, that the executive power shall be vested in -the President. Are there exceptions to this proposition? Yes, there are. -The Constitution says, that in appointing to office, the Senate shall be -associated with the President, unless in case of inferior officers, when -the law shall otherwise direct. Have we a right to extend this -exception? I believe not. If the Constitution had invested all executive -power in the President, I venture to assert that the Legislature has no -right to diminish or modify his executive authority.” - -Again: - -“The doctrine, however, which seems to stand most in opposition to the -principles I contend for, is, that the power to annul an appointment is, -in the nature of things, incidental to the power which makes the -appointment. I agree that if nothing more was said in the Constitution -than that the President, by and with the advice and consent of the -Senate, should appoint to office, there would be great force in saying -that the power of removal resulted by a natural implication from the -power of appointing. But there is another part of the Constitution, no -less explicit than the one on which the gentleman’s doctrine is founded; -it is that part which declares that the executive power shall be vested -in a President of the United States. - -“The association of the Senate with the President in exercising that -particular function, is an exception to this general rule, and -exceptions to general rules, I conceive, are ever to be taken strictly. -But there is another part of the Constitution which inclines, in my -judgment, to favor the construction I put upon it; the President is -required to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. If the duty -to see the laws faithfully executed be required at the hands of the -Executive Magistrate, it would seem that it was generally intended he -should have that species of power which is necessary to accomplish that -end. Now, if the officer, when once appointed, is not to depend upon the -President for his official existence, but upon a distinct body, (for -where there are two negatives required, either can prevent the removal,) -I confess I do not see how the President can take care that the laws be -faithfully executed. It is true, by a circuitous operation, he may -obtain an impeachment, and even without this it is possible he may -obtain the concurrence of the Senate for the purpose of displacing an -officer; but would this give that species of control to the Executive -Magistrate which seems to be required by the Constitution? I own, if my -opinion was not contrary to that entertained by what I suppose to be the -minority on this question, I should be doubtful of being mistaken, when -I discovered how inconsistent that construction would make the -Constitution with itself. I can hardly bring myself to imagine the -wisdom of the convention who framed the Constitution contemplated such -incongruity.” - -But, sir, if doubts could arise on the language of the Constitution -itself, then it would become proper, for the purpose of ascertaining the -true meaning of the instrument, to resort to arguments _ab -inconvenienti_. The framers of the Constitution never intended it to -mean what would defeat the very purposes which it was intended to -accomplish. I think I can prove that to deprive the President of the -power of removal would be fatal to the best interests of the country. - -And first, the Senate cannot always be in session. I thank Heaven for -that. We must separate and attend to our ordinary business. It is -necessary for a healthy political constitution that we should breathe -the fresh and pure air of the country. The political excitement would -rise too high if it were not cooled off in this manner. The American -people never will consent, and never ought to consent, that our sessions -shall become perpetual. The framers of the Constitution never intended -that this should be the case. But once establish the principle that the -Senate must consent to removals, as well as to appointments, and this -consequence is inevitable. - -A foreign minister in a remote part of the world is pursuing a course, -dangerous to the best interests, and ruinous to the character of the -country. He is disgracing us abroad, and endangering the public peace. -He has been intrusted with an important negotiation, and is betraying -his trust. He has become corrupt, or is entirely incompetent. This -information arrives at Washington, three or four days after the -adjournment of Congress on the 3d of March. What is to be done? Is the -President to be entirely powerless until the succeeding December, when -the Senate may meet again? Shall he be obliged to wait until the -mischief is entirely consummated—until the country is ruined—before he -can recall the corrupt or wicked minister? Or will any gentleman contend -that upon every occasion, when a removal from office becomes necessary, -he shall call the Senators from their homes throughout this widely -extended republic? And yet, this is the inevitable consequence of the -position contended for by gentlemen. Could the framers of the -Constitution ever have intended such an absurdity? This argument was -also adverted to by Mr. Madison. - -But again, there are great numbers of disbursing officers scattered over -the Union. Information is received during the recess of the Senate, that -one of them in Arkansas or at the Rocky Mountains, has been guilty of -peculation, and is wasting the public money. Must the President fold his -arms, and suffer him to proceed in his fraudulent course, until the next -meeting of the Senate? The truth is, that the President cannot execute -the laws of the Union, without this power of removal. - -But cases still stronger may be presented. The heads of departments are -the confidential advisers of the President. It is chiefly through their -agency that he must conduct the great operations of Government. Without -a direct control over them, it would be impossible for him to take care -that the laws shall be faithfully executed. Suppose that one of them, -during the recess of the Senate, violates his instructions, refuses to -hold any intercourse with the President, and pursues a career which he -believes to be in opposition to the Constitution, the laws and the best -interests of the country. Shall the executive arm be paralyzed; and in -such a case, must he patiently submit to all these evils until the -Senate can be convened? In time of war, the country might be ruined by a -corrupt Secretary of War, before the Senate could be assembled. - -It is not my intention, on this occasion, to discuss the question of the -removal of the deposits from the Bank of the United States. I merely -wish to present it as a forcible illustration of my argument. Suppose -the late Secretary of the Treasury had determined to remove the -deposits, and the President had believed this measure would be as -ruinous to the country as the friends of the bank apprehended. If the -Secretary, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the President, had -proceeded to issue the order for their removal, what should we have -heard from those who were the loudest in their denunciations against the -Executive, if he had said, my arms are tied, I have no power to arrest -the act—the deposits must be removed, because I cannot remove my -Secretary? Here the evil would have been done before the Senate could -possibly have been assembled. I am indebted to the speech of the Senator -from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun), at the last session, for this -illustration. The truth is, view the subject in any light you may, the -power of removal is in its nature inseparable from the executive power. - -I have been presenting the inconveniences which would arise, during the -recess of the Senate, from the want of this power in the executive. But -suppose the Senate to be always in session, would this remove every -difficulty? By no means. Confer upon the Senate the power of rejecting -removals, and you make the executive, in the language of the debate of -1789, a double-headed monster. That power on whom is devolved the -execution of your laws, must be able to remove a corrupt or an -incompetent agent from office, or he cannot perform his duties. The -Senate may, without inconvenience, and with very great advantage to the -country, participate in appointments; but when the man is once in -office, the President must necessarily possess the power of turning him -out in case he does not perform his duties. This power ought not to -depend upon the will of the Senate; for that body have nothing to do -with the execution of the laws. - -If the power contended for were vested in the Senate, what would be the -consequences? Still more dangerous, if possible, than any which I have -yet depicted. The cases in which removals are necessary, must rapidly -increase with the number of our officers and our rapidly extending -population. If the President must assign reasons to the Senate for his -removals, according to the provisions of this bill, or if the Senate -must participate in these removals, as well as in appointments, it -necessarily follows, that these reasons must be investigated. Witnesses -must be examined to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the charges made -against the officer sought to be removed. The case must be tried -judicially. Time must be consumed to the prejudice of our other duties. -The legislative functions of the Senate must thus become impaired, and -feelings excited between co-ordinate branches of the Government -calculated to produce a most injurious effect upon the country. In this -state of things, the case might readily occur which was anticipated by -Mr. Madison in 1789. A majority of the Senate might even keep one of the -heads of department in office against the will of the President. Whether -they would have done so or not last winter, in the case of the Secretary -of the Treasury, I shall not pretend to determine. - -If this power were conferred upon the Senate, it would interfere with -our judicial functions to a dangerous and alarming extent. The removal -of a high officer of the Government is recommended by the President to -the Senate, because of official misconduct. The charges are tried before -the Senate. From the very nature of the question it must become in fact -a judicial investigation. The Senate determine either that he shall -remain in his office or that he shall be removed. In either case, the -House of Representatives, possessing the sole power of impeachment under -the Constitution, determine to exercise it against this officer. But the -Senate have, by their previous proceedings, utterly disqualified -themselves from giving to the accused an impartial trial. They have -already decided upon his guilt or his innocence. Instead of proceeding -to the trial, unbiased by favor or by prejudice, their minds are -inflamed, their judgments are biased, and they come to the investigation -with the feelings of partisans, rather than those of judges. The House -of Representatives would have a just right to complain loudly against -the exercise of this power by the Senate. We should thus disqualify -ourselves from judging impartially in cases between the people of the -United States and the high officers of the Government. - -I think I have successfully established the position that no two things -can in their nature be more distinct than the power of appointment and -that of removal. If this be the case, then what becomes of the argument -of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster)? It rested entirely -upon the principle, that these two powers were so identical in their -nature, that because the Senate, under the Constitution, have the -express power of advising and consenting to appointments, that, -therefore, by implication, they must possess the power of advising and -consenting to removals. The inference is without foundation. - -The truth is, that the more we discuss this question, we shall have the -greater reason to admire the wisdom of the Constitution, and of those -enlightened and patriotic men who placed that construction upon it in -the beginning, which I shall venture to predict never will be disturbed -by the American people. The Senate, from the nature of the body, are -fully competent to assist the President in appointments. It would change -their character altogether, and paralyze the executive arm of the -Government, if they were to usurp the power of interfering in removals -from office. Let the Constitution and the construction of it by its -founders, in this particular, be perpetual! - -It has been objected that the President, by this construction, is too -far removed from responsibility in the exercise of this power. But he is -responsible to the American people, whose servant he is, in this as in -all other cases. Unless you palsy the executive arm, and render it -powerless to do good, lest it may do evil, you cannot support the -doctrine which has been urged. You must vest some discretion; you must -repose some confidence in the executive, or the wheels of Government -must stand still. Should he abuse his power, he is liable to the censure -of public opinion; and, in flagrant cases, he may be impeached. - -It was contended in the first Congress, and the same argument has been -urged upon the present occasion, that the power of removal was not -recognized by the Constitution—that it was a case omitted, and that, -therefore, by implication, it belongs to Congress. This argument was -fully met and successfully refuted in 1789. If this principle were -established, the executive power would have no necessary control over -executive officers. Congress might confer the power of removal upon the -Senate alone, or upon the House of Representatives alone, or upon both -conjointly, without any participation of the President. This -Government—the admiration of the world, would present the solecism of an -executive without any control over executive agents, except what might -be granted to him by the legislature. We are not placed in this -unfortunate predicament. The President, under the Constitution, has the -power of removal. It is a constitutional power, not to be controlled by -the legislature. It is a power equally sovereign in its nature with that -of legislation itself. He is a co-ordinate branch of the Government, and -has the same right to exercise his discretion in removals from office, -that Congress possess in regard to the enactment of laws. - -This brings me to consider the constitutionality of the third section of -the bill now depending before us. It provides “that in all nominations -made by the President to the Senate, to fill vacancies occasioned by -removal from office, the fact of the removal shall be stated to the -Senate at the time that the nomination is made, _with a statement of the -reasons for such removal_.” - -Whence do we derive our authority to demand his reasons? If the -Constitution has conferred upon him the power of removal, as I think I -have clearly shown, is it not absolute in its nature and entirely free -from the control of Congress? Is he not as independent in the exercise -of this power as Congress in the exercise of any power conferred upon -them by the Constitution? Would he not have the same authority to demand -from us our reasons for rejecting a nomination, as we possess to call -upon him for his reasons for making a removal? Might he not say, I am -answerable to the American people, and to them alone, for the exercise -of this power, in the same manner that the Senate is for the exercise of -any power conferred upon them by the Constitution? - -With all the deference which I feel for the opinions of the Senator from -Tennessee (Mr. White), I think he has arrived at the conclusion that the -third section of this bill is constitutional, by blending things -together which are in their nature entirely distinct. He asks, is it not -in the power of Congress to create the office, to define its duties, and -to change and vary these duties at pleasure? Granted. May they not, if -they believe the office unnecessary, repeal the law, and must not the -officer fall with it? Granted. These are legislative powers, clearly -conferred upon Congress by the Constitution. It is then asked, may -Congress not prescribe it as the duty of these officers to give reasons -for their conduct? Certainly they may. And why? Because they are the -creatures of Congress—they are called into existence by Congress—and -they will cease to exist at the pleasure of Congress. Is this the -condition of the executive, who is a co-ordinate branch of the -Government, and who is answerable for his conduct, not to Congress, but -to the people of the United States. What right have we to demand reasons -from the servant of another as to how he performs his duties? To his own -master, which, in this particular, is the American people, and to them -alone, he is responsible. If Congress can command him to give reasons to -the Senate for his removals, the Senate may judge of the validity of -these reasons, and condemn them if they think proper. The executive of -the country is thus rendered subordinate to the Senate;—a position in -which the Constitution of the country never intended to place him. In my -opinion, this bill as strongly negatives the constitutional power of the -President to remove from office, without the concurrence of the Senate, -as if it were so declared in express language. For this reason I shall -vote against it. - -In the next session, which commenced in December, 1836, Mr. Buchanan -delivered a speech which may perhaps be regarded as the ablest of his -efforts in the Senate. It related to a topic that had long been attended -with intense political excitement. President Jackson’s removal of the -public deposits from the Bank of the United States furnished to the Whig -opponents of his administration a means of attack, of which they were -not slow to avail themselves. The powerful opposition, which at the time -of that occurrence controlled the proceedings of the Senate, was led by -Mr. Clay, who was the defeated Whig candidate for the Presidency at the -election of 1832. Swaying his party in the Senate with an imperious -will, and enforcing his determinations by a fascinating eloquence, Mr. -Clay, on the 28th of March, 1834, carried a resolution, which was -inscribed on the journal of the Senate in the following words: “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.” On the 3d of -March, 1835, a resolution introduced by Col. Benton, of Missouri, -ordering Mr. Clay’s resolution to be “expunged” from the journal, came -up for consideration. The word “expunged” was stricken out by a vote in -which the mover and other friends of the administration concurred, so -that some other less objectionable phrase might be substituted. But as -soon as this word was stricken out, Mr. Webster moved to lay the -resolution on the table, giving notice that he would not withdraw his -motion “for friend or foe.” The motion was not debatable, and as the -Whigs still had a majority, it was carried by a party vote. The -Democratic Senators then determined that the word “expunged” should -never be again surrendered. At the next session they had a majority; and -Col. Benton’s resolution then came up, in a form which directed that Mr. -Clay’s resolution of 1834 be expunged from the journal of the Senate, by -drawing black lines around it, and writing across its face the words, -“Expunged by order of the Senate, this —— day of —— in the year of our -Lord 1837.” It was upon this proposal, in reply to an impassioned speech -by Mr. Clay, that Mr. Buchanan, on the 16th of January, 1837, addressed -the Senate. - -There is one praise to be accorded to this speech, which, considering -the party character of the struggle, is not a small one. Mr. Buchanan -separated what was personal and partisan in this controversy from the -serious questions involved; and covering the whole field of argument -upon the really important topics in a temperate and courteous but firm -discussion, he placed his side of the debate upon its true merits. He -began by contending that the censure, which the Senate had in 1834 -passed upon the President, was unjust, because he had violated no law in -ordering the Secretary of the Treasury to remove the public deposits -from the Bank. He then argued that the Senate had committed an -infraction of the Constitution, by recording upon its journal an -accusation that the President had been guilty of an offence for which he -might be impeached, and for which it would be the duty of the Senate to -try him on articles of impeachment, if the House of Representatives -should ever proceed against him in that manner. In thus prejudging the -case, by a resolution of mere naked censure, adopted in its legislative -capacity, the Senate had rendered itself incompetent to perform its high -judicial function. He concluded his argument by a very ingenious and -elaborate criticism of the word “expunge,” arguing that there was a real -and solid distinction between a physical obliteration of a record, -making it impossible thereafter to be read, and such an annulment of its -legal existence as was now proposed, and which, by leaving it in a -condition to be read, would nevertheless deprive it of all force. It -must be confessed that this was a very finely drawn distinction; but it -was supported by no inconsiderable acuteness and force, and with great -fairness of reasoning. Col. Benton’s resolution was adopted by a party -vote, and was immediately carried out.[53] - -The following is a full report of Mr. Buchanan’s speech in support of -the Expunging Resolution: - -MR. PRESIDENT:—After the able and eloquent display of the Senator from -Kentucky, (Mr. Clay) who has just resumed his seat, after having so long -enchained the attention of his audience, it might be the dictate of -prudence for me to remain silent. But I feel too deeply my -responsibility as an American Senator, not to make the attempt to place -before the Senate and the country the reasons which, in my opinion, will -justify the vote which I intend to give this day. - -A more grave and solemn question has rarely, if ever, been submitted to -the Senate of the United States, than the one now under discussion. This -Senate is now called upon to review its own decision, to rejudge its own -justice, and to annihilate its own sentence, pronounced against the -co-ordinate executive branch of this Government. On the 28th of March, -1834, the American Senate, in the face of the American people, in the -face of the whole world, by a solemn resolution, pronounced the -President of the United States to be a violator of the Constitution of -his country—of that Constitution which he had solemnly sworn “to -preserve, protect, and defend.” Whether we consider the exalted -character of the tribunal which pronounced this condemnation, or the -illustrious object against which it was directed, we ought to feel -deeply impressed with the high and lasting importance of the present -proceeding. It is in fact, if not in form, the trial of the Senate, for -having unjustly and unconstitutionally tried and condemned the -President; and their accusers are the American people. In this cause I -am one of the judges. In some respects, it is a painful position for me -to occupy. It is vain, however, to express unavailing regrets. I must, -and shall, firmly and sternly, do my duty; although in the performance -of it I may wound the feelings of gentlemen whom I respect and esteem. I -shall proceed no farther than the occasion demands, and will, therefore, -justify. - -Who was the President of the United States, against whom this sentence -has been pronounced? Andrew Jackson—a name which every American mother, -after the party strife which agitates us for the present moment shall -have passed away, will, during all the generations which this Republic -is destined to endure, teach her infant to lisp with that of the -venerated name of Washington. The one was the founder, the other the -preserver, of the liberties of his country. - -If President Jackson has been guilty of violating the Constitution of -the United States, let impartial justice take its course. I admit that -it is no justification for such a crime, that his long life has been -more distinguished by acts of disinterested patriotism than that of any -American citizen now living. It is no justification that the honesty of -his heart and the purity of his intentions have become proverbial, even -amongst his political enemies. It is no justification that in the hour -of danger, and in the day of battle, he has been his country’s shield. -If he has been guilty, let his name be “damned to everlasting fame,” -with those of Cæsar and of Napoleon. - -If, on the other hand, he is pure and immaculate from the charge, let us -be swift to do him justice, and to blot out the foul stigma which the -Senate has placed upon his character. If we are not, he may go down to -the grave in doubt as to what may be the final judgment of his country. -In any event, he must soon retire to the shades of private life. Shall -we, then, suffer his official term to expire, without first doing him -justice? It may be said of me, as it has already been said of other -Senators, that I am one of the gross adulators of the President. But, -sir, I have never said thus much of him whilst he was in the meridian of -his power. Now that his political sun is nearly set, I feel myself at -liberty to pour forth my grateful feelings, as an American citizen, to a -man who has done so much for his country. I have never, for myself, -either directly or indirectly, solicited office at his hands; and my -character must greatly change, if I should ever do so from any of his -successors. If I should bestow upon him the meed of my poor praise, it -springs from an impulse far different from that which has been -attributed to the majority on this floor. I speak as an independent -freeman and American Senator; and I feel proud now to have the -opportunity of raising my voice in his defence. - -On the 28th day of March, 1834, the Senate of the United States -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.” - -In discussing this subject, I shall undertake to prove, first, that this -resolution is unjust; secondly, that it is unconstitutional; and in the -last place, that it ought to be expunged from our journals, in the -manner proposed by the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Benton). - -First, then, it is unjust. On this branch of the subject I had intended -to confine myself to a bare expression of my own decided opinion. This -point has been so often and so ably discussed, that it is impossible for -me to cast any new light upon it. But as it is my intention to follow -the footsteps of the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) wherever they may -lead, I must again tread the ground which has been so often trodden. As -the Senator, however, has confined himself to a mere passing reference -to the topics which this head presents, I shall, in this particular, -follow his example. - -Although the resolution condemning the President is vague and general in -its terms, yet we all know that it was founded upon his removal of the -public deposits from the Bank of the United States. The Senator from -Kentucky has contended that this act was a violation of law. And why? -Because, says he, it is well known that the public money was secure in -that institution; and by its charter the public deposits could not be -removed from it, unless under a just apprehension that they were in -danger. Now, sir, I admit that if the President had no right to remove -these deposits, except for the sole reason that their safety was in -danger, the Senator has established his position. But what is the fact? -Was the Government thus restricted by the terms of the bank charter? I -answer, no. Such a limitation is nowhere to be found in it. Let me read -the sixteenth section, which is the only one relating to the subject. It -enacts, “that the deposits of the money of the United States, in places -in which the said bank and branches thereof may be established, shall be -made in said bank or branches thereof, _unless the Secretary of the -Treasury shall at any other time otherwise order and direct_; in which -case the Secretary of the Treasury shall immediately lay before -Congress, if in session, and, if not, immediately after the commencement -of the next session, the reasons of such order or direction.” - -Is not the authority thus conferred upon the Secretary of the Treasury -as broad and as ample as the English language will admit? Where is the -limitation, where the restriction? One might have supposed from the -argument of the Senator from Kentucky, that the charter restricted the -Secretary of the Treasury from removing the deposits, unless he believed -them to be insecure in the Bank of the United States; but the language -of the law itself completely refutes his argument. They were to remain -in the Bank of the United States, “_unless the Secretary of the Treasury -shall at any time otherwise order and direct_.” - -The sole limitation upon the discretion of that officer was his -immediate and direct responsibility to Congress. To us he was bound to -render his reasons for removing the deposits. We, and we alone, are -constituted the judges as to the sufficiency of these reasons. - -It would be an easy task to prove that the authors of the bank charter -acted wisely in not limiting the discretion of the Secretary of the -Treasury over the deposits to the single case of their apprehended -insecurity. We may imagine many other reasons which would have rendered -their removal both wise and expedient. But I forbear; especially as the -case now before the Senate presents as striking an illustration of this -proposition as I could possibly imagine. Upon what principle, then, do I -justify the removal of the deposits? - -The Bank of the United States had determined to apply for a recharter at -the session of Congress immediately preceding the last Presidential -election. Preparatory to this application, and whilst it was pending, in -the short space of sixteen months, it had increased its loans more than -twenty-eight million dollars. They rose from forty-two millions to -seventy millions between the last of December, 1830, and the first of -May, 1832. Whilst this boasted regulator of the currency was thus -expanding its discounts, all the local banks followed the example. The -impulse of self-interest urged them to pursue this course. A delusive -prosperity was thus spread over the land. Money everywhere became -plenty. The bank was regarded as the beneficent parent, who was pouring -her money out into the laps of her children. She thought herself wise -and provident in thus rendering herself popular. The recharter passed -both Houses of Congress by triumphant majorities. But then came “the -frost, the killing frost.” It was not so easy to propitiate “the Old -Roman.” Although he well knew the power and influence which the bank -could exert against him at the then approaching Presidential election, -he cast such considerations to the winds. He vetoed the bill, and in the -most solemn manner placed himself for trial upon this question before -the American people. - -From that moment the faith of many of his former friends began to grow -cold. The bank openly took the field against his re-election. It -expended large sums in subsidizing editors, and in circulating -pamphlets, and papers, and speeches, throughout the Union, calculated to -inflame the public mind against the President. I merely glance at these -things. - -Let us pause for a single moment to consider the consequences of such -conduct. What right had the bank, as a corporation, to enter the arena -of politics for the purpose of defending itself, and attacking the -President? Whilst I freely admit that each individual stockholder -possessed the same rights, in this respect, as every other American -citizen, I pray you to consider what a dangerous precedent the bank has -thus established. Our banks now number nearly a thousand, and our other -chartered institutions are almost innumerable. If all these corporations -are to be justified in using their corporate funds for the purpose of -influencing elections; of elevating their political friends, and -crushing their political foes, our condition is truly deplorable. We -shall thus introduce into the State a new, a dangerous, and an alarming -power, the effects of which no man can anticipate. Watchful jealousy is -the price which a free people must ever pay for their liberties; and -this jealousy should be Argus-eyed in watching the political movements -of corporations. - -After the bank had been defeated in the Presidential election, it -adopted a new course of policy. What it had been unable to accomplish by -making money plenty, it determined it would wrest from the sufferings of -the people by making money scarce. Pressure and panic then became its -weapons; and with these it was determined, if possible, to extort a -recharter from the American people. It commenced this warfare upon the -interests of the country about the first of August, 1833. In two short -months it decreased its loans more than four millions of dollars, whilst -the deposits of the Government with it had increased, during the same -period, two millions and a quarter. I speak in round numbers. It was -then in the act of reducing its discounts at the rate of two millions of -dollars per month. - -The State banks had expanded their loans with the former expansion of -the Bank of the United States. It now became necessary to contract them. -The severest pressure began to be felt everywhere. Had the Bank of the -United States been permitted a short time longer to proceed in this -course, fortified as it was with the millions of the Government which it -held on deposit, a scene of almost universal bankruptcy and insolvency -must have been presented in our commercial cities. It thus became -absolutely necessary for the President either to deprive the bank of the -public deposits, as the only means of protecting the State banks, and -through them the people, from these impending evils, or calmly to look -on and see it spreading ruin throughout the land. It was necessary for -him to adopt this policy for the purpose of preventing a universal -derangement of the currency, a general sacrifice of property, and, as an -inevitable consequence, the recharter of this institution. - -By the removal of the deposits, he struck a blow against the bank from -which it has never since recovered. This was the club of Hercules with -which he slew the hydra. This was the master-stroke by which he -prostrated what a large majority of the American people believe to have -been a corrupt and a corrupting institution. For this he is not only -justified, but deserves the eternal gratitude of his country. For this -the Senate have condemned him; but the people of the United States have -hailed him as a deliverer. - -It has been said by the Senator from Kentucky, that the President, by -removing the deposits from the Bank of the United States, united in his -own hands the power of the purse of the nation with that of the sword. I -think it is not difficult to answer this argument. What was to become of -the public money, in case it had been removed from the Bank of the -United States, under its charter, for the cause which the Senator -himself deems justifiable? Why, sir, it would then have been immediately -remitted to the guardianship of those laws under which it had been -protected before the Bank of the United States was called into -existence. Such was the present case. In regard to this point, no matter -whether the cause of removal were sufficient or not, the moment the -deposits were actually removed they became subject to the pre-existing -laws, and not to the arbitrary will of the President. - -The Senator from Kentucky has contended that the President violated the -Constitution and the laws, by dismissing Mr. Duane from office because -he would not remove the deposits, and by appointing Mr. Taney to -accomplish this purpose. I shall not discuss at any length the power of -removal. It is now too late in the day to question it. That the -executive possesses this power was decided by the first Congress. It has -often since been discussed and decided in the same manner, and it has -been exercised by every President of the United States. The President is -bound by the Constitution to “take care that the laws be faithfully -executed.” If he cannot remove his executive officers, it is impossible -that he can perform this duty. Every inferior officer might set up for -himself; might violate the laws of the country, and put him at defiance, -whilst he would remain perfectly powerless. He could not arrest their -career. A foreign minister might be betraying and disgracing the nation -abroad, without any power to recall him until the next meeting of the -Senate. This construction of the Constitution involves so many dangers -and so many absurdities, that it could not be maintained for a moment, -even if there had not been a constant practice against it of almost half -a century. - -But it is contended by the Senator that the Secretary of the Treasury is -a sort of independent power in the State, and is released from the -control of the executive. And why? Simply because he is directed by law -to make his annual report to Congress and not to the President. If this -position be correct, then it necessarily follows that the executive is -released from the obligation of taking care that the numerous and -important acts of Congress regulating the fiscal concerns of the country -shall be faithfully executed. The Secretary of the Treasury is thus made -independent of his control. What would be the position of this officer -under such a construction of the Constitution and laws, it would be very -difficult to decide. And this wonderful transformation of his character -has arisen from the mere circumstance that Congress have by law directed -him to make an annual report to them! No, sir; the executive is -responsible to Congress for the faithful execution of all the laws; and -if the present or any other President should prove faithless to his high -trust, the present Senate, notwithstanding all which has been said, -would be as ready as their predecessors to inflict condign punishment -upon him, in the mode pointed out by the Constitution. - -I have now arrived at the great question of the constitutional power of -the Senate to adopt the resolution of March, 1834. It is my firm -conviction that the Senate possesses no such power; and it is now my -purpose to establish this position. The decision on this point must -depend upon a true answer to the question: Does this resolution contain -any impeachable charge against the President? If it does, I trust I -shall demonstrate that the Senate violated its constitutional duty in -proceeding to condemn him in this manner. I shall again read the -resolution: - -“_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.” - -This language is brief and comprehensive. It comes at once to the point. -It bears a striking impress of the character of the Senator from -Kentucky. Does it charge an impeachable offence against the President? - -The fourth section of the second article of 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.” - -It has been contended that this condemnatory resolution contains no -impeachable offence, because it charges no criminal intention against -the President; and I admit that it does not attribute to him any corrupt -motive in express words. Is this sufficient to convince the judgment of -any impartial man that none was intended? Let us, for a few moments, -examine this proposition. If it be well founded, the Senate may for ever -hereafter usurp the power of trying, condemning, and destroying any -officer of the Government, without affording him the slightest -opportunity of being heard in his defence. They may abuse their power, -and prostrate any object of their vengeance. It seems we have now made -the discovery, that the Senate are authorized to exert this tremendous -power—that they may thus assume to themselves the office both of accuser -and of judge, provided the indictment contains no express allegation of -a criminal intention. The President, or any officer of the Government, -may be denounced by the Senate as a violator of the Constitution of his -country,—as derelict in the performance of his public duties, provided -there is no express imputation of an improper motive. The characters of -men whose reputation is dearer to them than their lives may thus be -destroyed. They may be held up to public execration by the omission of a -few formal words. The condemnation of the Senate carries with it such a -moral power, that perhaps there is no man in the United States, except -Andrew Jackson, who could have resisted its force. No, sir; such an -argument can never command conviction. That which we have no power to do -directly, we can never accomplish by indirect means. We cannot by -resolution convict a man of an impeachable offence, merely because we -may omit the formal words of an impeachment. We must regard the -substance of things, and not the mere form. - -But again. Although a criminal intention be not charged, in so many -words, by this resolution, yet its language, even without the attendant -circumstances, clearly conveys this meaning. The President is charged -with having “assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by -the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both.” “Assumed upon -himself.” What is the plain palpable meaning of this phrase connected -with what precedes and follows? Is it not “to arrogate,” “to claim or -seize unjustly.” These are two of the first meanings of the word assume, -according to the lexicographers. To assume upon one’s self is a mode of -expression which is rarely taken in a good sense. As it is used here, I -ask if any man of plain common understanding, after reading this -resolution, would ever arrive at the conclusion that any Senator voted -for it under the impression that the President was innocent of any -improper intention, and that he violated the Constitution from mere -mistake and from pure motives? The common sense of mankind revolts at -the idea. How can it be contended, for a single moment, that you can -denounce the President as a man who had “assumed upon himself” the power -of violating the laws and the Constitution of his country, and in the -same breath declare that you had not the least intention to criminate -him, and that your language was altogether inoffensive. The two -propositions are manifestly inconsistent. - -But I go one step further. If we were sitting as a court of impeachment, -and the bare proposition were established to our satisfaction that the -President had, in violation of the Constitution and the laws, withdrawn -the public revenue of the country from the depository to whose charge -Congress had committed it, and assumed the control over it himself, we -would be bound to convict him of a high official misdemeanor. Under such -circumstances, we should be bound to infer a criminal intention from -this illegal and unconstitutional act. Criminal justice could never be -administered,—society could not exist, if the tribunals of the country -should not attribute evil motives to illegal and unconstitutional -conduct. Omniscience alone can examine the heart. When poor frail man is -placed in the judgment-seat, he must infer the intentions of the accused -from his actions. That “the tree is known by its fruits” is an axiom -which we have derived from the fountain of all truth. Does a poor, -naked, hungry wretch, at this inclement season of the year, take from my -pocket a single dollar; the law infers a criminal intent, and he must be -convicted and punished as a thief, though he may have been actuated by -no other motive than that of saving his wife and his children from -starvation. And shall a different rule be applied to the President of -the United States? Shall it be said of a man elevated to the highest -station on earth, for his wisdom, his integrity, and his virtues, with -all his constitutional advisers around him, when he violates the -Constitution of his country and usurps the control over its entire -revenue, that he may successfully defend himself by declaring he had -done this deed without any criminal intention? No, sir; in such a case, -above all others, the criminal intention must be inferred from the -unconstitutional exercise of high and dangerous powers. The safety of -the Republic demands that the President of the United States should -never shield himself behind such flimsy pretexts. This resolution, -therefore, although it may not have assumed the form of an article of -impeachment, possesses all the substance. - -It was my fate some years ago to have assisted as a manager, in behalf -of the House of Representatives, in the trial of an impeachment before -this body. It then became my duty to examine all the precedents in such -cases which had occurred under our Government, since the adoption of the -Federal Constitution. On that occasion, I found one which has a strong -bearing upon this question. I refer to the case of Judge Pickering. He -was tried and condemned by the Senate upon all the four articles -exhibited against him; although the first three contained no other -charge than that of making decisions contrary to law, in a cause -involving a mere question of property, and then refusing to grant the -party injured an appeal from his decision, to which he was entitled. -From the clear violation of law in this case, the Senate must have -inferred an impure and improper motive. - -If any thing further were wanting to prove that the resolution of the -Senate contained a criminal and impeachable charge against the -President, it might be demonstrated from all the circumstances attending -the transaction. Whilst this resolution was in progress through the -Senate, the Bank of the United States was employed in producing panic -and pressure throughout the land. Much actual suffering was experienced -by the people; and where that did not exist, they dreaded unknown and -awful calamities. Confidence between man and man was at an end. There -was a fearful pause in the business of the country. We were then engaged -in the most violent party conflict recorded in our annals. To use the -language of the Senator from Kentucky, we were in the midst of a -revolution. On the one side it was contended that the power over the -purse of the nation had been usurped by the President; that in his own -person he had united this power with that of the sword, and that the -liberties of the people were gone, unless he could be arrested in his -mad career. On the other hand, the friends of the President maintained -that the removal of the deposits from the Bank of the United States was -an act of stern justice to the people; that it was strictly legal and -constitutional; that he was impelled to it by the highest and purest -principles of patriotism; and that it was the only means of prostrating -an institution which threatened the destruction of our dearest rights -and liberties. During this terrific conflict public indignation was -aroused to such a degree, that the President received a great number of -anonymous letters, threatening him with assassination unless he should -restore the deposits. - -It was during the pendency of this conflict throughout the country, that -the Senator from Kentucky thought proper, on the 26th December, 1833, to -present his condemnatory resolution to the Senate. And here, sir, permit -me to say that I do not believe there was any corrupt connection between -any Senator upon this floor and the Bank of the United States. But it -was at this inauspicious moment that the resolution was introduced. How -was it supported by the Senator from Kentucky? He told us that a -revolution had already commenced. He told us that by the 3d of March, -1837, if the progress of innovation should continue, there would be -scarcely a vestige remaining of the Government and policy as they had -existed prior to the 3d March, 1829. That in a term of years a little -more than that which was required to establish our liberties, the -Government would be transformed into an elective monarchy—the worst of -all forms of government. He compared the measure adopted by General -Jackson with the conduct of the usurping Cæsar, who, after he had -overrun Italy in sixty days, and conquered the liberties of his native -country, terrified the Tribune Metellus, who guarded the treasury of the -Roman people, and seized it by open force. He declared that the -President had proclaimed an open, palpable, and daring usurpation. He -concluded by asserting that the premonitory symptoms of despotism were -upon us; and if Congress did not apply an instantaneous and effective -remedy, the fatal collapse would soon come on, and we should die—ignobly -die! base, mean, and abject slaves, the scorn and contempt of mankind, -unpitied, unwept, and unmourned. What a spectacle was then presented in -this Chamber! We are told, in the reports of the day, that, when he took -his seat, there was repeated and loud applause in the galleries. This, -it will be remembered, was the introductory speech of the Senator. In my -opinion, it was one of the ablest and most eloquent of all his able and -eloquent speeches. He was then riding upon the whirlwind and directing -the storm. At the time I read it, for I was not then in the Senate, it -reminded me of the able, the vindictive, and the eloquent appeal of Mr. -Burke before the House of Lords, on the impeachment of Warren Hastings, -in which he denounced that governor-general as the ravager and oppressor -of India, and the scourge of the millions who had been placed under his -authority. - -And yet, we are now told that this resolution did not intend to impute -any criminal motive to the President. That he was a good old man, though -not a good constitutional lawyer: and that he knew better how to wield -the sword than to construe the Constitution. - -[Mr. Clay here rose to explain. He said, “I never have said and never -will say, that personally I acquitted the President of any improper -intention. I lament that I cannot say it. But what I did say, was that -the act of the Senate of 1834 is free from the imputation of any -criminal motives.”] - -Sir, said Mr. B., this avowal is in character with the frank and manly -nature of the Senator from Kentucky. It is no more than what I expected -from him. The imputation of any improper motive to the President has -been again and again disclaimed by other Senators upon this floor. The -Senator from Kentucky has now boldly come out in his true colors, and -avows the principles which he held at the time. He acknowledges that he -did not acquit the President from improper intentions, when charging him -with a violation of the Constitution of his country. - -This trial of the President before the Senate, continued for three -months. During this whole period, instead of the evidence which a -judicial tribunal ought to receive, exciting memorials, signed by vast -numbers of the people, and well calculated to inflame the passions of -his judges, were daily pouring in upon the Senate. He was denounced upon -this floor by every odious epithet which belongs to tyrants. Finally, -the obnoxious resolution was adopted by the vote of the Senate, on the -28th day of March, 1834. After the exposition which I have made, can any -impartial mind doubt but that this resolution intended to charge against -the President a wilful and daring violation of the Constitution and the -laws? I think not. - -The Senator from Kentucky has argued, with his usual power, that the -functions of the Senate, acting in a legislative capacity, are not to be -restricted, because it is possible that the same question, in another -form, may come before us judicially. I concur in the truth and justice -of this position. We must perform our legislative duties; and if, in the -investigation of facts, having legislation distinctly in view, we should -incidentally be led to the investigation of criminal charges, it is a -necessity imposed upon us by our condition, from which we cannot escape. -It results from the varying nature of our duties, and not from our own -will. I admit that it would be difficult to mark the precise line which -separates our legislative from our judicial functions. I shall not -attempt it. In many cases, from necessity, they are in some degree -intermingled. The present resolution, however, stands far in advance of -this line. It is placed in bold relief, and is clear of all such -difficulties. It is a mere naked resolution of censure. It refers solely -to the past conduct of the President, and condemns it in the strongest -terms, without even proposing any act of legislation by which the evil -may be remedied hereafter. It was judgment upon the past alone; not -prevention for the future. Nay, more: the resolution is so vague and -general in its terms that it is impossible to ascertain from its face -the cause of the President’s condemnation. The Senate have resolved that -the executive “has assumed upon himself authority and power not -conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both.” What -is the specification under this charge? Why, that he has acted thus, “in -the late executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue?” What -executive proceedings? The resolution leaves us entirely in the dark -upon this subject. How could any legislation spring from such a -resolution? It is impossible. None such was ever attempted. - -If the resolution had preserved its original phraseology—if it had -condemned the President for dismissing one Secretary of the Treasury -because he would not remove the deposits, and for appointing his -successor to effect this purpose, the Senator might then have contended -that the evil was distinctly pointed out; and, although no legislation -was proposed, the remedy might be applied hereafter. But he has deprived -himself even of this feeble argument. He has left us upon an ocean of -uncertainty, without chart or compass. “The late executive proceedings -in relation to the revenue,” is a phrase of the most general and -indefinite character. Every Senator who voted in favor of this -resolution may have acted upon different principles. To procure its -passage, nothing more was necessary than that a majority should unite in -the conclusion that the President had violated the Constitution and the -laws in some one or other of his numerous acts in relation to the public -revenue. The views of Senators constituting the majority may have varied -from each other to any conceivable extent; and yet they may have united -in the final vote. That this was the fact to a considerable extent, I -have always understood. It is utterly impossible, either that such a -proceeding could ever have been intended to become the basis of -legislation, or that legislative action could have ever sprung from such -a source. - -I flatter myself, then, I have succeeded in proving that this resolution -charged the President with a high official misdemeanor, wholly -disconnected from legislation, which, if true, ought to have subjected -him to impeachment. - -This brings me directly to the question, had the Senate any power, under -the Constitution, to adopt such a resolution? In other words, can the -Senate condemn a public officer by a simple resolution, for an offence -which would subject him to an impeachment? To state the proposition, is -to answer this question in the negative. Dreadful would be the -consequences if we possess and should exercise such a power. - -This body is invested with high and responsible powers of a legislative, -an executive, and a judicial character. No person can enter it until he -has attained a mature age. Our term of service is longer than that of -any other elective functionary. If Senators will have it so, it is the -most aristocratic branch of our Government. For what purpose did the -framers of the Constitution confer upon it these varied and important -powers, and this long tenure of office? The answer is plain. It was -placed in this secure and elevated position that it might be above the -storms of faction which so often inflame the passions of men. It never -was intended to be an arena for political gladiators. Until the second -session of the third Congress, the Senate always sat with closed doors, -except in the single instance when the eligibility of Mr. Gallatin to a -seat in the body was the subject of discussion. Of this particular -practice, however, I cannot approve. I merely state it, to show the -intention of those who formed the Constitution. I was informed by one of -the most eminent statesmen and Senators which this country has ever -produced, now no more (the late Mr. King), that for some years after the -Federal Government commenced its operation, the debates of the Senate -resembled conversations rather than speeches, and that it originated but -few legislative measures. Senators were then critics rather than authors -in legislation. Whether its gain in eloquence, since it has become a -popular assembly, and since the sound of thundering applause has been -heard in our galleries at the denunciation of the President, has been an -equivalent for its loss in true dignity, may well be doubted. To give -this body its just influence with the people, it ought to preserve -itself as free as possible from angry political discussions. In the -performance of our executive duties, in the ratification of treaties, -and in the confirmation of nominations, the Constitution has connected -us with the executive. The efficient and successful administration of -the Government therefore requires that we should move on together in as -much harmony as may be consistent with the independent exercise of our -respective functions. - -But above all, we should be the most cautious in guarding our judicial -character from suspicion. We constitute the high court of impeachment of -this nation, before which every officer of the Government may be -arraigned. To this tribunal is committed the character of men whose -character is far dearer to them than their lives. We should be the rock -standing in the midst of the ocean, for the purpose of affording a -shelter to the faithful officer from unjust persecution, against which -the billows might dash themselves in vain. Whilst we are a terror to -evil doers, we should be a praise to those who do well. We should never -voluntarily perform any act which might prejudice our judgment, or -render us suspected as a judicial tribunal. More especially, when the -President of the United States is arraigned at the bar of public opinion -for offences which might subject him to an impeachment, we should remain -not only chaste but unsuspected. Better, infinitely better, would it be -for us not to manifest our feeling, even in a case in which we were -morally certain the House of Representatives would not prefer before us -articles of impeachment, than to reach the object of our disapprobation -by a usurpation of their rights. It is true that when the Senate passed -the resolution condemning the President, a majority in the House were of -a different opinion. But the next elections might have changed that -majority into a minority. The House might then have voted articles of -impeachment against the President. Under such circumstances, I pray you -to consider in what a condition the Senate would have been placed. They -had already prejudged the case. They had already convicted the -President, and denounced him to the world as a violator of the -Constitution. In criminal prosecutions, even against the greatest -malefactor, if a juror has prejudged the cause, he cannot enter the jury -box. The Senate had rendered itself wholly incompetent in this case to -perform its highest judicial functions. The trial of the President, had -articles of impeachment been preferred against him, would have been but -a solemn mockery of justice. - -The Constitution of the United States has carefully provided against -such an enormous evil, by declaring that “the House of Representatives -shall have the sole power of impeachment,” and “the Senate shall have -the sole power to try all impeachments.” Until the accused is brought -before us by the House, it is a manifest violation of our solemn duty to -condemn him by a resolution. - -If a court of criminal jurisdiction, without any indictment having been -found by a grand jury, without having given the defendant notice to -appear, without having afforded him an opportunity of cross-examining -the witnesses against him, and making his defence, should resolve that -he was guilty of a high crime, and place this conviction upon their -records, all mankind would exclaim against the injustice and -unconstitutionality of the act. Wherein consists the difference between -this case and the condemnation of the President? In nothing, except that -such a conviction by the Senate, on account of its exalted character, -would fall with tenfold force upon its object. I have often been -astonished, notwithstanding the extended and well deserved popularity of -General Jackson, that the moral influence of this condemnation by the -Senate had not crushed him. With what tremendous effect might this -assumed power of the Senate be used to blast the reputation of any man -who might fall under its displeasure! The precedent is extremely -dangerous; and the American people have wisely determined to blot it out -forever. - -It is painful to reflect what might have been the condition of the -country, if at the inauspicious moment of the passage of the resolution -against the President, its interests and its honor had rendered it -necessary to engage in a foreign war. The fearful consequences of such a -condition, at such a moment, must strike every mind. Would the Senate -then have confided to the President the necessary power to defend the -country? Where could the sinews of war have been found? In what -condition was this body, at that moment, to act upon an important treaty -negotiated by the President, or upon any of his nominations? But I -forbear to enlarge upon this topic. - -I have now arrived at the last point in this discussion. Do the Senate -possess the power, under the Constitution, of expunging the resolution -of March, 1834, from their journals, in the manner proposed by the -Senator from Missouri? (Mr. Benton.) I cheerfully admit we must show -that this is not contrary to the Constitution; for we can never redress -one violation of that instrument by committing another. Before I proceed -to this branch of the subject, I shall put myself right, by a brief -historical reminiscence. I entered the Senate in December, 1834, fresh -from the ranks of the people, without the slightest feeling of hostility -against any Senator on this floor. I then thought that the resolution of -the Senator from Missouri was too severe in proposing to _expunge_. -Although I was anxious to record, in strong terms, my entire -disapprobation of the resolution of March, 1834, yet I was willing to -accomplish this object without doing more violence to the feelings of my -associates on this floor, than was absolutely necessary to justify the -President. Actuated by these friendly motives, I exerted all my little -influence with the Senator from Missouri, to induce him to abandon the -word _expunge_, and substitute some others in its place. I knew that -this word was exceedingly obnoxious to the Senators who had voted for -the former resolution. Other friends of his also exerted their -influence; and at length his kindly feelings prevailed, and he consented -to abandon that word, although it was peculiarly dear to him. I speak -from my own knowledge. “All which I saw and part of which I was.” - -The resolution of the Senator from Missouri came before the Senate on -the 3d of March, 1835. Under it the resolution of March, 1834, was -“ordered to be expunged from the journal,” for reasons appearing on its -face, which I need not enumerate. The Senator from Tennessee (Mr. White) -moved to amend the resolution of the Senator from Missouri, by striking -out the order to expunge, with the reasons for it, and inserting in -their stead the words, “rescinded, reversed, repealed, and declared to -be null and void.” Some difference of opinion then arose among the -friends of the Administration as to the words which should be -substituted in place of the order to expunge. For the purpose of leaving -this question perfectly open, you, sir, (Mr. King, of Alabama, was in -the chair,) then moved to amend the original motion of Mr. Benton, by -striking out the words, “ordered to be expunged from the journal of the -Senate.” This motion prevailed, on the ayes and noes, by a vote of 39 to -7; and amongst the ayes, the name of the Senator from Missouri is -recorded. The resolution was thus left a blank, in its most essential -features, ready to be filled up as the Senate might direct. The era of -good feeling, in regard to this subject had commenced. It was nipped in -the bud, however, by the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster). -Whilst the resolution was still in blank, he rose in his place, and -proclaimed the triumph of the Constitution, by the vote to strike out -the word expunge, and then moved to lay the resolution on the table, -declaring that he would neither withdraw his motion for friend nor foe. -This motion precluded all amendment and all debate. It prevailed by a -party vote; and thus we were left with our resolution a blank. Such was -the manner in which the Senators in opposition received our advances of -courtesy and kindness, in the moment of their strength and our weakness. -Had the Senator from Massachusetts suffered us to proceed but for five -minutes, we should have filled up the blank in the resolution. It would -then have assumed a distinct form, and they would never afterwards have -heard of the word expunge. We should have been content with the words -“rescinded, reversed, repealed, and declared to be null and void.” But -the conduct of the Senator from Massachusetts on that occasion, and that -of the party with which he acted, roused the indignation of every friend -of the Administration on this floor. We then determined that the word -_expunge_ should never again be surrendered. - -The Senator from Kentucky has introduced a precedent from the -proceedings of the House of Representatives of Pennsylvania, for the -purpose of proving that we have no right to adopt this resolution. To -this I can have no possible objection. But I can tell the Senator, if I -were convinced that I had voted wrong, when comparatively a boy, more -than twenty years ago, the fear of being termed inconsistent would not -now deter me from voting right upon the same question. I do not, -however, repent of my vote upon that occasion. I would now vote in the -same manner, under similar circumstances. I should not vote to expunge, -under any circumstances, any proceeding from the journals by -obliterating the record. If I do not prove before I take my seat, that -the case in the Legislature of Pennsylvania was essentially different -from that now before the Senate, I shall agree to be proclaimed -inconsistent and time-serving. - -It was my settled conviction at the commencement of the last session of -Congress, that the Senate had no power to obliterate their journal. This -was shaken, but not removed, by the argument of the Senator from -Louisiana, (Mr. Porter), who confessedly made the ablest speech on the -other side of the question. The Constitution declares that “each House -shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish -the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require -secrecy.” What was the position which that Senator then attempted to -maintain? In order to prove that we had no power to obliterate or -destroy our journals, he thought it necessary to contend that the word -“keep” as used in the Constitution, means both to record and to -preserve. This appeared to me to be a mere begging of the question. - -I shall attempt no definition of the word “keep.” At least since the -days of Plato, we know that definitions have been dangerous. Yet I think -that the meaning of this word, as applied to the subject matter, is so -plain that he who runs may read. If I direct my agent to keep a journal -of his proceedings, and publish the same, my palpable meaning is, that -he shall write these proceedings down, from day to day, and publish what -he has written for general information. After he has obeyed my commands, -after he has kept his journal, and published it to the world, he has -executed the essential part of the trust confided to him. What becomes -of this original manuscript journal afterwards, is a matter of total -indifference. So in regard to the manuscript journals of either House of -Congress: after more than a thousand copies have been printed, and -published, and distributed over the Union, it is a matter of not the -least importance what disposition may be made of them. They have -answered their purpose, and, in any practical view, become useless. If -they were burnt, or otherwise destroyed, it would not be an event of the -slightest public consequence. Such indifference has prevailed upon this -subject, that these journals have been considered, in the House of -Representatives, as so much waste paper, and, during a period of -thirty-four years after the organization of the Government, they were -actually destroyed. From this circumstance, no public or private -inconvenience has been or ever can be sustained; because our printed -journals are received in evidence in all courts of justice in the same -manner as if the originals were produced. - -The Senator from Louisiana has discovered that to “keep” means both “to -record” and “to preserve.” But can you give this, or any other word in -the English language, two distinct and independent meanings at the same -time, as applied to the same subject? I think not. From the imperfection -of human language, from the impossibility of having appropriate words to -express every idea, the same word, as applied to different subjects, has -a variety of significations. As applied to any one subject, it cannot, -at the same time, convey two distinct meanings. In the Constitution it -must mean either “to write down,” or “to preserve.” It cannot have both -significations. Let Senators, then, take their choice. If it signifies -“to write down,” as it unquestionably does, what becomes of the -constitutional injunction to preserve? The truth is, that the -Constitution has not provided what shall be done with the manuscript -journal, after it has served the purposes for which it was called into -existence. When it has been published to the people of the United -States, for whose use it was ordered to be kept; after it has thus been -perpetuated, and they have been furnished with the means of judging of -the public conduct of their public servants, it ceases to be an object -of the least importance. Whether it be thrown into the garret of the -Capitol with other useless lumber, or be destroyed, is a matter of no -public interest. It has probably never once been referred to in the -history of our Government. If it should ever be determined to be a -violation of the Constitution to obliterate or destroy this manuscript -journal, it must be upon different principles from those which have been -urged in this debate. My own impression is, that as the framers of the -Constitution have directed us to keep a journal, a constructive duty may -be implied from this command, which would forbid us to obliterate or -destroy it. Under this impression, I should vote, as I did twenty years -ago, in the Legislature of Pennsylvania, against any proposition -actually to expunge any part of the journal. But waiving this -unprofitable discussion, let us proceed to the real point in -controversy. - -Is any such proceeding as that of actually expunging the journal, -proposed by the resolution of the Senator from Missouri? I answer, no -such thing. If the Constitution had, in express terms, directed us to -record and to preserve a journal of our proceedings, there is nothing in -the resolution now before us which would be inconsistent with such a -provision. - -Is the drawing of a black line around the resolution of the Senate, of -March, 1834, to obliterate or deface it? On the contrary, is it not to -render it more conspicuous,—to place it in bold relief,—to give it a -prominence in the public view, beyond any other proceeding of this body, -in past, and I trust, in all future time. If the argument of Senators -were, not that we have no power to obliterate; but that the Senate -possessed no power to render one portion of the journal more conspicuous -than another, it would have had much greater force. Why, sir, by means -of this very proceeding, that portion of our journal upon which it -operates will be rescued from a slumber which would otherwise have been -eternal, and, fac-similes of the original resolution, without a word or -a letter defaced, will be circulated over the whole Union. - -But, sir, this resolution also directs that across the face of the -condemnatory resolution there shall be written by the Secretary, -“Expunged by the order of the Senate this —— day of ——, in the year of -our Lord 1837.” - -Will this obliterate any part of the original resolution? If it does, -the duty of the Secretary will be performed in a very bungling manner. -No such thing is intended. It would be easy to remove every scruple from -every mind upon this subject, by amending the resolution of the Senator -from Missouri, so as to direct the Secretary to perform his duty in such -a manner as not to obliterate any part of the condemnatory resolution. -Such a direction, however, appears to me to be wholly unnecessary. The -nature of the whole proceeding is very plain. We now adopt a resolution, -expressing our strong reprobation of the original resolution; and for -this purpose we use the word “expunged,” as the strongest term which we -can apply. We then direct our Secretary to draw black lines around it, -and place such a reference to our proceedings of this day upon its face, -that in all time to come, whoever may inspect this portion of our -journal, will be pointed at once to the record of its condemnation. What -lawyer has not observed upon the margin of the judgment docket, if the -original judgment has been removed to a superior court, and there -reversed, a minute of such reversal? In our editions of the statutes, -have we not all noted the repeal of any of them, which may have taken -place at a subsequent period? Who ever heard, in the one case or the -other, that this was obliterating or destroying the record, or the book? -So in this case, we make a mere reference to our future proceeding upon -the face of the resolution, instead of the margin. Suppose we should -only repeal the obnoxious resolution, and direct such a reference to be -made upon its face? Would any Senator contend that this would be an -obliteration of the journal? - -But it has been contended that the word _expunge_ is not the appropriate -word; and we have wrested it from its true signification, in applying it -to the present case. Even if this allegation were correct, the answer -would be at hand. You might then convict us of bad taste, but not of a -violation of the Constitution. On the face of the resolution we have -stated distinctly what we mean. We have directed the Secretary in what -manner he shall understand it, and we have excluded the idea that it is -our intention to obliterate or to destroy the journal. - -But I shall contend that the word _expunge_ is the appropriate word, and -that there is not another in the English language so precisely adapted -to convey our meaning. I shall show, from the highest literary and -parliamentary authorities, that the word has acquired a signification -entirely distinct from that of actual obliteration. Let me proceed -immediately to this task. After citing my authorities, I shall proceed -with the argument. First, then, for those of a literary character. I -read from Crabbe’s Synonymes, page 140; and every Senator will admit -that this is a work of established reputation. In speaking of the use of -the word expunge, the author says: “When the contents of a book are in -part rejected, they are aptly described as being _expunged_; in this -manner the free-thinking sects _expunge_ everything from the Bible which -does not suit their purpose, or they _expunge_ from their creed what -does not humor their passions.” The idea that an actual obliteration was -intended in these cases would be manifestly absurd. In the same page -there is a quotation from Mr. Burke to illustrate the meaning of this -word. “I believe,” says he, “that any person who was of age to take a -part in public concerns forty years ago (if the intermediate space were -_expunged_ from his memory), could hardly credit his senses when he -should hear that an army of two hundred thousand men was kept up in this -island.” I shall now cite Mr. Jefferson as a literary authority. He has -often been referred to on this floor as a standard in politics. For this -high authority, I am indebted to my friend from Louisiana (Mr. -Nicholas). In the original draft of the declaration of independence, he -uses the word _expunge_ in the following manner: “Such has been the -patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity -which constrains them _to expunge_ their former systems of government.” -Although the word _alter_ was substituted for _expunge_, I presume upon -the ground that this was too strong a term, yet the change does not -detract from the literary authority of the precedent.—_Jefferson’s -Correspondence, &c., 1st volume, page 17._ - -I presume that I have shown that the word _expunge_ has acquired a -distinct metaphorical meaning in our literature, which excludes the idea -of actual obliteration. If I should proceed one step further, and prove -that in legislative proceedings it has acquired the very same -signification, I shall then have fully established my position. For this -purpose I cite, first, “the Secret Proceedings and Debates of the -Federal Convention.” In page 118, we find the following entries: “On -motion _to expunge_ the clause of the qualification as to age, it was -carried—ten States against one.” Again: “On the clause respecting the -ineligibility to any other office, it was moved that the words ‘by any -particular State,’ _be expunged_—four States for, five against, and two -divided.” So page 119: “The last blank was filled up with _one year_, -and carried—eight ayes, two noes, one divided.” - -“Mr. Pinckney moved _to expunge_ the clause—agreed to, _nem. -con._” Again: “Mr. Butler moved _to expunge_ the clause of the -stipends—lost, seven against, three for, one divided.” Again, in page -157: “Mr. Pinckney moved that that part of the clause which disqualifies -a person from holding an office in the State _be expunged_, because the -first and best characters in a State may thereby be deprived of a seat -in the national council.” - -“Question put _to strike out_ the words moved for and carried—eight -ayes, three noes.” - -It will thus be perceived that in the proceedings of the very convention -which formed the Constitution under which we are now governed, the word -_expunge_ was often used in its figurative sense. It will certainly not -be asserted, or even intimated, by any Senator here, that when these -motions to expunge prevailed, the words of the original draft of the -Constitution were actually obliterated or defaced. The meaning is -palpable. These provisions were merely rejected; not actually blotted -out. - -But I shall now produce a precedent precisely in point. It presents -itself in the proceedings of the Senate of Massachusetts, and refers to -the famous resolution of that body adopted on the 15th day of June, -1813, in relation to the capture of the British vessel Peacock; -denouncing the late war, and declaring that it was not becoming in a -moral and religious people, to express any approbation of military or -naval exploits which were not immediately connected with the defence of -our seacoast. Massachusetts adopted the following resolution: - -_“Resolved_ That the aforesaid resolve of the fifteenth day of -June, A. D. 1813, and the preamble thereof, _be, and the same are -hereby, expunged from the journals of the Senate_.” - -It is self-evident that, in this case, not the least intention existed -of defacing the old manuscript journal. The word “expunge” was used in -its figurative signification, just as it is in the case before us, to -express the strongest reprobation of the former proceeding. That -proceeding was to be expunged solely by force of the subsequent -resolution, and not by any actual obliteration. There never was any -actual obliteration of the journal. - -Judging, then, from the highest English authorities, from the works of -celebrated authors and statesmen, and from the proceedings of -legislative bodies, is it not evident that the word _expunge_ has -acquired a distinct meaning, altogether inconsistent with any actual -obliteration? - -All that we have heard about defacing and destroying the journal are -mere phantoms, which have been conjured up to terrify the timid. We -intend no such thing. We only mean, most strongly, to express our -conviction that the condemnatory resolution ought never to have found a -place on the journal. If more authorities were wanting, I might refer to -the Legislature of Virginia. The present expunging resolution is in -exact conformity with their instructions to their Senators. As a matter -of taste, I cannot say that I much admire their plan, though I entertain -no doubt but that it is perfectly constitutional. That State is highly -literary; and I think I have established that their Legislature, when -they used the word _expunge_, without intending thereby to effect an -actual obliteration of the journal, justly appreciated the meaning of -the language which they employed. - -The word _expunge_ is, in my opinion, the only one which we could have -used, clearly and forcibly to accomplish our purpose. Even if it had not -been sanctioned by practice as a parliamentary word, we ought ourselves -to have first established the precedent. It suits the case precisely. If -you rescind, reverse, or repeal a resolution; you thereby admit that it -once had some constitutional or legal authority. If you declare it to -have been null and void from the beginning; this is but the expression -of your own opinion that such was the fact. This word expunge acts upon -the resolution itself. It at once goes to its origin, and destroys its -legal existence as if it had never been. It does not merely kill, but it -annihilates. - -Parliamentary practice has changed the meaning of several other words -from their primitive signification, in a similar manner with that of the -word expunge. The original signification of the word rescind is “to cut -off.” Usage has made it mean, in reference to a law or resolution, to -abrogate or repeal it. We every day hear motions “to strike out.” What -is the literal meaning of this expression? The question may be best -answered by asking another. If I were to request you to strike out a -line from your letter, and you were willing to comply with my request, -what would be your conduct? You would run your pen through it -immediately. You would literally strike it out. Yet what use do we make -of this phrase every day in our legislative proceedings? If I make a -motion to strike out a section from a bill and it prevails, the -Secretary encloses the printed copy of it in black lines, and makes a -note on the margin that it has been stricken out. The original he never -touches. Why then should not the word expunge, without obliterating the -proceeding to which it is directed, signify to destroy as if it never -had existed? - -After all that has been said, I think I need scarcely again recur to the -Pennsylvania precedent. It is evident from the whole of that proceeding -that an actual expunging of the journal was intended, if it had not -already been executed. I have no recollection whatever of the -circumstances, but I am under a perfect conviction, from the face of the -journal, that such was the nature of the case. I should vote now as I -did then, after a period of more than twenty years. Both my vote, and -the motion which I subsequently made upon that occasion, evidently -proceeded upon this principle. The question arose in this manner, as it -appears from the journal. On the 10th of February, 1816, “The Speaker -informed the House that a constitutional question being involved in a -decision by him yesterday, on a motion to expunge certain proceedings -from the journal, he was desirous of having the opinion of the House on -that decision,” viz: “that a majority can expunge from the journal -proceedings in which the yeas and nays have not been called.” Now, as no -trace whatever appears upon the journal of the preceding day of the -motion to which the Speaker refers, it is highly probable, nay, it is -almost certain, that the proceedings had been actually expunged before -he asked the advice of the House. - -No man feels with more sensibility, the necessity which compels him to -perform an unkind act towards his brother Senators than myself; but we -have now arrived at that point when imperious duty demands that we -should either adopt this expunging resolution or abandon it forever. -Already much precious time has been employed in its discussion. The -moment has arrived when we must act. Senators in the opposition console -themselves with the belief that posterity will do them justice, should -it be denied to them by the present generation. They place their own -names in the one scale and ours in the other, and flatter themselves -with the hope that before that tribunal at least, their weight will -preponderate. For my own part, I am willing to abide the issue. I am -willing to be judged for the vote which I shall give to-day, not only by -the present, but by future generations, should my obscure name ever be -mentioned in after times. After the passions and prejudices of the -present moment shall have subsided, and the impartial historian shall -come to record the proceedings of this day, he will say that the -distinguished men who passed the resolution condemning the President -were urged on to the act by a desire to occupy the high places in the -Government. That an ambition noble in itself, but not wisely regulated, -had obscured their judgment, and impelled them to the adoption of a -measure unjust, illegal, and unconstitutional. That in order to -vindicate both the Constitution and the President, we were justified in -passing this expunging resolution, and thus stamping the former -proceeding with our strongest disapprobation. - -I rejoice in the belief that this promises to be one of the last highly -exciting questions of the present day. During the period of General -Jackson’s civil administration, what has he not done for the American -people? During this period he has had more difficult and dangerous -questions to settle, both at home and abroad,—questions which aroused -more intensely the passions of men,—than any of his predecessors. They -are now all happily ended, except the one which we shall this day bring -to a close, - - “And all the clouds that lowered upon our house - In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.” - -The country now enjoys abundant prosperity at home, whilst it is -respected and admired by foreign nations. Although the waves may yet be -in some agitation from the effect of the storms through which we have -passed, yet I think I can perceive the rainbow of peace extending itself -across the firmament of Heaven. - -Should the next administration pursue the same course of policy with the -present—should it dispense equal justice to all portions and all -interests of the Union, without sacrificing any—should it be conducted -with prudence and with firmness, and I doubt not but that this will be -the case—we shall hereafter enjoy comparative peace and quiet in our -day. This will be the precious fruit of the energy, the toils, and the -wisdom of the pilot who has conducted us in safety through the storms of -his tempestuous administration. - -I am now prepared for the question. I shall vote for this resolution; -but not cheerfully. I regret the necessity which exists for passing it; -but I believe that imperious duty demands its adoption. If I know my own -heart, I can truly say that I am not actuated by any desire to obtain a -miserable, petty, personal triumph, either for myself, or for the -President of the United States, over my associates upon this floor. - -I am now ready to record my vote, and thus, in the opprobrious language -of Senators in the opposition, to become one of the executioners of the -condemnatory resolution. - ------ - -Footnote 53: - - The writer has had occasion to treat of this occurrence more at length - in his Life of Mr. Webster. He has there expressed the opinion that if - the friends of the President, when they obtained a majority in the - Senate, had contented themselves with adopting a resolution - exonerating him from the censure passed in 1834, no one could have - complained. Probably they would have done so, if the circumstances - attending the adoption of Mr. Clay’s resolution had not provoked them - to devise what they regarded as an imposing form of stigmatizing that - act. All that is of any consequence now, in relation to this - proceeding, turns upon the contradiction between the constitutional - requirement to “keep” a legislative journal, and a subsequent - obliteration or cancellation of any part of it, by any means whatever. - On this subject, see the protest read in the Senate by Mr. Webster, in - his Life, by the present writer, vol. I, p. 545, _et seq._ - ------ - - - - - CHAPTER XIII. - 1836. - -FIRST INTRODUCTION OF THE SUBJECT OF SLAVERY IN THE SENATE, DURING THE - ADMINISTRATION OF JACKSON—PETITIONS FOR ITS ABOLITION IN THE - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA—THE RIGHT OF PETITION VINDICATED BY - BUCHANAN—INCENDIARY PUBLICATIONS—ADMISSION OF MICHIGAN INTO THE - UNION—STATUARY FOR THE CAPITOL—AFFAIRS OF TEXAS. - - -In the latter part of the second administration of General Jackson, the -subject of slavery began to be pressed upon the attention of Congress by -petitions for its abolition in the District of Columbia. - -In a future chapter will be traced the origin and progress of the -anti-slavery agitation in the Northern States. At present, it is only -needful for me to describe Mr. Buchanan’s course as a Senator, on the -different aspects of this subject which arose during the second -administration of General Jackson. On the 7th of January, 1836, two -petitions were presented in the Senate, signed by citizens of Ohio, -praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. Mr. -Calhoun demanded that they should be read, and, after the reading, he -objected to their being received. Mr. Buchanan made the following -remarks in replying to Mr. Calhoun: - -Mr. Buchanan said that, for two or three weeks past, there had been in -his possession a memorial from the Cain Quarterly Meeting of the -religious Society of Friends, in the State of Pennsylvania, requesting -Congress to abolish slavery and the slave trade within the District of -Columbia. This memorial was not a printed form—its language was not that -in established use for such documents. It did not proceed from those -desperate fanatics who have been endeavoring to disturb the security and -peace of society in the Southern States, by the distribution of -incendiary pamphlets and papers. Far different is the truth. It emanates -from a society of Christians, whose object had always been to promote -peace and good-will among men, and who have been the efficient and -persevering friends of humanity in every clime. To their untiring -efforts, more than to those of any other denomination of Christians, we -owe the progress which has been made in abolishing the African slave -trade throughout the world. This memorial was their testimony against -the existence of slavery. This testimony they had borne for more than a -century. Of the purity of their motives, there could not be a question. - -He had omitted to present this memorial at an earlier day, because he -had thought that, on its presentation at the proper time, much good -might be done. He had believed that, by private consultations, some -resolution might be devised upon this exciting subject which would -obtain the unanimous vote of the Senate. If there was one man in that -body not willing to adopt a proper measure to calm the troubled spirit -of the South, he did not know him. This, in his judgment, would be the -best mode of accomplishing the object which we all desire to accomplish. -The proper course to attain this result was, in his opinion, to refer -the subject, either to a select committee, or to the Committee for the -District of Columbia. They would examine it in all its bearings, they -would ascertain the views and feelings of individual Senators, and he -had no doubt they would be able to recommend some measure to the Senate -on which they could all unite. This would have a most happy effect upon -the country. He had intended, upon presenting the memorial which he had -in charge, to have suggested this mode of proceeding. He regretted, -therefore, he had not known that his friend from Ohio (Mr. Morris) was -in possession of memorials having a similar object in view. If he had -been informed of it, he should have endeavored to persuade him to wait -until Monday next, when he (Mr. B.) would have been prepared to pursue -the course he had indicated. But the question has now been forced upon -us. No (said Mr. B.), it has not been forced upon me, because I am glad -to have a suitable occasion of expressing my opinions upon the subject. - -The memorial which I have in my possession is entitled to the utmost -respect, from the character of the memorialists. As I entirely dissent -from the opinion which they express, that we ought to abolish slavery in -the District of Columbia, I feel it to be due to them, to myself, and to -the Senate, respectfully, but firmly, to state the reasons why I cannot -advocate their views or acquiesce in their conclusions. - -If any one principle of constitutional law can, at this day, be -considered as settled, it is, that Congress have no right, no power, -over the question of slavery within those States where it exists. The -property of the master in his slave existed in full force before the -Federal Constitution was adopted. It was a subject which then belonged, -as it still belongs, to the exclusive jurisdiction of the several -States. These States, by the adoption of the Constitution, never yielded -to the General Government any right to interfere with the question. It -remains where it was previous to the establishment of our confederacy. - -The Constitution has, in the clearest terms, recognized the right of -property in slaves. It prohibits any State into which a slave may have -fled from passing any law to discharge him from slavery, and declares -that he shall be delivered up by the authorities of such State to his -master. Nay, more, it makes the existence of slavery the foundation of -political power, by giving to those States within which it exists -representatives in Congress, not only in proportion to the whole number -of free persons, but also in proportion to three-fifths of the number of -slaves. - -An occasion very fortunately arose in the first Congress to settle this -question forever. The Society for the abolition of Slavery in -Pennsylvania brought it before that Congress by a memorial which was -presented on the 11th day of February, 1790. After the subject had been -discussed for several days, and after solemn deliberation, the House of -Representatives, in Committee of the Whole, on the 23d day of March, -1790, resolved “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 alone to provide any -regulations therein, which humanity and true policy may require.” - -I have thought it would be proper to present this decision, which was -made almost half a century ago, distinctly to the view of the American -people. The language of the resolution is clear, precise, and definite. -It leaves the question where the Constitution left it, and where, so far -as I am concerned, it ever shall remain. The Constitution of the United -States never would have been called into existence,—instead of the -innumerable blessings which have flowed from our happy Union, we should -have had anarchy, jealousy, and civil war among the sister Republics of -which our confederacy is composed, had not the free States abandoned all -control over this question. For one, whatever may be my opinions upon -the abstract question of slavery, (and I am free to confess they are -those of the people of Pennsylvania,) I shall never attempt to violate -this fundamental compact. The Union will be dissolved, and incalculable -evils will arise from its ashes, the moment any such attempt is -seriously made by the free States in Congress. - -What, then, are the circumstances under which these memorials are now -presented? A number of fanatics, led on by foreign incendiaries, have -been scattering “arrows, firebrands, and death” throughout the Southern -States. The natural tendency of their publications is to produce -dissatisfaction and revolt among the slaves, and to incite their wild -passions to vengeance. All history, as well as the present condition of -the slaves, proves that there can be no danger of the final result of a -servile war. But, in the mean time, what dreadful scenes may be enacted -before such an insurrection, which would spare neither age nor sex, -could be suppressed! What agony of mind must be suffered, especially by -the gentler sex, in consequence of these publications! Many a mother -clasps her infant to her bosom when she retires to rest, under dreadful -apprehensions that she may be aroused from her slumbers by the savage -yells of the slaves by whom she is surrounded. These are the works of -the abolitionists. That their motives may be honest I do not doubt, but -their zeal is without knowledge. The history of the human race presents -numerous examples of ignorant enthusiasts, the purity of whose -intentions cannot be doubted, who have spread devastation and bloodshed -over the face of the earth. - -These fanatics, instead of benefiting the slaves who are the objects of -their regard, have inflicted serious injury upon them. Self-preservation -is the first law of nature. The masters, for the sake of their wives and -children, for the sake of all that is near and dear to them on earth, -must tighten the reins of authority over their slaves. They must thus -counteract the efforts of the abolitionists. The slaves are denied many -indulgences which their masters would otherwise cheerfully grant. They -must be kept in such a state of bondage as effectually to prevent their -rising. These are the injurious effects produced by the abolitionists -upon the slave himself. Whilst, on the one hand, they render his -condition miserable, by presenting to his mind vague notions of freedom -never to be realized, on the other, they make it doubly miserable, by -compelling the master to be severe, in order to prevent any attempts at -insurrection. They thus render it impossible for the master to treat his -slave according to the dictates of his heart and his feelings. - -Besides, do not the abolitionists perceive that the spirit which is thus -roused must protract to an indefinite period the emancipation of the -slave? The necessary effect of their efforts is to render desperate -those to whom the power of emancipation really belongs. I believe most -conscientiously, in whatever light this subject can be viewed, that the -best interests of the slave require that the question should be left, -where the Constitution has left it, to the slaveholding States -themselves, without foreign interference. - -This being a true statement of the case, as applied to the States where -slavery exists, what is now asked by these memorialists? That in this -District of ten miles square—a District carved out of two slaveholding -States, and surrounded by them on all sides—slavery shall be abolished. -What would be the effects of granting their request? You would thus -erect a citadel in the very heart of these States, upon a territory -which they have ceded to you for a far different purpose, from which -abolitionists and incendiaries could securely attack the peace and -safety of their citizens. You establish a spot within the slaveholding -States which would be a city of refuge for run-away slaves. You create -by law a central point from which trains of gunpowder may be securely -laid, extending into the surrounding States, which may, at any moment, -produce a fearful and destructive explosion. By passing such a law, you -introduce the enemy into the very bosom of these two States, and afford -him every opportunity to produce a servile insurrection. Is there any -reasonable man who can for one moment suppose that Virginia and Maryland -would have ceded the District of Columbia to the United States, if they -had entertained the slightest idea that Congress would ever use it for -any such purpose? They ceded it for your use, for your convenience, and -not for their own destruction. When slavery ceases to exist, under the -laws of Virginia and Maryland, then, and not till then, ought it to be -abolished in the District of Columbia. - -(Mr. B. said that, notwithstanding these were his opinions, he could not -vote for the motion of the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun) not -to receive these memorials. He would not at present proceed to state his -reasons, still hoping the Senate could yet agree upon some course which -would prove satisfactory to all. With this view, he moved that the whole -subject be postponed until Monday next.) - -When the following Monday came (January 11th, 1836), Mr. Buchanan said: - -He was now about to present the memorial of the Caln Quarterly Meeting -of the Religious Society of Friends in Pennsylvania, requesting Congress -to abolish slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia. On -this subject he had expressed his opinions to the Senate on Thursday -last, and he had no disposition to repeat them at present. He would say, -however, that on a review of these opinions, he was perfectly satisfied -with them. All he should now say was, that the memorial which he was -about to present was perfectly respectful in its language. Indeed, it -could not possibly be otherwise, considering the respectable source from -which it emanated. - -It would become his duty to make some motion in regard to this memorial. -On Thursday last, he had suggested that in his judgment the best course -to pursue was to refer these memorials to a selected committee, or to -the committee for the District of Columbia. He still thought so; but he -now found that insurmountable obstacles presented themselves to such a -reference. - -In presenting this memorial and in exerting himself so far as in him -lay, to secure for it that respectful reception by the Senate which it -deserved, he should do his duty to the memorialists. After it should -receive this reception, he should have a duty to perform to himself and -to his country. He was clearly of opinion, for the reasons he had stated -on Thursday last, that Congress ought not at this time to abolish -slavery in the District of Columbia, and that it was our duty promptly -to place this exciting question at rest. He should, therefore, move that -the memorial be read, and that the prayer of the memorialists be -rejected. - -At a subsequent day (January 19th), the pending question was, on the -reception of the Memorial of the Pennsylvania Quakers, or Friends; and -on this question Mr. Buchanan said: - -It was not now his intention to repeat anything he had said on a former -occasion in regard to the abolition of slavery in this District. The -remarks which he had then made, after much reflection, still met his -entire approbation. He would not now have alluded to them were it not -for the misapprehension which still appeared to prevail upon this floor -in regard to the state of Northern feeling on this subject. - -Those remarks had, he believed, been more extensively circulated -throughout Pennsylvania than any which he had ever made upon any -occasion. If they had been censured anywhere in that State, by any -party, the fact was unknown to him. On the contrary, he had strong -reasons to believe they had been received with general approbation. - -He was not in the habit of using private letters to sustain any position -which he might take upon this floor or elsewhere. He would say, however, -that since he had presented the memorial now the subject of -consideration before the Senate, he had received another memorial of a -similar character from the city of Philadelphia. This memorial had been -transmitted to him by two gentlemen whose name and character would be -the strongest guaranty for the truth of their assertions, did he feel -himself at liberty to make them known to the Senate. He would not even -have alluded to their letter, but that it related to a public subject in -which the country was deeply interested, and accompanied the memorial -which they had requested him to present to the Senate. The following is -an extract from this letter: - -“Although we have not the pleasure of thy acquaintance, permit us on -this occasion to express our satisfaction with thy remarks in the Senate -some weeks since, in which the opinion was forcibly sustained that no -sensible man at the North would advocate the right of Congress to -interfere with the subject of slavery in the slave States themselves. We -are fully persuaded this is the fact in our neighborhood. - -“In a pretty extensive acquaintance with the friends of abolition in -this city, we unhesitatingly declare that we have never heard such an -opinion advocated, _and we defy our opponents to point out a man that -has ever circulated any publication calculated to produce discord in the -Southern States_. - -“But whilst we fully recognize this view, we are aware that the -Constitution guaranties to us the right of memorializing Congress on any -subject connected with the welfare of the District of Columbia, and we -intend ever to exercise it in the spirit of charity and good-feeling.” - -Mr. B. believed this statement to be true. Although all the people of -Pennsylvania were opposed to slavery in the abstract, yet they would not -sanction any attempts to excite the slaves of the Southern States to -insurrection and bloodshed. Whilst they knew their own rights, and would -maintain them, they never would invade the rights of others which had -been secured by the Federal Constitution. He was proud to say this had -always been the character and the conduct of the State which he had in -part the honor to represent in her relations with her sister States. - -He felt himself justified in declaring that Pennsylvania was perfectly -sound upon this question. Abolitionists there may be in Pennsylvania, -but it had never been his fate to meet a single one. If we have a man -amongst us who desires, by the circulation of incendiary publications -and pictures throughout the slaveholding States, to produce a servile -insurrection, and thus to abolish slavery, he knew him not. In the -language of the letter he had just read, whatever might be the case -further north, he might defy any gentleman to point out a man in -Pennsylvania who has ever circulated any publication calculated to -produce discord in the Southern States. - -He had heard within the last few days that emissaries were now traveling -throughout Pennsylvania for the purpose of propagating the doctrine of -immediate abolition. He thought he might venture to predict that they -would fail in their attempts. - -Although he did not mean at present to discuss the general question, yet -the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Preston) must permit him to say -that, in his remarks of yesterday, he had done much to dignify the cause -of abolition, and to give its supporters a character which they did not -deserve. - -Mr. B. was not so well able to judge what effect those remarks might -produce on the South; but he protested against the accuracy of the -statements which that gentleman had made in regard to the condition of -Northern feeling on this subject. His information had been incorrect. If -the gloomy coloring of the picture which he had presented could be -considered any thing but a fancy sketch, the South might believe that -the time had arrived when it would be their duty to decide whether it -was not necessary to dissolve this Union, for the protection of their -rights. Mr. B. thought far otherwise. This crisis had not arrived, and, -he trusted, never would arrive. The force of public opinion will -prostrate this fanatical and dangerous spirit. He must say, however, -that the enemies of the cause of abolition at the North had a right to -expect that gentlemen from the South would not adopt a course which -might tend to increase our difficulties. They ought to permit us to -judge for ourselves in this matter, and to throw no obstacles in our way -which the nature of the subject does not necessarily present. - -Let it be once understood that the sacred right of petition and the -cause of the abolitionists must rise or must fall together, and the -consequences may be fatal. I would, therefore, warn Southern gentlemen -to reflect seriously in what situation they place their friends in the -North, by insisting that this petition shall not be received. - -We have just as little right to interfere with slavery in the South, as -we have to touch the right of petition. Whence is this right derived? -Can a republican government exist without it? Man might as well attempt -to exist without breathing the vital air. No government possessing any -of the elements of liberty has ever existed, or can ever exist, unless -its citizens or subjects enjoy this right. From the very structure of -your Government, from the very establishment of a Senate and House of -Representatives, the right of petition naturally and necessarily -resulted. A representative republic, established by the people, without -the people having the right to make their wants and their wishes known -to their servants, would be the most palpable absurdity. This right, -even if it were not expressly sanctioned by the Constitution, would -result from its very nature. It could not be controlled by any action of -Congress, or either branch of it. If the Constitution had been silent -upon the subject, the only consequence would be, that it would stand in -the very front rank of those rights of the people which are expressly -guarantied to them by the ninth article of the amendments to that -instrument, inserted from abundant but necessary caution. I shall read -this article. It declares that “the enumeration in the Constitution of -certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others -retained by the people.” It would, without any express provision, have -stood in the same rank with the liberty of speech and of the press, and -have been entirely beyond the control of the Government. It is a right -which could not have been infringed without extinguishing the vital -spirit of our institutions. If any had been so bold as to attempt to -violate it, it would have been a conclusive argument to say to them that -the Constitution has given you no power over the right of petition, and -you dare not touch it. - -The Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun) has justly denominated the -amendments to the Constitution as our Bill of Rights. The jealousy which -the States entertained of federal power brought these amendments into -existence. They supposed that, in future times, Congress might desire to -extend the powers of this Government, and usurp the rights which were -not granted them by the people of the States. From a provident caution, -they have, in express terms, denied to Congress every sort of control -over religion; over the freedom of speech and of the press; and over the -right of petition. The first article of the amendments declares that -“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or -prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of -speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to -assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” - -Now, sir, what is the first position taken by the Senator from South -Carolina against receiving this memorial? I desire to quote him with -perfect accuracy. He says that the Constitution prohibits Congress from -passing any law to abridge the right of petition; that, to refuse to -receive this petition, would not be to pass any such law, and that -therefore, the Constitution would not be violated by such a refusal. - -Does not the Senator perceive that, if this doctrine can be maintained, -the right of petition is gone forever? It is a mere empty name. The -Senate would possess the power of controlling it at their will and -pleasure. No matter what may be the prayer of any petition; no matter -how just may be the grievances of the people demanding redress, we may -refuse to hear their complaints, and inform them that this is one of our -prerogatives; because, to refuse to receive their petition is not the -passage of a law abridging their right to petition. How can the -gentleman escape from this consequence? Is the Senate to be the arbiter? -Are we to decide what the people may petition for, and what they shall -not bring before us? Is the servant to dictate to the master? Such a -construction can never be the true one. - -The most striking feature of this argument is, that the very article of -the Constitution which was intended to guard the right of petition with -the most jealous care is thus perverted from its original intention, and -made the instrument of destroying this very right. What we cannot do by -law, what is beyond the power of both Houses of Congress and the -President, according to the gentleman’s argument, the Senate can of -itself accomplish. The Senate alone, if his argument be correct, may -abridge the right of petition, acting in its separate capacity, though -it could not, as one branch of the Legislature, consent to any law which -would confer upon itself this power. - -What is the true history and character of this article of the -Constitution? In the thirteenth year of the reign of that “royal -scoundrel” Charles the Second, as the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Leigh) -has justly denominated him, an act of Parliament was passed, abridging -the right of petition. It declared that “no petition to the king or -either House of Parliament, for any alteration in Church or State, shall -be signed by above twenty persons, unless the matter thereof be approved -by three justices of the peace, or the major part of the grand jury in -the county; and in London by the lord mayor, aldermen, and common -council; nor shall any petition be presented by more than ten persons at -a time.” Each Senator will readily perceive that the right of petition -was thus laid almost entirely prostrate at the feet of the sovereign. -The justices of the peace, and the sheriffs who selected the grand -juries, were his creatures, appointed and removed at his pleasure. Out -of the city of London, without their consent, no petition for an -alteration in Church or State could be signed by more than twenty -individuals. At the revolution of 1688, the Bill of Rights guarantied to -English subjects the right of petitioning the king, but the courts of -justice decided that it did not repeal the statute of the second -Charles. This statute still remained in force at the adoption of the -federal Constitution. Such was the state of the law in that country, -from which we have derived most of our institutions, when this amendment -to the Constitution was adopted. - -Although the Constitution, as it came from the hands of its framers, -gave to Congress no power to touch the right of petition, yet some of -the States to whom it was submitted for ratification, apprehending the -time might arrive when Congress would be disposed to act like the -British Parliament, expressly withdrew the subject from our control. Not -satisfied with the fact that no power over it had been granted by the -Constitution, they determined to prohibit us in express terms from ever -exercising such a power. This is the true history of the first article -of our Bill of Rights. - -Let me put another case to the Senator from South Carolina. Some years -since, as a manager on the part of the House of Representatives, I had -the honor to appear before this body, then sitting as a high court of -impeachment. In that case, the accused, when sitting as a district judge -of the United States, had brought an attorney of his court before him by -an attachment for contempt, and without any trial by jury had convicted -him of a libel, and sentenced him to imprisonment. The judge was -acquitted; and at the moment I thought this decision had placed the -freedom of the press in danger. If the sedition law were clearly -unconstitutional, and nobody now doubts it; if Congress could not confer -upon the courts of the United States, by express enactment, any question -over the power of libel, I thought it monstrous that a judge, without -the intervention of a jury, under highly excited feelings, should be -permitted to try and to punish libels committed against himself -according to his will and pleasure. My apprehensions were of but short -duration. A few days after the acquittal of this judge, the Senate, -without one dissenting voice, passed a bill, not to create a new law, -but declaratory of what the old law, or rather what the Constitution -was, under which no federal judge will ever again dare to punish a libel -as a contempt. The constitutional provision in favor of the liberty of -the press was thus redeemed from judicial construction. - -Now, sir, we must all admit that libels of the grossest character are -daily published against the Senate and its individual members. Suppose -an attempt should be made to bring one of these libelers before us, and -to punish him for a contempt, would the gentleman from South Carolina -contend that we might do so without violating the Constitution, and that -we might convict him and sentence him to imprisonment, because such a -conviction and sentence would not be the passage of a law abridging the -freedom of the press? The gentleman’s excited feelings upon the subject -of abolition have led his judgment astray. No construction can be -correct which would lead to such palpable absurdities. - -The very language of this amendment itself contains the strongest -recognition of the right of petition. In the clearest terms, it -presupposes its existence. How can you abridge a right which has no -previous existence? On this question I deem the argument of my friend -from Georgia (Mr. King) conclusive. The amendment assumes that the -people have the right to petition for the redress of grievances, and -places it beyond the power of Congress to touch this sacred right. The -truth is, that the authors of the amendment believed this to be a -Government of such tremendous power that it was necessary, in express -terms, to withdraw from its grasp their most essential rights. The right -of every citizen to worship his God according to the dictates of his own -conscience; his right freely to speak, and freely to print and publish -his thoughts to the world; and his right to petition the Government for -a redress of grievances, are placed entirely beyond the control of the -Congress of the United States, or either of its branches. There may they -ever remain! These fundamental principles of liberty are companions. -They rest upon the same foundation. They must stand or must fall -together. They will be maintained so long as American liberty shall -endure. - -The next argument advanced by the gentleman is, that we are not bound to -receive this petition, because to grant its prayer would be -unconstitutional? In this argument I shall not touch the question, -whether Congress possess the power to abolish slavery in the District of -Columbia or not. Suppose they do not, can the gentleman maintain the -position, that we are authorized by the Constitution to refuse to -receive a petition from the people, because we may deem the object of it -unconstitutional? Whence is any such restriction of the right of -petition derived? Who gave it to us? Is it to be found in the -Constitution? The people are not constitutional lawyers; but they feel -oppression, and know when they are aggrieved. They present their -complaints to us in the form of a petition. I ask, by what authority can -we refuse to receive it? They have a right to spread their wishes and -their wants before us, and to ask for redress. We are bound respectfully -to consider their request; and the best answer which we can give them -is, that they have not conferred upon us the power, under the -Constitution of the United States, to grant them the relief which they -desire. On any other principle we may first decide that we have no power -over a particular subject, and then refuse to hear the petitions of the -people in relation to it. We would thus place the constitutional right -of our constituents to petition at the mercy of our own discretion. - -Again, sir, we possess the power of originating amendments to the -Constitution. Although, therefore, we may not be able to grant the -petitioners relief, such a petition may induce us to exercise this -power, and to ask for a new grant of authority from the States. - -The gentleman’s third proposition was, that we are not bound to receive -this petition, because it is no grievance to the citizens of any of the -States, that slavery exists in this District. But who are to be the -judges, in the first instance, whether the people are aggrieved or not? -Is it those who suffer, or fancy they suffer, or the Senate? If we are -to decide when they ought to feel aggrieved, and when they ought to be -satisfied, if the tribunal to whom their petitions are addressed may -refuse to receive them, because, in their opinion, there was no just -cause of complaint, the right of petition is destroyed. It would be but -a poor answer to their petitions to tell them they ought not to have -felt aggrieved, that they are mistaken, and that, therefore, their -complaints would not be received by their servants. - -I may be asked, is there no case in which I would be willing to refuse -to receive a petition? I answer that it must be a very strong one indeed -to justify such a refusal. There is one exception, however, which -results from the very nature of the right itself. Neither the body -addressed nor any of its members must be insulted, under the pretext of -exercising this right. It must not be perverted from its purpose, and be -made the instrument of degrading the body to which the petition is -addressed. Such a petition would be in fraud of the right itself, and -the necessary power of self-protection and self-preservation inherent in -every legislative body confers upon it the authority of defending itself -against direct insults presented in this or any other form. Beyond this -exception I would not go; and it is solely for the purpose of -self-protection, in my opinion, that the rules of the Senate enable any -of its members to raise the question, whether a petition shall be -received or not. If the rule has any other object in view, it is a -violation of the Constitution. - -I would confine this exception within the narrowest limits. The acts of -the body addressed may be freely canvassed by the people, and they may -be shown to be unjust or unconstitutional. These may be the very reasons -why the petition is presented. “To speak his mind is every freeman’s -right.” They may and they ought to express themselves with that manly -independence which belongs to American citizens. To exclude their -petition, it must appear palpable that an insult to the body was -intended, and not a redress of grievances. - -Extreme cases have been put by the Senator from South Carolina. -Ridiculous or extravagant petitions may be presented; though I should -think that scarcely a sane man could be found in this country who would -ask Congress to abolish slavery in the State of Georgia. In such a case -I would receive the petition, and consign it at once to that merited -contempt which it would deserve. The Constitution secures the right of -being heard by petition to every citizen; and I would not abridge it -because he happened to be a fool. - -The proposition is almost too plain for argument, that if the people -have a constitutional right to petition, a corresponding duty is imposed -upon us to receive their petitions. From the very nature of things, -rights and duties are reciprocal. The human mind cannot conceive of the -one without the other. They are relative terms. If the people have a -right to command, it is the duty of their servants to obey. If I have a -right to a sum of money, it is the duty of my debtor to pay it to me. If -the people have a right to petition their representatives, it is our -duty to receive their petition. - -This question was solemnly determined by the Senate more than thirty -years ago. Neither before nor since that time, so far as I can learn, -has the general right of petition ever been called in question, until -the motion now under consideration was made by the Senator from South -Carolina. Of course I do not speak of cases embraced within the -exception which I have just stated. No Senator has ever contended that -this is one of them. To prove my position, I shall read an extract from -our journals. On Monday, the 21st January, 1805, “Mr. Logan presented a -petition signed Thomas Morris, Clerk, in behalf of the meeting of the -representatives of the people called Quakers, in Pennsylvania, New -Jersey, etc., stating that the petitioners, from a sense of religious -duty, had again come forward to plead the cause of their oppressed and -degraded fellow-men of the African race; and, on the question, “Shall -this petition be received?” it passed in the affirmative; yeas, 19; -nays, 9. - -“The yeas and nays being required by one-fifth of the Senators present, -those who voted in the affirmative are—Messrs. Adams, Mass., Bayard, -Del., Brown, Ky., Condict, N. J., Franklin, N. C., Hillhouse, Conn., -Howland, R. I., Logan, Penn., Maclay, Penn., Mitchell, N. Y., Alcott, N. -H., Pickering, Mass., Plumer, N. H., Smith, Ohio, Smith, Vt., Stone, N. -C., Sumpter, S. C., White, Del., Worthington, Ohio. - -“And those who voted in the negative are—Anderson, Tenn., Baldwin, Ga., -Bradley, Vt., Cocke, Tenn., Jackson, Ga., Moore, Va., Smith, Md., Smith, -N. Y., and Wright, Md. - -“So the petition was read.” - -The Senate will perceive that I have added to the names of the members -of the Senate that of the States which they each represented. The -Senator from South Carolina will see that, among those who, upon this -occasion, sustained the right of petition, there is found the name of -General Sumpter, his distinguished predecessor. I wish him also to -observe that but seven Senators from slaveholding States voted against -receiving the petition; although it was of a character well calculated -to excite their hostile and jealous feelings. - -The present, sir, is a real controversy between liberty and power. In my -humble judgment, it is far the most important question which has been -before the Senate since I have had the honor of occupying a seat in this -body. It is a contest between those, however unintentionally, who desire -to abridge the right of the people, in asking their servants for a -redress of grievances, and those who desire to leave it, as the -Constitution left it, free as the air. Petitions ought ever to find -their way into the Senate without impediment; and I trust that the -decision upon this question will result in the establishment of one of -the dearest rights which a free people can enjoy. - -Now, sir, why should the Senator from South Carolina urge the motion -which he has made? I wish I could persuade him to withdraw it. We of the -North honestly believe, and I feel confident he will not doubt our -sincerity, that we cannot vote for his motion without violating our duty -to God and to the country—without disregarding the oath which we have -sworn, to support the Constitution. This is not the condition of those -who advocate his motion. It is not pretended that the Constitution -imposes any obligation upon them to vote for this motion. With them it -is a question of mere expediency; with us, one of constitutional duty. I -ask gentlemen of the South, for their own sake, as well as for that of -their friends in the North, to vote against this motion. It will place -us all in a false position, where neither their sentiments nor ours will -be properly understood. - -The people of the North are justly jealous of their rights and -liberties. Among these, they hold the right of petition to be one of the -most sacred character. I would say to the gentlemen of the South, why -then will you array yourselves, without any necessity, against this -right? You believe that we are much divided on the question of -abolition; why, then, will you introduce another element of discord -amongst us, which may do your cause much harm, and which cannot possibly -do it any good? When you possess an impregnable fortress, if you will -defend it, why take shelter in an outwork, where defeat is certain? Why -select the very weakest position, one on which you will yourselves -present a divided front to the enemy, when it is in your power to choose -one on which you and we can all unite? You will thus afford an -opportunity to the abolitionists at the North to form a false issue with -your friends. You place us in such a condition that we cannot defend -you, without infringing the sacred right of petition. Do you not -perceive that the question of abolition may thus be indissolubly -connected, in public estimation, with a cause which we can never -abandon. If the abolitionists themselves had been consulted, I will -venture to assert, they ought to have advised the very course which has -been adopted by their greatest enemies. - -The vote upon this unfortunate motion may do almost equal harm in the -South. It may produce an impression there, that we who will vote against -the motion are not friendly to the protection of their constitutional -rights. It may arouse jealousy and suspicion, where none ought to exist; -and may thus magnify a danger which has already been greatly -exaggerated. In defending any great cause, it is always disastrous to -take a position which cannot be maintained. Your forces thus become -scattered and inefficient, and the enemy may obtain possession of the -citadel whilst you are vainly attempting to defend an outpost. I am -sorry, indeed, that this motion has been made. - -I shall now proceed to defend my own motion from the attacks which have -been made upon it. It has been equally opposed by both extremes. I have -not found, upon the present occasion, the maxim to be true, that “in -medio tutissimus ibis.” The Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Porter), and the -Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster), seem both to believe that -little, if any, difference exists between the refusal to receive a -petition, and the rejection of its prayer after it has been received. -Indeed, the gentleman from Louisiana, whom I am happy to call my friend, -says he can see no difference at all between these motions. At the -moment I heard this remark, I was inclined to believe that it proceeded -from that confusion of ideas which sometimes exists in the clearest -heads of the country from which he derives his origin, and from which I -am myself proud to be descended. What, sir, no difference between -refusing to receive a request at all, and actually receiving it and -considering it respectfully, and afterwards deciding, without delay, -that it is not in your power to grant it! There is no man in the -country, acquainted with the meaning of the plainest words in the -English language, who will not recognize the distinction in a moment. - -If a constituent of that gentleman should present to him a written -request, and he should tell him to go about his business, and take his -paper with him, that he would not have any thing to do with him or it: -this would be to refuse to receive the petition. - -On the other hand, if the gentleman should receive this written request -of his constituent, read it over carefully and respectfully, and file it -away among his papers, but, finding it was of an unreasonable or -dangerous character, he should inform him, without taking further time -to reflect upon it, that the case was a plain one, and that he could -not, consistently with what he believed to be his duty, grant the -request: this would be to reject the prayer of the petition. - -There is as much difference between the two cases, as there would be -between kicking a man down stairs who attempted to enter your house, and -receiving him politely, examining his request, and then refusing to -comply with it. - -It has been suggested that the most proper course would be to refer this -petition to a committee. What possible good can result from referring -it? Is there a Senator on this floor who has not long since determined -whether he will vote to abolish slavery in this District or not? Does -any gentleman require the report of a committee, in order to enable him -to decide this question? Not one. - -By granting the prayer of this memorial, as I observed on a former -occasion, you would establish a magazine of gunpowder here, from which -trains might be laid into the surrounding States, which would produce -fearful explosions. In the very heart of the slave-holding States -themselves you would erect an impregnable citadel from whence the -abolitionists might securely spread throughout these States, by -circulating their incendiary pamphlets and pictures, the seeds of -disunion, insurrection, and servile war. You would thus take advantage -of Virginia and Maryland in ceding to you this District, without -expressly forbidding Congress to abolish slavery here whilst it exists -within their limits. No man can, for one moment, suppose that they would -have made this cession upon any other terms, had they imagined that a -necessity could ever exist for such a restriction. Whatever may be my -opinion of the power of Congress, under the Constitution, to interfere -with this question, about which at present I say nothing, I shall as -steadily and as sternly oppose its exercise as if I believed no such -power to exist. - -In making the motion now before the Senate, I intended to adopt as -strong a measure as I could, consistently with the right of petition and -a proper respect for the petitioners. I am the last man in the world who -would, intentionally, treat these respectable constituents of my own -with disrespect. I know them well, and prize them highly. On a former -occasion I did ample justice to their character. I deny that they are -abolitionists. I cannot, however, conceive how any person could have -supposed that it was disrespectful to them to refuse to grant their -prayer in the first instance, and not disrespectful to refuse to grant -it after their memorial had been referred to a committee. In the first -case their memorial will be received by the Senate, and will be filed -among the records of the country. That it has already been the subject -of sufficient deliberation and debate; that it has already occupied a -due portion of the time of the Senate, cannot be doubted or denied. -Every one acquainted with the proceedings of courts of justice must know -that often, very often, when petitions are presented to them, the -request is refused without any delay. This is always done in a plain -case by a competent judge. And yet who ever heard that this was treating -the petitioner with disrespect? In order to be respectful to these -memorialists, must we go through the unmeaning form, in this case, of -referring the memorial to a committee, and pretending to deliberate when -we are now all fully prepared to decide? - -I repeat, too, that I intended to make as strong a motion in this case -as the circumstances would justify. It is necessary that we should use -every constitutional effort to suppress the agitation which now disturbs -the land. This is necessary, as much for the happiness and future -prospects of the slave as for the security of the master. Before this -storm began to rage, the laws in regard to slaves had been greatly -ameliorated by the slave-holding States; they enjoyed many privileges -which were unknown in former times. In some of the slave States -prospective and gradual emancipation was publicly and seriously -discussed. But now, thanks to the abolitionists, the slaves have been -deprived of these privileges, and whilst the integrity of the Union is -endangered, their prospect of final emancipation is delayed to an -indefinite period. To leave this question where the Constitution has -left it, to the slave-holding States themselves, is equally dictated by -a humane regard for the slave as well as for their masters. - -There are other objections to the reference of this memorial to a -committee, which must, I think, be conclusive. I ask the Senate, after -witnessing the debate upon the present question, to what conclusion -could this committee arrive? If they attempted to assert any principle -beyond the naked proposition before us, that the prayer of the -memorialists ought not to be granted, we would be cast into a labyrinth -of difficulties. It would be confusion worse confounded. If we wish to -obtain a strong vote, and thus at the same time tranquilize the South -and the North upon this exciting topic, the reference of it to a -committee would be the most unfortunate course which we could adopt. -Senators are divided into four classes on this question. The first -believe that to abolish slavery in this District would be a violation of -the Constitution of the United States. Should the committee recommend -any proposition of a less decided character, these Senators would feel -it to be their duty to attempt to amend it, by asserting this principle; -and thus we should excite another dangerous and unprofitable debate. The -second class, although they may not believe that the subject is -constitutionally beyond the control of Congress, yet they think that the -acts of cession from Maryland and Virginia to the United States forbid -us to act upon the subject. These gentlemen would insist upon the -affirmance of this proposition. The third class would not go as far as -either of the former. They do not believe that the subject is placed -beyond the power of Congress, either by the Constitution or by the -compacts of cession, yet they are as firmly opposed to granting the -prayer of the petition, whilst slavery continues to exist in Maryland -and Virginia, as if they held both these opinions. They know that these -States never would have ceded this territory of ten miles square to the -United States upon any other condition, if it had entered into their -conception that Congress would make an attempt, sooner or later, to -convert it into a free district. Besides, they are convinced that to -exercise this power, at an earlier period, would seriously endanger not -only the peace and harmony of the Union, but its very existence. This -class of Senators, whilst they entertain these opinions, which ought to -be entirely satisfactory to the South, could never consent to vote for a -resolution declaring that to act upon the subject would be a violation -of the Constitution or of the compacts. The fourth class, and probably -not the least numerous, are opposed to the agitation of the question, -under existing circumstances, and will vote against the abolition of -slavery in this District at the present moment, but would be unwilling -to give any vote which might pledge them for the future. Here are the -elements of discord. Although we can all, or nearly all, agree in the -general result, yet we should differ essentially in the means of -arriving at it. The politic and the wise course, then, is, to adopt my -motion that the prayer of the memorialists ought to be rejected. Each -gentleman will arrive at this conclusion in his own way. Although we may -thus travel different roads, we will all reach the same point. Should -the committee go one step further than report this very proposition, we -should at once be separated into four divisions; and the result must be -that the whole subject would finally be laid upon the table, and thus -the abolitionists would obtain a victory over the friends of the Union -both to the North and to the South. - -Before I made the motion now before the Senate, I deliberately and -anxiously considered all these embarrassing difficulties. At the first, -I was under the impression that the reference of this subject to a -committee would be the wisest course. In view of all the difficulties, -however, I changed my opinion: and I am now willing, most cheerfully, to -assume all the responsibility which may rest upon me for having made -this motion. - -I might have moved to lay the memorial upon the table; but I did not -believe that this would be doing that justice to the South which she has -a right to demand at our hands. She is entitled to the strongest vote, -upon the strongest proposition, which gentlemen can give, without -violating their principles. - -I have but a few more words to say. As events have deprived me of the -occupation assigned to me by the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. -Mangum), I feel myself at liberty to invade the province allotted by the -same gentleman to the Senator from New York (Mr. Wright), and to defend -a distinguished member of the Albany Regency. In this I am a mere -volunteer. I choose thus to act because Governor Marcy has expressed my -opinions better than I could do myself. - -And here, permit me to say that, in my judgment, Southern gentlemen who -are not satisfied with his last message, so far as it relates to the -abolitionists, are very unreasonable. With the general tone and spirit -of that message no one has found any fault; no one can justly find any -fault. In point of fact, it is not even liable to the solitary objection -which has been urged against it, that he did not recommend to the -legislature the passage of a law for the purpose of punishing those -abolitionists who, in that State, should attempt to excite insurrection -and sedition in the slaveholding States, by the circulation of -inflammatory publications and pictures. It is true that he does not -advise the immediate passage of such a law, but this was because he -thought public opinion would be sufficient to put them down. He, -however, looks to it as eventually proper, in case, contrary to his -opinion, such a measure should become necessary to arrest the evil. He -expressly asserts, and clearly proves, that the legislature possesses -the power to pass such a law. This is the scope and spirit of his -message. - -Ought he to have recommended the immediate passage of such a law? I -think not. The history of mankind, in all ages, demonstrates that the -surest mode of giving importance to any sect, whether in politics or -religion, is to subject its members to persecution. It has become a -proverb, that “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” By -persecution, religious sects, maintaining doctrines the most absurd and -the most extravagant—doctrines directly at war with the pure faith and -principles announced to the world by the Divine Author of our religion, -have been magnified into importance. I do not believe there is any State -in this Union (unless the information which we have received from the -Senators from Vermont might make that State an exception), where penal -laws of the character proposed would not advance, instead of destroying -the cause of the abolitionists. I feel confident such would be the event -in Pennsylvania. Severe legislation, unless there is a manifest -necessity for it, is always prejudicial. This question may be safely -left to public opinion, which, in our age, and in our country, like a -mighty torrent, sweeps away error. The people, although they may -sometimes be misled in the beginning, always judge correctly in the end. -Let severe penal laws on this subject be enacted in any State—let a few -honest but misguided enthusiasts be prosecuted under them—let them be -tried and punished in the face of the country, and you will thus excite -the sympathies of the people, and create a hundred abolitionists where -one only now exists. Southern gentlemen have no right to doubt our -sincerity on this subject, and they ought to permit us to judge for -ourselves as to the best mode of allaying the excitement which they -believe exists among ourselves. - -If the spirit of abolition had become so extensive and so formidable as -some gentlemen suppose, we might justly be alarmed for the existence of -this Union. Comparatively speaking, I believe it to be weak and -powerless, though it is noisy. Without excitement got up here or -elsewhere, which may continue its existence for some time longer, it -will pass away in a short period, like the other excitements which have -disturbed the public mind, and are now almost forgotten. - -On the 9th of March (1836) the following proceedings took place: - -The Senate proceeded to consider the petition of the Society of Friends -in Philadelphia, on the subject of the abolition of slavery in the -District of Columbia. - -The question being on the motion “that the petition be not received”—Mr. -Calhoun addressed the Senate in reply to what had fallen from other -Senators on the subject. - -Mr. Clay made a few remarks in explanation, called for by some part of -the remarks of the Senator from South Carolina. - -The question was then taken on the motion of Mr. Calhoun, “Shall the -petition be received?” and decided as follows: - -Yeas,—Messrs. Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, -Ewing of Ill., Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, -Hubbard, Kent, King of Ala., King of Ga., Knight, Linn, McKean, Morris, -Naudain, Niles, Prentiss, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Southard, -Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, Wright.—36. - -Nays.—Messrs. Black, Calhoun, Cuthbert, Leigh, Moore, Nicholas, Preston, -Porter, Walker, White.—10. - -The question being next on the motion of Mr. Buchanan, to reject the -prayer of the petition, - -Mr. Clay made some remarks on the motion, and concluded by moving to -amend it by adding to it:— - -For the Senate, without now affirming or denying the constitutional -power of Congress to grant the prayer of the petition, believes, even -supposing the power uncontested, which it is not, that the exercise of -it would be inexpedient; - -1st. Because the people of the District of Columbia have not themselves -petitioned for the abolition of slavery within the District. - -2d. Because the States of Virginia and Maryland would be injuriously -affected by such a measure, whilst the institution of slavery continues -to subsist within their respective jurisdictions, and neither of these -States would probably have ceded to the United States the territory now -forming the District if it had anticipated the adoption of any such -measure without clearly and expressly guarding against it. And, - -3d. Because the injury which would be inflicted by exciting alarm and -apprehension in the States tolerating slavery, and by disturbing the -harmony between them and the other members of the Confederacy, would far -exceed any practical benefit which could possibly flow from the -abolition of slavery within the District. - -Mr. Porter wished more time to reflect, and moved to lay the motion on -the table, but withdrew it at the instance of Mr. Buchanan. - -Mr. Buchanan said that some remarks, both of the Senator from South -Carolina (Mr. Calhoun), and of the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay), -compelled him to make a few observations in his own defence. - -Sir, said Mr. B., I rejoice at the result of the vote which has this day -been recorded. It will forever secure to the citizens of this country, -the sacred right of petition. The question has now been finally settled -by a decisive vote of the Senate. The memorial which I presented from a -portion of the highly respectable Society of Friends, has been received -by a triumphant majority. Another happy consequence of this vote is, -that abolition is forever separated from the right of petition. The -abolitionists will now never be able to connect their cause with the -violation of a right so justly dear to the people. They must now stand -alone. This is the very position in which every friend of the Union, -both to the North and the South, ought to desire to see them placed. - -From the remarks which have just been made by the Senators from South -Carolina and Kentucky, it might almost be supposed that my motion to -reject the prayer of the memorialists, was trifling with the right of -petition, which, in the course of debate, I have defended with all my -power. Is there the slightest foundation for such an imputation? - -The memorial has been received by the Senate, and has been read. If this -body are in doubt whether they will grant its prayer—if they wish -further information upon this subject than what they already possess, -then they ought to refer it. On the other hand, if every Senator has -already determined how he will vote upon the question, why send the -memorial to a committee? It presents but one simple question for our -decision. It asks us to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. My -motion proposes that this prayer shall be rejected. Now, is it not -self-evident to every Senator upon this floor, that any committee which -can be formed out of this body, will arrive at the same conclusion? Why, -then, refer this memorial to obtain a report, when we already know what -that report will be? Why keep the question open for further agitation -and debate? Should it be referred to a committee, upon their report, we -shall have the same ground to travel over again which we have been -treading for so long a time. I have yet to learn that when a petition is -presented to any tribunal, in a case so clear as not to require -deliberation, that it is either disrespectful to the petitioners, or -that it infringes the right of petition, to decide against its prayer -without delay. - -But in this case, powerful reasons exist why the memorial ought not to -be referred. Although we all agree that slavery ought not to be -abolished in the District of Columbia, yet we arrive at this conclusion -by different courses of reasoning. Before I presented this memorial, I -endeavored to ascertain from Senators whether it would be possible to -obtain a strong vote in favor of any proposition more specific in its -terms than that now before the Senate. I found this would be impossible. -I then made the motion to reject the prayer of the memorial, after much -deliberation. - -I found the Senate divided upon this subject into four sections. One -portion was opposed to the prayer of the memorial, because, in their -opinion, it would be unconstitutional to grant it; another, because it -would violate our compacts of cession with Virginia and Maryland; a -third, because it would be inexpedient and unjust to abolish slavery in -this District, whilst it exists in the surrounding States; and a fourth, -who were unwilling to go even to this extent, but who equally condemned -its abolition at the present moment. Here were the elements of discord. -Whilst all, or nearly all, are harmonious in their conclusion that the -prayer of the petition ought not to be granted, their premises are far -different. My object was to get the strongest vote, for the purpose of -calming the agitation, both to the South and to the North. In order to -accomplish this purpose, my motion must be one on which the largest -majority could agree, and on which each member might vote for his own -peculiar reasons. I ask what motion could I have made, so well -calculated to attain the end, as the one now before the Senate? - -The amendment which has just been proposed by the Senator from Kentucky -will, I fear, prove to be the apple of discord in this body. It is too -strong a measure for one portion of the Senate, whilst it is too weak -for another. Those who believe that we have no power under the -Constitution to abolish slavery in this District, will not vote for the -amendment, because it does recognize this principle; whilst such -gentlemen as deem it inexpedient at the present time to act upon the -subject, but who do not wish to commit themselves for the future, will -be equally opposed to the reasons which this amendment assigns. For my -own part, individually, I should not object to the amendment. I could -most cheerfully vote for all the principles which it contains. If I -believed it would unite in its favor as large a majority of the Senate -as the motion which I have made, unaccompanied by these reasons, it -should have my support. But this, I am convinced, will not be the case; -and my purpose is to obtain the largest vote possible, because this will -have the strongest influence upon public opinion. It would most -effectually check the agitation upon this subject. - -Sir, said Mr. B., this question of domestic slavery is the weak point in -our institutions. Tariffs may be raised almost to prohibition, and then -they may be reduced so as to yield no adequate protection to the -manufacturer; our Union is sufficiently strong to endure the shock. -Fierce political storms may arise—the moral elements of the country may -be convulsed by the struggles of ambitious men for the highest honors of -the Government—the sunshine does not more certainly succeed the storm, -than that all will again be peace. Touch this question of slavery -seriously—let it once be made manifest to the people of the South that -they cannot live with us, except in a state of continual apprehension -and alarm for their wives and their children, for all that is near and -dear to them upon the earth,—and the Union is from that moment -dissolved. It does not then become a question of expediency, but of -self-preservation. It is a question brought home to the fireside, to the -domestic circle of every white man in the Southern States. This day, -this dark and gloomy day for the Republic, will, I most devoutly trust -and believe, never arrive. Although, in Pennsylvania, we are all opposed -to slavery in the abstract, yet we will never violate the constitutional -compact which we have made with our sister States. Their rights will be -held sacred by us. Under the Constitution it is their own question; and -there let it remain. - -Mr. Preston said there may be other reasons; he had some which were -stronger than those assigned, and he should vote against these, which -contained a negative pregnant, looking to a state of things when -Congress could act on the subject. - -Mr. Porter said one of his reasons for wishing to lay on the table the -amendment was, that he might examine and ascertain if such reasons as -would be satisfactory to him, so as to command his vote, could be -assigned. He renewed his motion, and again withdrew it; when - -Mr. Clay stated that he had no objection to let the amendment lie for -further examination. - -After a few words from Mr. Cuthbert, on motion of Mr. Morris, the Senate -adjourned. - -On the 11th of March, the following proceedings occurred: - -Mr. Leigh rose, and said that, in pursuance of the promise which he -yesterday made to the Senate to move to resume the consideration of the -abolition petition at the earliest moment that he should have decided -what course his duty required him to pursue in regard to the amendment -which he yesterday offered to the motion for rejection, now moved that -the Senate take up that subject. - -The motion having been agreed to, Mr. Leigh withdrew the amendment -offered by him yesterday; and the question recurred on Mr. Buchanan’s -motion that _the prayer of the petition be rejected_. - -[The following is a copy of the petition: - - TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES: - -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 is as inconsistent in principle, -and inhuman in practice, as the foreign slave trade. - -Signed by direction, and on behalf of the aforesaid quarterly meeting, -held in Lancaster county, Pennsylvania, the 19th of 11 mo., 1835. - - LINDLEY COATS, - ESTHER HAYES, - - _Clerks_.] - -The yeas and nays were ordered on the question of rejection. - -Mr. McKean moved to amend the motion by striking out all after the word -“that”—(namely, the words “the prayer of the petition to be rejected,”) -and inserting “it is inexpedient at this time to legislate on the -subject of slavery in the District of Columbia.” - -On this question the yeas and nays were ordered, on his motion. - -The question being taken, it was decided as follows: - -Yeas—Messrs. Hendricks, McKean—2. - -Nays—Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Clay, Crittenden, Cuthbert, -Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Grundy, Hill, -Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Leigh, Linn, -Nicholas, Niles, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, -Shepley, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Walker, Wall, Webster, -White, Wright—37. - -Mr. McKean moved to amend the motion by inserting between the first word -“that” and the words “the prayer of the petition be rejected,” the words -“inexpedient to legislate on the subject of slavery in the District of -Columbia, and that.” - -On this question he called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered. - -The question was then taken, and decided as follows: - -Yeas—Messrs. Ewing of Ohio, Hendricks, McKean—3. - -Nays—Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Clay, Crittenden, Cuthbert, -Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Goldsborough, Grundy, Hill, Hubbard, King of -Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Leigh, Linn, Moore, Niles, Nicholas, -Preston, Porter, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Swift, Tallmadge, -Tipton, Tomlinson, Walker, Wall, Webster, White, Wright—36. - -The question being on the original motion of Mr. Buchanan, “that the -prayer of the petition be rejected”— - -Mr. McKean said that, in offering the amendments which he had proposed, -he had discharged his conscience of an imperative duty. It had pleased -the Senate to reject these amendments, and, as he was thus deprived of -the power of making the motion more palatable, all that he could now do -was to vote for the proposition of his colleague. - -Same day, after debate.—The question was then taken on the motion to -reject the prayer of the petition, and decided as follows: - -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. - -So the prayer of the petition was rejected. - -On the 25th of April, Mr. Buchanan presented a petition from the Society -of Friends, in Philadelphia, on which he said: - -He rose to present the memorial of the Yearly Meeting of the religious -Society of Friends, which had been recently held in the city of -Philadelphia, remonstrating against the admission of Arkansas into the -Union, whilst a provision remained in her constitution which admits of -and may perpetuate slavery. This Yearly Meeting embraced within its -jurisdiction the greater part of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the whole -of the State of Delaware, and the Eastern Shore of Maryland. The -language of this memorial was perfectly respectful. Indeed, it could not -be otherwise, considering the source from which it emanated. It breathed -throughout the pure and Christian spirit which had always animated the -Society of Friends; and although he did not concur with them in opinion, -their memorial was entitled to be received with great respect. - -When the highly respectable committee,[54] which had charge of this -memorial, called upon him this morning, and requested him to present it -to the Senate, he had felt it to be his duty to inform them in what -relation he stood to the question. He stated to them that he had been -requested by the delegate from Arkansas to take charge of the -application of that Territory to be admitted into the Union, and that he -had cheerfully taken upon himself the performance of this duty. He also -read to them the 8th section of the act of Congress of 6th March, 1820, -containing the famous Missouri compromise; and informed them that the -whole Territory of Arkansas was south of the parallel of 36 degrees and -a half of north latitude; and _that he regarded this compromise, -considering the exciting and alarming circumstances under which it was -made, and the dangers to the existence of the Union which it had -removed, to be almost as sacred as a constitutional provision_. That -there might be no mistake on the subject, he had also informed them that -in presenting their memorial he should feel it to be his duty to state -these facts to the Senate. With this course on his part they were -satisfied, and still continued their request that he might present the -memorial. He now did so with great pleasure. He hoped it might be -received by the Senate with all the respect it so highly deserved. He -asked that it might be read; and as the question of the admission of -Arkansas was no longer before us, he moved that it might be laid upon -the table. The memorial was accordingly read, and was ordered to be laid -upon the table. - -The next time that the subject of slavery came before the Senate was in -June, 1836. It then arose upon a bill which had been proposed in -conformity with a special recommendation by President Jackson, in his -annual message of December, 1835, to restrain the use of the mails for -the circulation of _incendiary publications_. The bill contained the -following provisions: - -_Be it enacted, &c_., 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; and any deputy postmaster -who shall be guilty thereof, shall be forthwith removed from office. - -SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That nothing in the acts of -Congress to establish and regulate the Post Office Department, shall be -construed to protect any deputy postmaster, mail carrier, or other -officer or agent of said department, who shall knowingly circulate in -any State, Territory, or District, as aforesaid, any such pamphlet, -newspaper, handbill, or other printed paper or pictorial representation, -forbidden by the laws of such State, Territory, or District. - -SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid_, That the -deputy postmasters of the offices where the pamphlets, newspapers, -handbills, or other printed papers or pictorial representations -aforesaid, may arrive for delivery, shall, under the instructions of the -Postmaster General, from time to time give notice of the same, so that -they may be withdrawn, by the person who deposited them originally to be -mailed, and if the same shall not be withdrawn in one month thereafter, -shall be burnt or otherwise destroyed. - -This bill, on the 2d of June, 1836, was ordered to be engrossed and read -a third time, by the casting vote of Mr. Van Buren, the Vice-President. -On the 8th of June the following debate and proceedings took place: - -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 matter or -pictorial representation, touching the subject of slavery, where by the -laws of 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 this subject of -slavery, and to decide 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 the 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. W. 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. Buchanan said, that as he had voted for the engrossment of this -bill, and should vote for its final passage, he felt himself bound to -defend and justify his vote against the argument of the Senator from -Massachusetts (Mr. Webster). In doing so, he would imitate that Senator, -if in no other respect, at least in being brief. - -It is indispensable to the clear and distinct understanding of any -argument, to know precisely what is the question under discussion. -Without this knowledge, we cannot tell whether in any or what degree the -argument is applicable to the subject. What, then, is the naked question -now under discussion, stripped of all the mist which has been cast -around it? This bill embraced but a single principle, though this -principle was carried out through three sections. It provides that -deputy postmasters, within the limits of such slaveholding States as -have found it necessary for their own safety to pass laws making it -penal to circulate inflammatory publications and pictorial -representations calculated to excite the slaves to insurrection, shall -not be protected by the laws of the United States, in violating these -State laws. Postmasters within these States who shall _knowingly_ -distribute such publications are liable to be removed from office. The -bill also provides that the post-office laws of the United States shall -not protect postmasters, mail carriers, or other officers or agents of -the department who shall knowingly circulate such incendiary -publications, from the penalties denounced against this offence under -the laws of the States. This is the spirit and principle of the bill. It -does no more than to withdraw the protection of the laws of the United -States, establishing the Post Office Department, from postmasters and -other agents of this Government who shall wilfully transgress State laws -deemed absolutely necessary to secure the States, within which they -exist, from servile insurrection. - -This bill did not affect, in the slightest degree, any of the -non-slaveholding States. Neither did it apply to any of the slaveholding -States, except those within which the danger of insurrection had become -so imminent as to compel them to pass laws of the character referred to -in the bill. - -Of the policy and justice of passing such a bill he could not doubt, -provided we possess the power. No person would contend that this -Government ought to become the instrument of exciting insurrection -within any of the States, unless we were constrained to pursue this -course by an overruling constitutional necessity. The question then is, -does any such necessity exist? Are we bound by the Constitution of the -United States, through our post-offices, to circulate publications among -the slaves, the direct tendency of which is to excite their passions and -rouse them to insurrection? Have we no power to stay our hand in any -case? Even if a portion of this Union were in a state of open rebellion -against the United States, must we aid and assist the rebels by -communicating to them, through our Post Office Department, such -publications and information as may encourage and promote their designs -against the very existence of the confederacy itself? If the -Constitution of the United States has placed us in this deplorable -condition, we must yield to its mandates, no matter what may be the -consequences. - -Mr. B. did not believe that the Constitution placed us in any such -position. Our power over the mails was as broad and general as any words -in the English language could confer. The Constitution declares that -“Congress shall have power to establish post-offices and post roads.” -This is the only provision which it contains touching the subject. After -the establishment of these post-offices and post roads, who shall decide -upon the purposes for which they shall be used? He answered, Congress, -and Congress alone. There was no limitation, no restriction, whatever, -upon our discretion contained in the bond. We have the power to decide -what shall and what shall not be carried in the mail, and what shall be -the rate of postage. He freely admitted that, unless in extreme cases, -where the safety of the Republic was involved, we should never exercise -this power of discrimination between what papers should and should not -be circulated through the mail. The Constitution, however, has conferred -upon us this general power, probably for the very purpose of meeting -these extreme cases; and it is one which, from its delicate nature, we -shall not be likely to abuse. - -He differed entirely from the opinion of the Senator from South Carolina -(Mr. Calhoun), as to the source whence the power was derived to pass -this bill. No action of the State Legislatures could either confer it or -take it away. It was perfect and complete in itself under the Federal -Constitution, or it had no existence. With that Senator he entirely -concurred in opinion, that the sedition law was clearly -unconstitutional. Congress have no power to abridge the freedom of the -press, or to pass any law to prevent or to punish any publication -whatever. He understood the freedom of the press to mean precisely what -the Senator from Massachusetts had stated. But does it follow, as the -gentleman contends, that because we have no power over the press, that -therefore we are bound to carry and distribute anything and everything -which may proceed from it, even if it should be calculated to stir up -insurrection or to destroy the Government? So far as this Government is -concerned, every person may print, and publish, and circulate whatever -he pleases; but are we, therefore, compelled to become his agents, and -to circulate for him everything he may choose to publish? This is the -question. Any gentleman upon this floor may write what he thinks proper -against my character; but because he can exercise this liberty, am I -therefore bound to carry and to circulate what he has written? So any -individual within the broad limits of this Union, without previous -restraint and without danger of punishment from the Federal Government, -may publish what is calculated to aid and assist the enemies of the -country in open war; but does it follow, as a necessary consequence, -that this very Government is bound to carry and circulate such -publications through its mails? A more perfect _non sequitur_ never had -been presented to his mind. It was one thing not to restrain or punish -publications; it was another and an entirely different thing to carry -and circulate them after they have been published. The one is merely -passive; the other is active. It was one thing to leave our citizens -entirely free to print and publish and circulate what they pleased; and -it was another thing to call upon us to aid in their circulation. From -the prohibition to make any law “abridging the freedom of speech or of -the press,” it could never be inferred that we must provide by law for -the circulation through the post-office of everything which the press -might publish. And yet this is the argument both of the Senator from -Massachusetts and the Senator from South Carolina. If this argument were -well founded, it was very clear to his mind, that no State law could -confer upon Congress any power to pass this bill. We derived our powers -from the Federal Constitution, and from that alone. If, under its -provisions, we have had no authority to pass the bill, we could derive -no such authority from the laws of the States. - -Why, then, did Mr. B. vote for a bill to prevent the circulation of -publications prohibited by State laws? Not because we derived any power -from these laws; but, under the circumstances, they contained the best -rule to guide us in deciding what publications were dangerous. The -States were the best judges of what was necessary for their own safety -and protection; and they would not call for the passage of this bill, -unless they were firmly convinced that the situation in which they were -placed imperiously demanded it. They were willing to submit to a great -evil in depriving themselves of information which might be valuable to -them, in order to avoid the still greater evil that would result from -the circulation of these publications and pictorial representations -among their slaves. Such a law would not be permitted to exist after the -necessity for it had ended. He was therefore willing, upon this -occasion, to refer to the laws of the States, not for the purpose of -conferring any power on Congress, but merely for a description of the -publications which it should be unlawful for our deputy-postmasters -within these States to circulate. - -This bill was in strict conformity with the recommendations contained in -the President’s message on this subject, which had, he believed, found -favor everywhere. The principles of this message, which had been -pronounced unconstitutional by the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. -Calhoun), had, he believed, been highly commended in a resolution passed -by the legislature of that State. He would read an extract from the -President’s message: - -“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, anything 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.” - -In reply to Mr. Webster, Mr. B. said, that he did not think there was -any vagueness in that part of the bill on which the gentleman had -commented, except what arose from the nature of the subject. It is -vague, says the gentleman, because it contains no description of the -publications, the circulation of which it intends to prohibit, except -the words “touching the subject of slavery.” On this foundation he had -erected a considerable portion of his argument. Mr. B. acknowledged that -if the bill contained no other description than this, it would be -impossible to carry it into execution. But this was not the fact. The -subsequent language restricted this vague description; because it -confined the operation of the bill to such publications only, “touching -the subject of slavery,” as were prohibited from circulation by the laws -of the respective States. - -We have, said Mr. B., wisely and properly referred, for the description -of the offence, to the laws of the different States which will be -embraced by the bill. It was just—it was politic—it was treating those -States with a proper degree of respect, to make our law conform with -their laws, and thus to take care that no conflict should arise between -our deputy postmasters and their State authorities. Could the gentleman -from Massachusetts himself make the bill more explicit? He could not do -it, consistently with the principles upon which it was founded, without -incorporating into its provisions all the laws of all the States who had -thought proper to pass laws upon this subject. Our deputy postmasters -were resident citizens of those States. They were bound to know the -State laws under which they lived, and all that this bill requires is, -that they shall not violate them. - -The Senator from Massachusetts has contended that any newspaper which -had been sent to an individual by mail, and was deposited in a -post-office, was his property; and we had, therefore, no right to say it -should not be delivered. But this was begging the question. It was -taking that for granted which remained to be proved. If Congress, as he -(Mr. B.) had contended, possessed the incontestable power of declaring -what should and what should not be circulated through the mails, no man -could have the right to demand from any post-office that which the law -had declared should not thus be circulated. If we can, without violating -the Constitution, say that these inflammatory publications tending to -excite servile war shall not be distributed by our postmasters among the -individuals to whom they are directed, no question of property could -then arise. No man can have a property in that which is a violation of -the law. It then becomes a question, not of property, but of public -safety. Admit the gentleman’s premises, that we have no right to pass -any law upon this subject, and he can establish his position that a -property exists in those publications whilst in the post-offices. -Without this admission, his argument entirely fails. - -He felt as reluctant as any man could feel, to vote for any law -interfering with the circulation through the mails of any publication -whatever, no matter what might be its character. But if the slaves -within any Southern State were in rebellion, or if a palpable or -well-founded danger of such a rebellion existed, with his present -convictions, should he refuse to prevent the circulation of publications -tending to encourage or excite insurrection, he would consider himself -an accomplice in their guilt. He entertained no doubt whatever of the -power of Congress to pass this bill, or of the propriety of exercising -that power. He would not have voted for the bill which had been reported -by the Senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun) because he thought it -a measure far beyond what was required by the necessity of the case. -This bill, whilst it was sufficiently strong to correct the evil, would -be confined in its operation to those States within which the danger -existed. - -Mr. Davis (of Massachusetts) stated at length his objections to the -passage of the bill. Senators assumed that there were no difficulties in -the way, because the post-office power gave to Congress the right to -decide what should be carried in the mails. On a former occasion he had -said all that was proper in regard to this matter. He then drew the -attention of the Senate to the constitutional question involved, and -demonstrated, as he thought, that there was no authority in the -Constitution to pass this bill, or anything like it. The language of the -Constitution was very simple: it only said that Congress should have the -power to establish post-offices and post roads. Now what was a -post-office, in the meaning of the Constitution? To understand this, it -would be necessary to ascertain what was the meaning held at the time -the Constitution was adopted. You had a post-office at the time the -Constitution was made, and a press also; and the provision in the -Constitution was made in reference to both these known things. The -object in establishing the post-office, then, was to send abroad -intelligence throughout the country; and it was intended for the -transmission of newspapers, pamphlets, judicial and legislative -proceedings, and all matters emanating from the press, relating to -politics, literature, and science, and for the transmission of private -letters. It would be, therefore, in his opinion, in conflict with the -provision of the Constitution, giving Congress the power to establish -the post-office, as well as an abridgment of the freedom of the press, -to carry into effect the provisions of the bill. - -The Senator from Pennsylvania reïterated the argument used the other day -by his friend from Georgia, that you have no right to diffuse -publications through the agency of the post-office, for the purpose of -exciting a servile war. Now let me tell the gentleman, (said Mr. D.) -that this is an old argument against the liberty of the press, and that -it has been used whenever it was thought necessary to establish a -censorship over it. The public morals were said to be in danger; it was -necessary to prevent licentiousness, tumult, and sedition; and the -public good required that the licentiousness of the press should be -restrained. All these were the plausible pretences under which the -freedom of the press had been violated in all ages. Now they knew that -the press was at all times corrupt; but when they came to decide the -question whether the tares should be rooted up, and the wheat along with -it, those who had decided in favor of liberty, had always decided that -it was better to put up with a lesser evil than to draw down upon -themselves one of such fearful magnitude, as must result from the -destruction of the press. Mr. D. contended that the power to be given to -the deputy postmasters to decide what should, and what should not be -distributed from the post-office, gave them a dangerous discretion over -a very delicate matter, and that the power was one highly susceptible of -abuse, and always liable to misconstruction. - -Mr. Grundy (of Tennessee) observed that this bill was intended simply to -prevent any officer of the Government, who should violate the laws of -the States in which he resided, from sheltering himself under the -post-office law. As the bill now stood, the objections with regard to -abridging the freedom of the press had no application whatever. There -was no provision in the bill interfering with the printing or publishing -of any matter whatever, nor was it even pretended that Congress -possessed the power of doing so. It was not even said that certain -publications, no matter how incendiary in their character, should not be -deposited in the post-office, and transmitted through the mails. -Therefore all the objections that he had heard to the bill fell to the -ground. In this bill, the Government simply said to the individuals in -its employ, “We will not help you to do an act in violation of the laws -of the State in which you live.” That was the ground on which the bill -was framed, and it could not be pretended that this was an abridgment of -the liberty of the press. It was only the Government declining to assist -an individual in the violation of the law, and that was the whole bill. -The Government, under the Constitution, had an entire control of the -Post-Office Department. It had the power to regulate what matters should -be carried through the mails, and what should not. We say to everybody -that to these slaveholding States you may transmit through the mails -what you please, but if you transmit to one of our officers what is -prohibited by the laws of the State in which he resides, we shall say to -that officer, you shall not put on the mantle of the Government to -assist you in the violation of that law; you shall be subject to the -penalties of the State laws, besides removal from office. In fact there -was not the slightest pretext for saying that this bill violates in the -remotest degree the freedom of the press. Nothing should be carried in -the mails but what was proper for transmission through them; but if -there was anything sent through them tending to excite insurrection and -bloodshed, how could there be an objection to the passage of a law, -saying that it should not be delivered out of the post-office? - -The gentleman from Massachusetts objected to the vagueness of the bill -in saying what shall not be distributed from the post-offices. How could -the matter, he asked, be made more specific? When the publication -arrived at the post-office where it was prohibited, and was about to be -handed out, the State law would be consulted, and by it, it would be -decided whether it was in violation of the State law or not, and it -could thus be determined whether it was proper for delivery. He should -not say anything as to the report—he did not concur in it farther than -that this was a great evil, and should be corrected in the mildest way -that it could be done. This bill did not affect any individual but those -of the post-offices of the States where laws have been passed -prohibiting publications and pictorial representations, calculated to -excite insurrection among the slaves. He was opposed to the original -bill, because it interfered with what publications should be deposited -in, as well as delivered from, the post-offices. But it was only at the -delivery office where this bill would operate, and the postmaster at -such office would be operated on by the laws of the State in which it is -situated. If this bill was not passed, nothing could be done, and the -post-office would be made (for there were persons wicked enough to do -it) the medium through which to send fire-brands throughout the country. - -Mr. Clay said that he considered this bill totally unnecessary and -uncalled for by public sentiment; and in this he differed with the -Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Buchanan); for he believed that the -President’s message on the subject had met with general disapprobation; -that it was unconstitutional; and if not so, that it contained a -principle of a most dangerous and alarming character. When he saw that -the exercise of the most extraordinary and dangerous power had been -assumed by the head of the post-office, and that it had been sustained -by this message, he turned his attention to the subject and inquired -whether it was necessary that the General Government should, under any -circumstances, exercise such a power, and whether it possessed it; and -after much reflection, he had come to the conclusion, that they could -not pass any law interfering with the subject in any shape or form -whatever. - -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—it was a 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 -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 a 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 they -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, etc. 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. - -It was too often in the condemnation of a particular evil that they were -urged on to measures of a dangerous tendency. All must agree as to the -dangerous consequences of persons residing out of certain States -transmitting to them incendiary publications, calculating to promote -civil war and bloodshed. All must see the evil, and a great evil it was, -and he hoped that a stop would be put to it; but Congress had no power -to pass beyond the Constitution for the purpose of correcting it. The -States alone had the power, and their power was ample for the purpose. -He hoped never to see the time when the General Government should -undertake to correct the evil by such measures as the one before them. -If (said Mr. C.) you can pass this law to prohibit the delivery through -the post-office of publications touching the subject of slavery, might -they not also pass laws to prohibit any citizen of New York or -Massachusetts from publishing and transmitting through the mails -touching that subject? If you may touch the subject of slavery at all, -why not go to the root of the evil? Suppose one of the Southern States -were to pass a law of this kind, would you not be called upon by all the -arguments now used in favor of this bill, to carry such laws into -effect? Mr. C. concluded by saying that the bill was calculated to -destroy all the landmarks of the Constitution, establish a precedent for -dangerous legislation, and to lead to incalculable mischief. There was -no necessity for so dangerous an assumption of authority, the State laws -being perfectly competent to correct the evil complained of. He must -say, that from the first to the last he was opposed to the measure. - -Mr. Calhoun could not concur with the views taken by the Senators from -Massachusetts and Kentucky, that this bill would comprehend in its -provisions all publications touching the subject of slavery. In order to -bring any publications within the provision of the bill, two -qualifications were necessary. The first was, that it must relate to the -subject of slavery; and the next was, that it must be prohibited by the -laws of the States to which it is transmitted. He thought that this was -the view that would be taken of it by the courts. The object of this -bill was to make it the duty of the postmasters in the States to conform -to the laws of such States, and not to deliver out papers in violation -of their laws. The simple question was, had this Government the power to -say to its officers, you shall not violate the laws of the States in -which you reside? Could it go further, and make it their duty to -co-operate with the States in carrying their laws into effect? This was -the simple question. Now could any man doubt that Congress possessed the -power to pass both measures, so that their officers might not come in -conflict with the State laws? Indeed, he looked upon measures of this -kind to prevent conflicts between the General and State Governments, -which were likely to ensue, as essentially necessary, for it was evident -that when such conflicts took place, the State must have the ascendancy. -Mr. C. then briefly recapitulated the principles on which this bill was -founded, and contended that it was in aid of laws passed by the States, -as far as Congress had the power constitutionally to go, and assumed no -power to prohibit or interfere with the publication or circulation of -any paper whatever; it only declared, that the officers of the -Government should not make their official stations a shield for -violating the State laws. Was there any one there who would say, that -the States had not the power to pass laws prohibiting, and making penal, -the circulation of papers calculated to excite insurrection among their -slaves? It being admitted that they could, could not Congress order its -officers to abstain from the violation of these laws? We do not (said -Mr. C.) pass a law to abridge the freedom of the press, or to prohibit -the publication and circulation of any paper whatever—this has been done -by the States already. The inhibition of the Constitution was on -Congress, and not on the States, who possessed full power to pass any -laws they thought proper. They knew that there were several precedents -to sanction this bill. Congress had passed laws to abstain from the -violation of the health laws of the States. Could any one say that the -Constitution gave to Congress the power to pass quarantine laws? He had -not adverted to the message of the President on this subject, because he -believed that the President acted from the best motives, and that that -part of the message was drawn up without sufficient reflection. He -denied, however, that this message was in conformity with the -Constitution. It would be directly abridging the liberty of the press -for Congress to pass such laws as the President recommended. One part of -the message he would refer to, which was in these words: - -“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.” This was clearly -unconstitutional, for it not only recommended the prohibition of -publications and circulation of incendiary papers (abridging the freedom -of the press), but it recommended also the infliction of severe -penalties, which powers were expressly prohibited by the Constitution. -On no other principle could this ever be defended, than that it was -simply abstaining from a violation of the laws of the States. - -The Senator from Kentucky contended that this bill was useless, and he -(Mr. C.) agreed that it was so in one sense, and that was, with or -without this bill, the Southern States would execute their own laws -against the circulation of such papers. It was a case of life and death -with them; and did anybody suppose that they would permit so many -magazines in their bosoms, to blow them to destruction, as these -post-offices must be, if these incendiary publications continued to be -circulated through them? While the Southern States contained so many -postmasters opposed to their institutions, as it was in his own State, -where almost every postmaster was opposed to it, it was absolutely -necessary for them to take effectual measures for their own security. It -was the assertion of the principle, that the States had a right to -protect themselves, which made the bill valuable in his eye; it -prevented the conflict which would be likely to take place between the -General and State Governments, unless some measure of the kind should be -adopted. The States had a right to go to the extent of this bill, and -they would be wanting to themselves and to posterity, if they omitted to -do it. It was on the doctrine of State rights and State intervention, -that he supported this bill, and on no other grounds. - -The Senator from Massachusetts objected to the returning of these -papers, whose delivery was prohibited. He regretted this as much as the -Senator did, but his objection was, that it did not go far enough; he -thought that these papers should be delivered to the prosecuting -officers of the States, to enable them to ferret out the designs of the -incendiaries. - -Mr. Webster remarked, that in general, it might be safely said, that -when different gentlemen supported a measure admitted to be of a novel -character, and placed their defence of it on different and inconsistent -grounds, a very simple person might believe, in such case, that there -were no very strong grounds for adopting the measure. The Senator from -Pennsylvania and the Senator from South Carolina not only placed their -defence of their bill on opposite grounds, but each opposed the -principles on which the other founded his support of it. Where the -object to be gained was apparently good, and the case urgent, as it was -represented to be, how could limitations of power stand against powerful -opponents, which have always been urging to despotism? Now, against the -objects of this bill, he had not a word to say; but with constitutional -lawyers, there was a great difference between the object and the means -to carry it into effect. It was not the object to be gained, but the -means to attain it, which they should look to, for though the object -might be good, the means might not be so. His objections went to the -means and not to the object; and he did not yield the argument because -the object was a good one, and the case was urgent. It was better to -limit the power, and run the risk of injury from the want of it, than to -give a power which might be exercised in a dangerous manner. - -The Senator from Pennsylvania said that this bill was calling on -Congress to do nothing but to abstain from violating the laws of the -States. It was one thing, said the Senator, for Congress to abstain from -giving these incendiary papers circulation, and another to pass laws -saying that they shall not be published. But if Congress had no mail -through which these papers could be transmitted, what did the gentleman -mean by Congress abstaining from giving them circulation? It meant that -Congress should interfere and should create an especial exception as to -what should be transmitted by their ordinary channel of intelligence, -and that that exception should be caused by the character of the writing -or publication. He contended that Congress had not the power, drawn from -the character of the paper, to decide whether it should be carried in -the mail or not, for such decision would be a direct abridgment of the -freedom of the press. He confessed that he was shocked at the doctrine. -He looked back to the alien and sedition laws which were so universally -condemned throughout the country, and what was their object? Certainly -to prohibit publications of a dangerous tendency. Mr. W. here quoted the -sedition law, to show the objects it intended to effect. But the deputy -postmasters (Mr. W. said) must look into the newspaper mail to see if -there were any publications in it touching the subject of slavery -calculated to excite insurrections among the slaves. - -Now, said Mr. W., the country would have been rent into atoms if the -sedition law, instead of saying that papers should not be published in -such and such a way, had declared that the deputy postmasters should -have the power to search the mails to see if they contained any -publications calculated to “bring the Government into disrepute, promote -insurrection, and lead to foreign war,” the evils the sedition law -intended to guard against. All the papers described in the law of ’99 -were unlawful by the laws of any of the States, and yet that law which -had created so much excitement and met with such general reprobation, -contained nothing like the power claimed by this bill. Any law -distinguishing what shall or shall not go into the mails, founded on the -sentiments of the paper, and making the deputy postmaster the judge, he -should say, was expressly unconstitutional, if not recommended by -gentlemen of such high authority. This bill (said Mr. W.) went beyond -the recommendation of the President, for his recommendation was, that -the person who circulated the papers described by him should be punished -by severe penalties. Now, this was the old law of liberty—there was not -a word of previous restraint in it as imposed by this bill. Mr. W. then -went into an argument to show the vagueness of the bill in describing -the paper, the delivery of which was prohibited. Under it, it was -impossible to determine what publications should be prohibited; -abolition pamphlets were to be stopped at the South, and anti-abolition -papers were to be stopped at the North. In reply to Mr. Buchanan, he -said that he did not assume that these prohibited publications either -were or were not property. All he said was, that they ought not to make -the deputy postmasters the judge, and take away the property without the -authority of law. What he had to say was, that it was a question of -property or no property, and that they could not make the deputy -postmaster the judge of the fact, as he could not be a judge of property -known to the Constitution and the law. - -Mr. Buchanan said he had not anticipated, when he first addressed the -Senate upon this subject, that he should have occasion to make any -further remarks, but the Senator from Massachusetts had replied to his -argument, in such a special manner, that he felt himself constrained to -reply to some of his remarks. Now, permit me to say (continued Mr. B.) -that he has not at all met the point of my argument. He has invested -this subject with an air of greater importance and responsibility than -it deserves: he has played around it with all his powers, but without -touching the real question involved in the discussion. - -Congress has no power (says the gentleman) to pass any law abridging the -freedom of speech or of the press. Granted. He most freely admitted that -Congress had no power to touch the press at all. We can pass no law -whatever either to prevent or to punish any publication, under any -circumstances whatever. The sedition law violated this principle. It -punished libels against the Federal Government and its officers; and -having met with general reprobation, it was repealed, or permitted to -expire by its own limitation, he did not recollect which. - -Mr. B. said he admitted these premises of the gentleman in their -broadest extent; but did they justify his conclusions? In order to -maintain his argument, he must prove that the Constitution, in declaring -that Congress shall not pass any law abridging the freedom of the press, -has thereby, and from the force of these terms alone, commanded us to -circulate and distribute, through our post-offices, everything which the -press may publish, no matter whether it shall promote insurrection and -civil war or not. This is the proposition which he must establish. All -the gentleman’s remarks in favor of the liberty of the press met his -cordial approbation; but they did not apply to the constitutional -question then under discussion. He had argued this question precisely as -if, in addition to the words already in the Constitution, that “Congress -shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,” -there had been inserted, “or to prevent the circulation of any -production of the press through the post-offices.” But these words were -not in the instrument; and the only question was, whether the one -prohibition could be inferred from the other. Mr. B. said he was in -favor of a plain and literal construction of the Constitution. He took -it for his guide; and he could never consent to interpolate what its -framers never intended should be there. They have conferred upon -Congress, in express terms, a general discretion in regard to the Post -Office Department; and the question then was, shall we exercise it in -the manner proposed by this bill, for the purpose of preventing servile -war, bloodshed and disunion? - -How had the gentleman from Massachusetts met his argument? He says that -the principles upon which the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun) -and himself had sustained this bill, were at variance with each other; -and that this of itself was sufficient to cast doubt over the measure. -But was it the first time the gentleman had known correct conclusions to -be drawn from varying or even unfounded premises? The bill itself ought -not to be condemned for the arguments of its friends. He would remind -the gentleman of the advice given by a distinguished English judge, to a -young friend about to occupy a judicial station in the West Indies, -which was, never to give reasons for his judgments, where it could be -avoided; because his natural sense and perception of justice would -almost always enable him to decide correctly, though he might, and -probably often would, assign insufficient reasons for his decisions. -This bill ought to be judged by its own provisions, and ought not to be -condemned for the reasons in support of it which had been advanced -either by the Senator from South Carolina or himself. - -The Senator from Massachusetts had argued as though he (Mr. B.) had -said, that as the end proposed by this measure was good, he should vote -for it, notwithstanding the means might be unconstitutional. - -[Here Mr. Webster explained, and said he had not imputed to Mr. B. such -an argument.] - -Mr. B. proceeded. The Senator did not mean this imputation; but his -argument seemed to imply as much. However necessary he might believe -this bill to be, if he did not find a clear warrant for its passage in -the Constitution, it should never have his support. He never could -believe that this Government, having exclusive control over the -Post-Office Department in all its various relations, was yet so impotent -to prevent evil, that it must, under the fundamental law which called it -into existence, whether it would or not, distribute publications tending -directly to promote servile insurrection, and to produce its own -destruction. - -The Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun) had misapprehended him in -one particular. He (Mr. B.) had disclaimed all authority to pass this -bill derived from State laws, or from any other source than the -Constitution of the United States. He had not said he would vote for a -similar bill in all cases where the State Legislatures might think -proper to pass laws to prohibit the circulation of any publication -whatever. He considered the passage of such laws merely as evidence of -the necessity for legislation by Congress; but he was very far from -adopting the principle that it should be conclusive evidence in all -cases. Congress must judge for itself under all the circumstances of -each particular case. - -In reply to the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. B. said that this bill -would not be a penal law. Everything like a penalty had been stricken -from its provisions, unless the removal of a deputy postmaster from -office by the Postmaster General might be viewed in that light. By it we -merely directed our agent not to violate State laws by distributing -publications calculated to excite insurrection. He would not have -occasion to study all the laws of all the States on the subject of -slavery, as the Senator from Massachusetts had alleged. All that would -be required of him was to know the laws of the State of which he was a -citizen, and to take care not to violate them. - -The gentleman had said that he (Mr. B.) had mistaken the recommendation -contained in the President’s message. Now he undertook to assert that -this bill was in conformity with the recommendation of the President, -and carried it out in all essential particulars. - -[Here Mr. B. again read the last paragraph of the message which he had -read before.] - -Now, sir, (said Mr. B.) does not the President expressly assert that -Congress has authority to regulate what shall be distributed through the -post-offices, and does he not “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?” Except that this bill -contained no severe penalties, it was framed both in its spirit and in -its letter according to the suggestion of the President. What other bill -could we pass of a milder character than the one now before us, to -prevent the circulation of these incendiary publications? Let the -President’s recommendation be entitled to what weight it might, this -bill was in exact accordance with it. - -The Senator from Massachusetts had contended that this bill conferred -upon deputy postmasters the power of depriving individuals of their -property in newspapers and other publications, in violation of that -clause in the Constitution, which declares that no person shall be -deprived of his property without due process of law. By this bill we had -not attempted to shield any postmaster from legal responsibility for his -conduct. We could not do so, if we would. We had merely prescribed for -him, as we had done for our other agents, the line of his duty. We did -not attempt to protect him from the suit of any person who might -consider himself aggrieved. If any individual to whom a publication was -directed, and who had demanded it from the postmaster and had been -refused, should believe our law to be unconstitutional, he might bring -this question before the judiciary, and try it, like any other question. -All our officers and agents are liable to be sued, and if the law under -which they acted should prove to be unconstitutional, it would afford -them no protection. On the present occasion we proposed to proceed in -the spirit of the common law principle, that any individual may abate a -nuisance; though he thereby rendered himself responsible, in case it -should appear afterwards that the thing abated was not a nuisance. So -here, the postmaster refusing to deliver a newspaper under our law, -would be responsible in damages to the party aggrieved, in case it -should appear that the law under which he had acted was -unconstitutional. - -As to the necessity for passing this bill, he should say but a few -words. It was very easy for gentlemen to say that necessity was the plea -of tyrants. He admitted it had been so, and would be so in all time to -come. But after all, if we possessed the power to legislate in this -case, from our situation we were compelled to judge whether it was -necessary to call it into efficient action or not. This duty devolved -upon us. We could not avoid deciding this question. Was it not, then, -within our knowledge that the slaveholding States had been attempted to -be flooded with pamphlets and pictorial representations calculated to -excite servile insurrection? Had we not seen upon this floor many of -these pictorial representations, whose direct effect would be to excite -the wild and brutal passions of the slaves to cut the throats of their -masters? Within the last few months, had there not been blood shed? and -had there not been several attempted insurrections in some of the -Southern States? These facts were incontestable. Believing and knowing -all this to be true, he said the case of necessity, in his judgment, was -fully established, and he should vote for the passage of the bill. - -Mr. Cuthbert (of Georgia) was not desirous to throw himself into the -current of this debate at this time. The position which he held—the -infrequency of his occupying that floor, and the indisposition under -which he labored, authorized him to expect the attention of the Senate -for a short time, when he should be better able to address them than he -then was. He therefore hoped the Senate would indulge him in an -opportunity of being heard on the subject, by postponing it, to be taken -up within a very short period. It appeared to him that the Senator from -Pennsylvania had said precisely what should have been said in support of -this bill. It appeared to him that that Senator had given an -unanswerable reply to the Senator from Massachusetts on points on which -he principally relied for his opposition to the measure before them. -What is the state of the case (said Mr. C.)? The deputy postmaster in -one of the States holds in his hand an incendiary publication, intended -to carry blood and desolation through the land. Is he bound in duty to -hold it from circulation? If he gives it to another, the evil intended -by that publication will ensue; but then your officer, contends the -Senator from Massachusetts, is bound to deliver it, because you have no -power to pass a law abridging the freedom of the press. According to -this doctrine, that which an individual cannot do, your officer is bound -to do. It appeared to him that the obvious necessity of this law was to -prevent the post-office agents from committing a criminal offence -against the laws of the States, and then shielding themselves under the -post-office law. But the Senator from Massachusetts had not met this -point, but had rather evaded and played around it. This was a question -which should not be discussed with the chicanery of a pettifogging -lawyer, but should be considered with those enlarged ideas and noble -sentiments which belong to the statesman. They should argue it as became -enlightened patriots, anxious to promote harmony and good feeling -through our common country, and to preserve all its parts from the -dangers of insurrection. - -He denied that property could be affected by this law, as contended by -the Senator from Massachusetts. There could be no property in these -incendiary publications. The postmaster holds in his hand that which, by -the laws of the States, is in the condition of stolen property, and he -is bound to give it back. He holds in his hand what, by his own -judgment, he considers not to be property—which his own judgment -condemns, and he is therefore bound to resign it. The Senator from -Massachusetts said, rightly, that the person to whom this publication is -directed may come forward and demand it, under the provision of this -law. Now, if the Senator thought there was anything wanting in this -provision of the bill, why did he not propose an amendment? If he did -propose any, he (Mr. C.) had not heard it. The property is not to be -destroyed; it must be returned to him who sent it. - -In another point of view (Mr. C. said), the postmaster must judge -whether these papers are legal or not. He holds in his hand papers which -the laws of his State have said shall not be circulated, under a -penalty. Is he not to decide whether he shall incur that penalty or not? -How stood the argument of the Senator from Massachusetts? He requires -that the officer shall violate the laws of his State, or that the -General Government shall protect him in it. With regard to the members -that compose the Senate, every gentleman was conscious in his own breast -of a strong desire to prevent the evils of a servile war in the Southern -States. Of this he was confident. But with regard to the Senator from -Massachusetts, he should be guilty of a want of candor if he allowed him -that clearness of judgment which belonged to the statesman; he should be -wanting in that sincerity of heart on which he had ever prided himself, -if he declared his conviction that the honorable Senator had treated -this subject with the liberal and impartial spirit it deserved. The -gentleman’s course had uniformly been opposed to all those measures -which tended to quiet the country, and heal those sectional dissensions -which disturb the Union. - -When a large and overwhelming vote was taken in the Senate, on the -motion of the Senator from Pennsylvania, believed by all to be so -necessary to settle a question, threatening the most fearful -consequences, it was held to be highly desirable that there should be an -unanimous vote. Yet, on an occasion when the Senator could well have -shown a desire to harmonize and conciliate, his vote was found in the -negative. Again, the Senator from Massachusetts had put forth a paper -calculated to excite great distrust in the body of the people affected -by it. He alluded to the resolutions adopted at a meeting held in Boston -on the subject of slavery, of which the gentleman was said to be the -author, in which it was declared that Congress had the power to regulate -the transfer of slaves from one State to another. Mr. C. said that he -had addressed the Senate but seldom, and as he wished to be heard on -this subject more at large, when his health was better and under more -favorable circumstances, he hoped the Senate would indulge him by a -postponement. - -Mr. Webster said that he had heard the remarks of the Senator from -Georgia (Mr. Cuthbert) with attention and with respect; and considering -his speech of a personal character, it became him to notice it; but as -the gentleman proposed to discuss this subject more at large when his -health was better, and, as he said, under circumstances less tending to -irritation, he should postpone his reply till then. He should hear the -gentleman with pleasure, and he looked forward to it with much -solicitude, and should endeavor to reply to him according to his best -abilities. Mr. W. then entered into a lengthy reply to the remarks of -Mr. Buchanan, in the course of which he contended that the law was -unnecessary, because the States had at present the power to punish the -deputy postmasters who should circulate incendiary publications in -violation of their laws. - -Mr. Buchanan did not rise again to argue the question. He did not feel -any petty desire to have the last word. He should now merely remark that -the Senator from Massachusetts, in his last observations, had done -nothing more than again to restate his proposition, without offering any -new argument in its support. He reminded him of another powerful man, in -the ancient time, who was condemned to roll a large stone to the top of -a mountain, which was always falling back upon him, and which he never -could accomplish. The gentleman’s position was one which even his great -powers did not enable him to maintain. - -Mr. B. should not again have risen but for the purpose of making a -single remark. The Senator from Massachusetts had just expressed the -opinion that deputy postmasters could be punished, under State -authority, for circulating inflammatory pamphlets and papers in -violation of State laws. If this be true, then all the power over the -post-office which we confer by this bill already exists in the States. -The effect of it, then, will be nothing more than to express our assent -to the exercise of a power over deputy postmasters by the States, which -the gentleman admits to exist already. Upon this principle there can be -no objection to the adoption of the present measure. - -Mr. Cuthbert only rose to repeat the request that the Senate would, by -the postponement of the subject to a short day, allow him an opportunity -of being heard on it when his health was better. - -Mr. C. then moved to lay the bill on the table; which motion was lost. - -The bill was then rejected by the following vote: - -Yeas—Messrs. Black, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Cuthbert, Grundy, King of -Alabama, King of Georgia, Mangum, Moore, Nicholas, Porter, Preston, -Rives, Robinson, Tallmadge, Walker, White and Wright—19. - -Nays—Messrs. Benton, Clay, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing -of Ohio, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Hubbard, Kent, Knight, Leigh, McKean, -Morris, Naudain, Niles, Prentiss, Ruggles, Shepley, Southard, Swift, -Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, and Webster—25. - -During this session of Congress (1836), Michigan sought admission into -the Union. The following speech was made by Mr. Buchanan on the first of -April, in reply to some of the arguments against the admission of that -State: - -MR. PRESIDENT: Nothing was more remote from my intention, when I closed -my remarks on Wednesday last, than again to address you on the subject -of the admission of Michigan into the Union; but my argument on that -occasion has been so strongly assailed by the Senator from New Jersey -(Mr. Southard), and other gentlemen, that I feel myself almost -constrained to reply. Even under this strong necessity, I would not now -trespass upon your time, if I believed I should thus provoke a -protracted debate, and thereby prevent the decision of the question -before we adjourn this afternoon. - -I shall undertake to demonstrate, notwithstanding all that has been -said, that under the ordinance of 1787, aliens who were residents of the -Northwestern Territory, had a clear right to exercise the elective -franchise. - -The territory ceded by Virginia to the United States was sufficiently -extensive for an immense empire. The parties to this compact of cession -contemplated that it would form five sovereign States of this Union. At -that early period we had just emerged from our revolutionary struggle, -and none of the jealousy was then felt against foreigners, and -particularly against Irish foreigners, which now appears to haunt some -gentlemen. There had then been no attempts made to get up a native -American party in this country. The blood of the gallant Irish had -flowed freely upon every battle-field in defence of the liberties which -we now enjoy. Besides, the Senate will well recollect that the ordinance -was passed before the adoption of our present Constitution, and whilst -the power of naturalization remained with the several States. In some, -and perhaps in all of them, it required so short a residence, and so -little trouble, to be changed from an alien to a citizen, that the -process could be performed without the least difficulty. I repeat that -no jealousy whatever then existed against foreigners. - -What, at that early period, was the condition of the vast Territory, -part of which has been formed into the State of Michigan? It was a -wilderness and a frontier. The wise men of the old Congress who framed -this ordinance desired to promote its population, and to render it a -barrier against foreign invasion. They were willing that all persons, -whether citizens of any of the States, or foreigners, who should -establish a fixed residence in the Territory, and become the owners of a -freehold, might not only enjoy the privilege of voting, but that of -holding offices. In regard to the construction of the ordinance itself, -I shall not follow in detail the argument of the Senator from New -Jersey. Indeed, I do not consider it a question for construction. The -language is so plain, that he who runs may read. No ingenuity can cast -the slightest shade of doubt over it. - -The ordinance declares that “so soon as there shall be five thousand -_free male inhabitants_ of full age, in the district, upon giving proof -thereof to the governor, they shall receive authority, with time and -place, to elect representatives from their counties or townships, to -represent them in the general assembly; provided that, for every five -hundred _free male inhabitants_, there shall be one representative, and -so on, progressively, with the number of free male inhabitants, shall -the right of representation increase, until the number of -representatives shall amount to twenty-five; after which the number and -proportion of representatives shall be regulated by the legislature; -provided, that no person be eligible or qualified to act as a -representative, _unless he shall have been a citizen of one of the -United States three years, and be a resident in the district, or unless -he shall have resided in the district three years_; and in either case, -shall likewise hold in his own right, in fee simple, two hundred acres -of land within the same; provided also, that a freehold of fifty acres -of land in the district, _having been a citizen of one of the States, -and being resident in the district, or the like freehold and two years -residence in the district, shall be necessary to qualify a man as an -elector of a representative_.” - -Now, sir, I have said that this language is too plain for construction. -When had the people of this Territory the right to elect -representatives? Was it when there were five thousand free male -_citizens_ within its borders? By no means; but as soon as there were -that number of _free male inhabitants_, whether citizens or not. Who -were entitled to vote at these elections? _They_, referring directly and -immediately to the _five thousand free male inhabitants of full age_. - -The subsequent portion of the clause which I have just read, makes this -question, if possible, still plainer. It divides those capable of being -elected representatives, as well as the electors, into two distinct -classes, conferring advantages, in both cases, upon those inhabitants -who had been citizens of one of the States for a period of three years. -If a candidate for the House of Representatives had been “a citizen of -one of the United States three years,” he was eligible, although he -might not have been a resident of the Territory for more than a single -day. Nothing more, in this case, is required than that he should be a -resident. No period of residence was necessary. If the candidate, on the -other hand, belonged to the second class—if he had been a naturalized -citizen of one of the States for less than three years, or if he still -continued to be an alien, in order to render him eligible as a -representative, he must “have resided in the district three years.” In -short, if he had been a citizen for three years, it was no matter how -brief his residence might have been; but if “a free male inhabitant” of -any other description, a residence of three years was indispensable. A -similar distinction prevails in regard to the electors. “A citizen of -any of the States, if a resident of the district but for a single day, -had a right to exercise the elective franchise. If, on the other hand, -he were not a citizen, “two years residence in the district” was -required. - -The property qualification was the same both for citizens and for other -residents. - -[Mr. Buchanan here read other portions of the ordinance to prove that -its framers were careful in their use of terms, and always distinguished -with great precision, between the use of the words “_free male -inhabitants_,” and “citizens of one of the United States,” etc. He also -referred, as a further proof of his position, to the language of that -portion of the ordinance which provides for the election of the -legislative council.] - -Now, sir, said Mr. B., have I not clearly established the position, -that, under this ordinance, aliens were entitled to elect and to be -elected, provided they had resided a sufficient time in the territory, -and were possessed of the necessary freehold qualification? If I can -comprehend the meaning of the plainest English words, neither doubt nor -difficulty can longer rest upon this question. - -But it has been urged that in order to become a freeholder, a person -must first have been a citizen of one of the States. In reply, I might -content myself by saying that this is begging the question. It is -assuming the very proposition to be proved. But I shall give this -objection two answers. In the first place, although I have become -somewhat rusty in my legal knowledge, yet I feel perfectly safe in -asserting, that, under the strict principles of the common law of -England, an alien may purchase real estate, may hold real estate, may -transmit real estate to his heirs, or devise it by his will. His title -is good against all mankind, except the crown; and can only be divested -by what in technical language is termed “an office found” in favor of -the king. Admitting that the Government in this country possessed the -same right, they have, in the most solemn terms, abandoned it, by -holding out inducements, under the ordinance, to foreigners, to become -the proprietors of real estate within the Northwestern Territory. - -An answer still more conclusive may be given to this objection. The old -Congress which framed the ordinance had the unquestionable power to -enable aliens to purchase and hold real estate. It was their policy to -promote the settlement of this Territory; and for this purpose they have -plainly declared, by the ordinance, that aliens, or in other words, that -any free male inhabitant, might hold real estate. Even at this day -aliens, without any restriction, purchase lands from the United States. -To lure them to make purchases, as we have done, and then to attempt to -forfeit their estates, would be a violation of every principle of -justice and public faith. - -The Congress of the United States have repeatedly, in relation to Ohio, -Indiana, and Illinois, placed the same construction on this ordinance -which I have done. I shall not exhaust either myself, or the Senate, by -referring to more than one or two of these instances. In April, 1802, -when Congress passed the act authorizing the people of Ohio to form a -constitution and State government, it became necessary to prescribe the -qualifications of the electors of delegates to the convention. They -performed this duty in the fourth section of that act. It declares as -follows: “That all male citizens of the United States who shall have -arrived at full age, and resided within the said Territory at least one -year previous to the day of election, and shall have paid a territorial -or county tax, _and all persons having, in other respects, the legal -qualifications to vote for representatives in the general assembly of -the territory_, be, and they are hereby, authorized to choose -representatives to form a convention.” - -Who were these persons having, in other respects, the legal -qualifications to vote for Territorial representatives? Let the -ordinance itself answer this question. They were free male persons, not -citizens of the United States, who held a freehold in fifty acres of -land within the Territory, and had resided there for two years. -Congress, actuated by the more liberal and enlightened spirit of the -age, in the year 1802, dispensed with the freehold qualification in -regard to citizens of the United States. They suffered it to remain, -however, in relation to those persons within the Territory who were not -citizens: but who possessed the legal qualifications, in other respects, -to vote for Territorial representatives. - -I shall merely refer to another instance in the case of Illinois. On the -20th May, 1812, Congress passed an act to extend the right of suffrage -in that Territory. Under this act, no freehold was necessary, in any -case, to the exercise of the elective franchise. The spirit of the age -had corrected this error in politics. I am glad of it. Our own -experience has taught us that the citizen, in humble circumstances, who -pays his personal tax, feels as deep an interest in the welfare of the -country, and would make as many sacrifices to promote its prosperity and -glory, as the man who has an income of thousands from his real estate. -Wealth has never been, and never can be, a true standard of patriotism. -By the first section of this act, Congress declared that “_each and -every free white male person_, who shall have attained the age of -twenty-one years, and who shall have paid a county or Territorial tax, -and who shall have resided one year in said Territory previous to any -general election, and be, at the time of such election, a resident -thereof, shall be entitled to vote for members of the legislative -council and house of representatives for the said Territory.” You -perceive, sir, that Congress, by this act, no longer retained the -distinction which they had established in regard to Ohio, between -citizens of the United States and persons in other respects entitled to -vote for members of the Territorial legislature. They are all blended -together into the same mass, and the elective franchise is conferred -upon them all, under the denomination of free white male persons, who -have paid taxes and resided one year in the Territory. The phrase -citizens of the United States does not once occur in the act. In the -second and third sections these free white male persons are denominated -citizens of the Territory, not citizens of the United States. Under the -ordinance of 1787, they were, in fact, constituted citizens of the -Territory; and this phraseology is, therefore, perfectly correct. - -The Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Southard) has undertaken the Herculean -task of proving that neither the ordinance nor the act of 1802, in -relation to Ohio, nor the act to which I have just referred, nor the -other similar acts conferred upon any persons not citizens of the United -States the right of voting. How far he has been successful, I shall -leave for the Senate to judge. - -These portions of the ordinance to which I have heretofore referred were -subject to the control of Congress. They have been modified and changed -in several instances, some of which have been referred to and commented -upon in this debate. But I now come to speak of one of those articles of -the ordinance, essential to the correct decision of this question, which -is placed beyond the power of Congress. To use its own emphatic -language, they “shall be considered as articles of compact between the -original States and the people and States in the said Territory, and -forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent.” This solemn -agreement has been confirmed by the Constitution of the United States. -No person either denies or doubts the sacred character and the binding -force of this contract. The fifth of these articles of this ordinance -declares as follows: “And whenever any of the said States shall have -_sixty thousand free inhabitants therein_, such State shall 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; and, so far as it can be consistent with the general interest -of the confederacy, such admission shall be allowed at an earlier -period, and when there may be a less number of free inhabitants in the -State than sixty thousand.” - -Now, sir, under this provision, these sixty thousand free inhabitants -had a right to frame a constitution whenever they pleased. They had a -right to determine which of them should be electors of delegates to -their own convention for that purpose, and which of them should not. It -rested solely within their own discretion, whether the elective -franchise should be confined to the citizens of the United States, or be -extended to other inhabitants of the Territory. It was the right and the -duty of Congress first to determine the boundaries of the States to be -formed within the limits of the Northwestern Territory. Had this duty -been performed, the free inhabitants of Michigan, after they amounted to -sixty thousand, would have become a distinct political community under -the ordinance. They would have possessed the sovereign right to form a -constitution; and if the constitution were republican, and in conformity -to the ordinance, they might have demanded admission, by their -delegates, into the Congress of the United States. They could not have -been refused without a direct violation of the solemnly pledged faith of -the nation. If Congress had objected that persons, not citizens of the -United States, had been permitted to vote at the election for delegates, -they might have triumphantly presented this ordinance, and declared that -the question was settled by its terms and its spirit; that the time had -arrived when they were entitled to shake off their Territorial -dependence, and assume an equal rank with the other States of the Union. -Throughout the ordinance there is a marked distinction between “free -inhabitants” and “citizens of the United States.” - -It is true that Congress have never yet determined the boundaries of the -State of Michigan; but their omission to do so could not affect, in any -degree, the right of the free male inhabitants to vote for delegates to -the convention which framed their constitution. As soon as Michigan -shall have been admitted into the Union, the boundaries of Wisconsin -will then be irrevocably determined. It will be the last of the five -States into which the Northwestern Territory can be divided under the -terms of the ordinance. When that Territory shall contain sixty thousand -free inhabitants, they will have an absolute right to demand admission, -as a State, into the Union, and we cannot refuse to admit them without -violating the public faith. Still, I should not advise them to frame a -constitution without a previous act of Congress. - -The precedent in the case of Tennessee, on which I commented when I -addressed the Senate on Wednesday last, has completely silenced all -opposition in regard to the necessity of a previous act of Congress to -enable the people of Michigan to form a State constitution. It now seems -to be conceded, that our subsequent approbation is equivalent to our -previous action. This can no longer be doubted. We have the -unquestionable power of waiving any irregularities in the method of -framing the constitution, had any such existed. It is wiser, I admit, -for Congress, in the first instance, to pass such an act; but, after -they had refused to do so, from year to year, the people of Michigan had -no other alternative but either to take the matter into their own hands, -or abandon the hope of admission into the Union, within any reasonable -time. - -But I am not done with this Tennessee precedent. - -It will be recollected that when North Carolina ceded to the United -States the territory which now composes the State of Tennessee, it was -specially stipulated that the inhabitants within the same should “enjoy -all the privileges, benefits and advantages,” set forth in the ordinance -for the government of the Northwestern Territory. This provision makes -the case of Tennessee one precisely in point with the present. I would -ask, then, who voted at the election for delegates to frame the -constitution of Tennessee? Let the proclamation of Governor Blount, -issued in obedience to an act of the Territorial legislature, answer -this question. He declares “that all free males (not free male -citizens,) twenty-one years of age and upwards,” shall be entitled to -vote. Under this proclamation every free male inhabitant of the -Territory had a right to vote, no matter how short a time his -inhabitancy may have continued. In this respect it differs from the -Territorial law of Michigan, which requires a previous residence of -three months. - -With a full knowledge of these facts, General Washington, in his message -to Congress of the 8th of April, 1796, on the subject of the admission -of Tennessee into the Union, declares that “among the privileges, -benefits and advantages thus secured to the inhabitants of the Territory -south of the river Ohio, appear to be the right of forming a permanent -constitution and state of government, and of admission as a State by its -delegates into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing -with the original States in all respects whatever, when it should have -therein sixty thousand free inhabitants; provided the constitution and -government so to be formed should be republican, and in conformity to -the principles contained in the articles of the said ordinance.” - -The State of Tennessee was accordingly admitted. At this early day, when -the ordinance was better understood than it can be at present, no -objection was made from any quarter, so far as I can learn, that -delegates to the convention which formed the constitution of that State, -were voted for by inhabitants who were not citizens of the United -States. Certain it is, that no such question was raised by General -Washington. Even Mr. King, whose report was decidedly adverse to the -admission of this State, never, in the most distant manner, adverts to -this objection which has now been so strongly urged by Senators. - -I stated when I last addressed the Senate, as a proposition clearly -established, that under the ordinance, the States formed out of the -Northwestern Territory had a right to confer the elective franchise upon -the inhabitants resident within them at the time of the adoption of -their constitutions, whether they were citizens or not. I then also -asserted, that the States of Ohio and Illinois had not only exercised -this power to the extent which Michigan had done, but had gone much -further. They had not, like Michigan, confined the elective franchise to -inhabitants actually resident within their respective States, at the -time of the adoption of their constitutions; but had made a general -provision by which all such inhabitants, though not citizens, would be -entitled to vote in all future time. These positions, which I thought -impregnable, have been violently assailed; and it has been contended -that, under the provisions of these constitutions, no persons, except -citizens of the United States, are entitled to vote. This renders it -necessary that I should again turn to these constitutions. The first -section of the fourth article of the constitution of Ohio declares, that -“in all elections, _all white male inhabitants_, above the age of -twenty-one years, having resided in the State one year next preceding -the election, and who have paid, or are charged with, a State or county -tax, shall enjoy the right of an elector; but no person shall be -entitled to vote, except in the county or district in which he shall -actually reside at the time of the election.” The fifth section of the -same article varies the expression, and confers the right of voting “_on -white male persons_,” who are compelled to labor on the roads. These -“white male inhabitants,” or “white male persons,” are not required to -be citizens of the United States. The terms are as general as they can -be. They embrace all persons, whether citizens of the United States or -not, who have resided within the State for one year, and are in other -respects qualified. Besides, it would be easy to show, by adverting to -other parts of this constitution, that the framers of it, in several -cases, when they intended to confine its benefits to citizens of the -United States, have so declared in express terms. We have heard it -stated that by a judicial decision, the right to vote has been -restricted to citizens of the United States. This decision has not been -produced. I should be very much pleased to see it. I am aware that -judicial construction can work wonders; but if any court has decided -that “all white male inhabitants,” or “white male persons,” are -restricted in their meaning to white male citizens of the United States, -it is a stretch of judicial construction which surpasses anything of -which I could have conceived. - -The constitution of Illinois is still more general in its provisions. It -declares that “in all elections, _all white male inhabitants_, above the -age of twenty-one years, having resided in the State six months, next -preceding the election, shall enjoy the right of an elector; but no -person shall be entitled to vote except in the county or district in -which he shall actually reside at the time of the election.” We have -been informed by the Senators from Illinois, that the practice of that -State has always conformed to the plain meaning of the constitution. At -this day, any alien, who has resided within that State for six months, -is in the full enjoyment of the elective franchise. Indeed, this -privilege has induced aliens to settle in that State in preference to -others where they cannot vote until after they have become citizens of -the United States. - -Now, sir, I wish to be fairly understood upon this question. As a -general principle, I do not think that any State of this Union ought to -permit any person to exercise the right of an elector who is not either -a native or a naturalized citizen of the United States. There may have -been, and I think there was, a propriety in conferring the elective -franchise upon the inhabitants of the Territory, actually resident -therein, although not citizens, who had a right under the ordinance to -participate in the formation of the constitution. Beyond this, the -power, even under the ordinance, is extremely doubtful. Michigan has -wisely confined herself within these limits. She has not followed the -example of Ohio and Illinois. These States have been admitted into the -Union, notwithstanding the extravagant provisions in their constitutions -in favor of foreigners. Would it not then be extremely ungracious to -exclude Michigan, when no foreigner can ever hereafter enjoy the right -of voting, except such as were resident within the limits of the State -at the time of the formation of her constitution? - -According to the census, it would appear that not more than from five to -six hundred aliens could have been in that situation. At the present -time it is probable that many of these have become naturalized citizens. -The evil, if it be one, is very small. Within a short period it will -entirely disappear. Would it be wise, would it be politic, would it be -statesman-like, to annul all that has been done by the convention of -Michigan, merely for this reason? Ought we, on this account, to defer -the final settlement of the disputed boundary between Ohio and Michigan, -and thus again give rise to anarchy and confusion, and perhaps to the -shedding of blood? Do you feel confident, that the people of Michigan, -after you have violated their rights, by refusing to admit them into the -Union at this time, would ever act under your law authorizing them to -form a new constitution? We must all desire to see this unfortunate -boundary question settled; and the passage of this bill presents the -best, if not the only means, of accomplishing a result so desirable. - -Have the people of Michigan, or any portion of them, ever complained of -this part of their constitution? I would ask, by what authority have the -Senators from Ohio and New Jersey (Messrs. Ewing and Southard) raised -this objection, whilst the people themselves are content? Even if they -did commit an error in this respect, we ought to treat them as children, -and not as enemies. It is the part of greatness and magnanimity to pass -over unimportant errors of judgment committed by those who are, in some -degree, dependent upon us. It would, indeed, be a severe measure of -justice, for the Congress of the United States, after having admitted -Ohio and Illinois into the Union, to close the door of admission against -Michigan. This, in truth, would be straining at a gnat, and swallowing a -camel. - -Suppose you deprive the people of Michigan of a territory to which they -all believe, however erroneously, they have a right, and transfer it to -Ohio, and then drive them from your door and refuse to admit them into -the Union; can any Senator here view the probable consequences with -composure? They are a high-spirited and manly people. You cannot blame -them for that. They are bone of your bone, and flesh of your flesh. They -have been taught, by your example, to resist what they believe to be -oppression. Will they patiently submit to your decree? Will they tamely -surrender up to Ohio that territory of which they have been in -possession for thirty years? Their past history proves conclusively that -they will maintain what they believe to be their rights, to the death. -You may have civil war as the direct consequence of your vote this day. -Should the amendment of the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Ewing) prevail, -whilst it will leave unsettled the question of boundary so important to -his own State, it may, and probably will produce, scenes of bloodshed -and civil war along the boundary line. I have expressed the opinion, -that Congress possess the power of annexing the territory in dispute to -the State of Ohio, and that it is expedient to exercise it. The only -mode of extorting a reluctant consent from the people of Michigan to -this disposition, is to make it a condition of their admission, under -their present constitution, into the Union. The bill proposes to do so, -and, in my humble judgment, Ohio is deeply interested in its passage. - -I shall now, following the example of my friend from New York (Mr. -Wright), proceed to make some suggestions upon another point. They are -intended merely as suggestions, for I can say with truth I have formed -no decided opinion upon the subject. A friend called to see me last -evening, and attempted to maintain the proposition that the several -States, under the Constitution of the United States, and independent of -the ordinance applicable to the Northwestern Territory, had the power of -conferring the right to vote upon foreigners resident within their -territories. This opinion was at war with all my former impressions. He -requested me to do as he had done, and to read over the Constitution of -the United States carefully, with a view to this question. I have -complied with his request, and shall now throw out a few suggestions -upon this subject, merely to elicit the opinion of others. - -The older I grow, the more I am inclined to be what is called “a State -rights man.” The peace and security of this Union depend upon giving to -the Constitution a literal and fair construction, such as would be -placed upon it by a plain, intelligent man, and not by ingenious -constructions, to increase the powers of this Government, and thereby -diminish those of the States. The rights of the States, reserved to them -by that instrument, ought ever to be held sacred. If then the -Constitution leaves to them to decide according to their own discretion, -unrestricted and unlimited, who shall be electors, it follows as a -necessary consequence that they may, if they think proper, confer upon -resident aliens the right of voting. - -It has been supposed, and is perhaps generally believed, that this power -has been abridged by that clause in the Constitution which declares, -that “the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and -immunities of citizens of the several States.” Does then a State, by -conferring upon a person, not a citizen of the United States, the -privilege of voting, necessarily constitute him a citizen of such State? -Is the elective franchise so essentially connected with the citizenship, -that the one cannot exist without the other? This is the question. If it -be so, no State can exercise this power; because, no State, by bestowing -upon an alien the privilege of voting, can make him a citizen of that -State, and thereby confer upon him “the privileges and immunities of -citizens of the several States.” Citizens are either natives of the -country, or they are naturalized. To Congress exclusively belongs the -power of naturalization; and I freely admit, that no foreigner can -become a citizen of the United States, but by complying with the -provisions of the acts of Congress upon this subject. But still we are -brought back to the question, may not a State bestow upon a resident -alien the right to vote, within its limits, as a personal privilege, -without conferring upon him the other privileges of citizenship, or ever -intending to render it obligatory upon the other States to receive him -as a citizen? Might not Virginia refuse to a foreigner who had voted in -Illinois, without having been naturalized, “the privileges and -immunities” of one of her citizens, without any violation of the -Constitution of the United States? Would such an alien have any pretext -for claiming, under the Constitution of the United States, the right to -vote within a State where citizens of the United States alone are -voters? - -It is certain that the Constitution of the United States, in the -broadest terms, leaves to the States the qualifications of their own -electors, or rather it does not restrict them in any manner upon this -question. The second section of the first article provides “that the -House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every -second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in -each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the -most numerous branch of the State Legislature.” By the first section of -the second article, “each State shall appoint, in such manner as the -Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole -number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be -entitled in the Congress.” Both these provisions seem to recognize in -the States the most absolute discretion in deciding who shall be -qualified electors. There is no declaration or intimation throughout the -whole instrument that these electors shall be citizens of the United -States. Are the States not left to exercise this discretion in the same -sovereign manner they did before they became parties to the Federal -Constitution? There is at least strong plausibility in the argument, -especially when we consider that the framers of the Constitution in -order more effectually to guard the reserved rights of the States, -inserted a provision, “that the powers not delegated to the United -States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are -reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” - -Without any stretch of imagination, we might conceive a case in which -this question would shake our Union to the very centre. Suppose that the -decision of the next Presidential election should depend upon the vote -of Illinois; and it could be made to appear, that the aliens who voted -under the Constitution in that State, had turned the scale in favor of -the successful candidate. What would then be the consequence? Have we a -right to rejudge her justice? to interfere with her sovereign rights? to -declare that her Legislature could not appoint electors of President and -Vice President in such manner as they thought proper, and to annul the -election? - -It is curious to remark, that except in a few instances, the -Constitution of the United States has not prescribed that the officers -elected or appointed under its authority, shall be citizens; and we all -know in practice, that the Senate have been constantly in the habit of -confirming the nominations of foreigners as consuls of the United -States. They have repeatedly done so, I believe, in regard to other -officers. - -I repeat that, on this question, I have formed no fixed opinion one way -or the other. On the other points of the case, I entertain the clearest -conviction, that Michigan is entitled to admission into the Union. - -I have thus completed all I intend to say upon this subject. I have been -most reluctantly drawn a second time into this debate. I had the -admission of Arkansas specially entrusted to my care. Few, if any, of -the objections urged against Michigan, are applicable to Arkansas; but I -could not conceal from myself the fact, that the admission of the one -depended upon that of the other; and I am equally anxious to receive -both the sisters. - -The people of Texas were at this time engaged in their revolutionary -effort to make themselves independent of Mexico. It was deemed necessary -to authorize the President of the United States to accept the services -of volunteers for the defence of the frontiers. On a bill introduced for -this purpose, and which had passed the House of Representatives, Mr. -Buchanan, on the 4th of May, said: - -He had no doubt but that the Government of the United States, in regard -to Mexico, had pursued, and would pursue, the course which had been -sanctioned by all its experience in relation to questions of this kind. -One principle had been established in the political history of the -country; had grown with its growth, and strengthened with its strength; -and without knowing what the President had done or would do in this -matter, he had no doubt but he would strictly adhere to that established -principle in our institutions, never to interfere with the internal -policy or domestic concerns of foreign nations. The famous proclamation -of neutrality of General Washington first asserted that principle, and -to it our Government had always adhered. We consider, said Mr. B., all -nations “enemies in war, and in peace, friends.” - -In regard to Mexico, he considered Santa Anna as an usurper. The federal -constitution, established for the Republic of Mexico, and which Texas, -as a part of that Republic, had sworn to support, had been trampled on -by him, and Texas, in his eyes, and in the eyes of all mankind, was -justified in rebelling against him. Whether the Texans acted -consistently with a true policy at the time, in declaring their -independence, he should not discuss, nor should he decide; but as a man -and an American, he should be rejoiced to see them successful in -maintaining their liberties, and he trusted in God they would be so. He -would, however, leave them to rely on their own bravery, with every hope -and prayer that the God of battles would shield them with his -protection. - -If Santa Anna excited the Indians within our territory to deeds of -massacre and blood; if he should excite a spirit among them which he -cannot restrain; and if, in consequence, the blood of our women and -children on the frontier shall flow, he undoubtedly ought to be held -responsible. Mr. B. saw a strong necessity for sending a force to the -frontiers, not only to restrain the natural disposition of the Indians -to deeds of violence, but because they could place no confidence in a -man who had so little command of his temper, who had shown so cruel and -sanguinary a disposition as Santa Anna had. He was for having a force -speedily sent to that frontier, and a force of mounted men or dragoons, -as suggested by the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Linn), but he was against -interfering in the war now raging in Texas, unless an attack should be -made on us. - -If it were left for him to decide to which bill a preference should be -given by the Senate, he would first take up the bill providing for this -additional force for the protection of the frontiers; but he had been -instructed by an authority which he was bound to respect and obey, and -he must, therefore, vote to take up the land bill. He should vote with -the warmest friends of that bill in its favor till it was either carried -through or defeated. To-day or to-morrow, the land bill would be finally -disposed of; it now stood in the way of everything else; and he would -then be for proceeding with the appropriation bills as rapidly as -possible. He should have said nothing about instructions, had not this -question of preference been brought up. After the decision of the land -bill, he should give his hearty support to carry through the bills -necessary for the defence of the country, with as much expedition as -possible. - - IN SENATE, MONDAY, MAY 9, 1836. - -Mr. Preston presented the petition of a number of the citizens of -Philadelphia, on the subject of the affairs of Texas; and praying -Congress to acknowledge the independence of that country. - -Mr. Buchanan said he had received several memorials from the city of -Philadelphia, of the same character as those which had been presented by -the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Preston). He had intended to -present them this morning to the Senate, but was prevented from doing so -at the proper time by an accidental circumstance. It was also his -intention to have accompanied their presentation by some remarks. These -he thought best to offer now, rather than to wait until to-morrow -morning, and then become instrumental in getting up another debate. - -These memorials asked Congress “to recognize the independence of Texas, -and at such time, and in such manner, as may be deemed proper, interpose -to terminate the conflict which now rages in that country.” - -In some remarks, which he had submitted to the Senate a few days since, -and which, like all other proceedings in this body, had been much -misrepresented abroad, he had indulged the feelings of a man and an -American citizen. What he then uttered were the sentiments of his own -heart, in relation to the existing trouble in Texas. But when he was -called on as a Senator to recognize the independence of that country, he -thought it prudent to refer back to the conduct of our ancestors, when -placed in similar circumstances, and to derive lessons of wisdom from -their example. If there was any one principle of our public policy which -had been well settled—one which had been acted upon by every -administration, and which had met the approbation not only of this -country, but of every civilized government with which we have -intercourse, it was that we should never interfere in the domestic -concerns of other nations. Recognizing in the people of every nation the -absolute right to adopt such forms of government as they thought proper, -we had always preserved the strictest neutrality between the parties, in -every country, whilst engaged in civil war. We had left all nations -perfectly free, so far as we were concerned, to establish, to maintain, -or to change their forms of government, according to their own sovereign -will and pleasure. It would indeed be surprising, and more than that, it -would be unnatural, if the sympathies of the American people should not -be deeply, earnestly enlisted in favor of those who drew the sword for -liberty throughout the world, no matter where it was raised to strike. -Beyond this we had never proceeded. - -The peaceful influence of our example upon other nations was much -greater—the cause of free government was thus more efficiently promoted -than if we should waste the blood and treasure of the people of the -United States in foreign wars, waged even to maintain the sacred cause -of liberty. The world must be persuaded, it could not be conquered. -Besides, said Mr. B., we can never, with any proper regard for the -welfare of our constituents, devote their energies and their resources -to the cause of planting and sustaining free institutions among the -people of other nations. - -Acting upon these principles, we had always recognized existing -governments _de facto_, whether they were constitutional or despotic. We -had the same amicable relations with despotisms as with free -governments; because we had no right to quarrel with people of any -nation on account of the form of government which they might think -proper to adopt or to sanction. It was their affair, not ours. We would -not tolerate such interference from abroad; and we ought to demean -ourselves towards foreign nations as we should require them to act -towards ourselves. - -A very striking illustration of this principle had been presented, -during the present administration, in the case of Portugal. We -recognized Don Miguel’s government, because he was _de facto_ in -possession of the throne, apparently with the consent of the Portuguese -people. In this respect, Mr. B. believed, we stood alone, or nearly -alone, among the nations of the earth. When he was expelled from that -country, and the present queen seemed to be firmly seated upon the -throne, we had no difficulty, pursuing our established policy, in -recognizing her government. - -A still more striking case, and one to the very point in question, had -occurred during Mr. Monroe’s administration. The Spanish provinces, -throughout the whole continent of America, had raised the standard of -rebellion against the king of Spain. They were struggling for liberty -against oppression. The feelings of the American people were devotedly -enlisted in their favor. Our ardent wishes and our prayers for their -success, continued throughout the whole long and bloody conflict. But we -took no other part in their cause; and we rendered them no assistance, -except the strong moral influence exerted over the world by our -well-known feelings and opinions in their favor. When, said Mr. B., did -we recognize their independence? Not till after they had achieved it by -their arms; not until the contest was over, and victory had perched upon -their banners; not until the good fight had been fought and won. We then -led the van in acknowledging their independence. But until they were -independent in fact, we resisted every effort and every eloquent appeal -which was made in their behalf, to induce us to depart from the settled -policy of the country. When the fact of their actual independence was -established; then, and not till then, did we acknowledge it. - -He would rejoice should similar success attend the arms of the Texans. -He trusted they would yet conquer their independence against the -myrmidons of Santa Anna. In that event, there was no man in the country -who would vote more cheerfully to recognize it than himself. Until that -time should arrive, he must continue to act upon the firmly established -principle which had been our guide for nearly half a century. - -Mr. B. believed that no President of the United States had ever been -more strongly convinced of the necessity of maintaining this principle -inviolate than General Jackson. His whole conduct towards foreign -governments had made this manifest. Whilst, said Mr. B., he requires -justice from all, he treats all with justice. In his annual message, at -the commencement of the present session, he informed Congress that -instructions had been given to the district attorneys of the United -States, to prosecute all persons who might attempt to violate our -neutrality in the civil war between Mexico and Texas. He also stated -that he had apprised the government of Mexico that we should require the -integrity of our territory to be scrupulously respected by both parties. -He thus declared to the world, not only that we had determined to be -neutral between the parties, but that our neutrality must be respected -by both. This afforded abundant evidence of his disposition neither to -interfere with the internal concerns of other nations, nor to submit to -any violation of the law of nations by them. Mr. B. entertained not a -doubt that the line of conduct which he had marked out for himself, in -the beginning, he would pursue until the end, so far as the executive -Government was concerned. - -It was obviously necessary to concentrate a strong military force on the -confines of Texas, not only to enforce our neutrality, but to protect -the lives and property of our fellow-citizens. This had been done; but -the commanding general had been strictly prohibited from acting, except -on the defensive. - -Such a force was absolutely necessary to preserve inviolate our treaty -with Mexico. Under it, we were bound to maintain peace among the Indian -nations along the frontier of the two countries, and to restrain the -Indians within our territory by force, if that should become necessary, -from making war upon Mexico. This obligation was reciprocal and bound -both parties. If the Indians from Texas should be let slip upon our -frontier; if they, or Santa Anna, or any other power should attempt to -invade our territory, then every American would say, repel force by -force, and return blow for blow. Our cause and our quarrel would be -just. - -But, said Mr. B., let us not, by departing from our settled policy, give -rise to the suspicion that we have got up this war for the purpose of -wresting Texas from those to whom, under the faith of treaties, it -justly belongs. Since the treaty with Spain of 1819, there could no -longer be any doubt, but that this province was a part of Mexico. He was -sorry for it; but such was the undeniable fact. Let us then follow the -course which we had pursued, under similar circumstances, in all other -cases. - -Mr. B. said his blood boiled whilst contemplating the cruelties and the -barbarities which were said to have been committed by the Mexicans in -this contest. The heart sickened and revolted at such a spectacle. But, -as an American Senator, he could give the Texans nothing except his -prayers and his good wishes. - - IN SENATE, FRIDAY, MAY 20, 1836. - -Mr. Calhoun, from the Committee of Conference appointed on the part of -the Senate, to confer with a committee of the House on the disagreeing -votes of the two Houses as to the Senate’s amendment to the bill -authorizing the President to accept the services of ten thousand -volunteers for the defence of the western frontiers, reported that the -committees of the two Houses had had a meeting, but that they had not -been able to effect the objects for which they were appointed, having -sat the whole day without coming to any agreement whatever. - -Mr. King of Alabama (from the same committee) observed that it was true -that they had come to no agreement on the point at issue between the two -Houses, inasmuch as some gentlemen seemed to think that they had the -whole bill under consideration, and that they had the power to modify it -at pleasure. He hoped that when the Senate again appointed a committee -of conference, they would appoint gentlemen who would be willing to -confine their deliberations to the subject of disagreement, and not -think themselves authorized to take the range of the whole bill. - -Mr. Calhoun replied that the committee did confine themselves to the -subject of disagreement, until finding that there was no possibility of -coming to an agreement on that point, they entered into a more enlarged -discussion, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the bill could not -be so framed as to meet the concurrence of both Houses. His -understanding was, that when a committee of conference came to a -proposition that could not be agreed on, the whole subject was open to -them. - -Mr. King recollected exactly the state of the case. The proposition last -made was, that they should extend the term of service of the militia -force of the United States for a year, instead of its being a volunteer -militia force. This was the last subject of conference; and after -talking until half-past five o’clock, the committee found that they -could come to no agreement whatever. - -Mr. Buchanan said that he had been a member of the Committee of -Conference; and if a second committee should now be appointed, he hoped -he would be excused from serving upon it. He did not believe that the -appointment of the same committee by the Senate and the House could -result in any practical good. They had been busily engaged in the -Conference Chamber until a late hour yesterday, and when they had -separated, they were further, if possible, from agreeing, than when they -had first met. - -For his own part, he could not feel the force of the constitutional -objections which had been made by the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. -Calhoun). It was true that the amendment which had been proposed by the -Senate to the bill of the House was somewhat vague and ambiguous in its -terms. He had thought, at one time, during the conference, that we -should have agreed upon an amendment to the Senate’s amendment, which -would have made the bill much more explicit, and would have removed all -the constitutional objections of the gentlemen. When it came to the -final vote, he found that he had been mistaken. - -The amendment proposed in the Committee of Conference provided that none -of the officers should be appointed by the President, until the -volunteers were actually mustered into the service of the United States. -Until that moment, the companies which might be formed would thus be -considered as mere voluntary associations, under no pledge whatever, -except that of honor, to enter the service of their country. When once, -however, this pledge was redeemed—when they were mustered into the -service—they became a portion of the army of the United States for the -period of six or twelve months; and then there could not possibly be a -constitutional objection to the appointment of their officers by the -President. Congress possessed the power to raise armies in any manner -they thought proper. Whether they obtained soldiers by individual -enlistments, or whether the patriotic young men of the country chose to -associate together as volunteers, and come in masses, we had an equal -right to receive them. The one mode of obtaining soldiers was just as -constitutional as the other. - -The amendment which had been proposed, whilst it practically insured to -the companies the selection of their own company officers, did not -interfere with the constitutional powers of the President. The -volunteers themselves were to designate such officers, and if the -President approved of such designations, these officers would be -appointed. This would be the best and strongest recommendation which -could be presented to him; and, no doubt, he would always obey the -wishes of the companies, unless in cases where powerful and satisfactory -reasons existed to render it improper. - -Until these volunteers should actually enter the service, they would -continue to be militia men of the States, and liable to perform militia -duty in the States. Their character would not be changed. They would not -constitute a dormant standing army in the States, with officers -appointed by the President, as had been urged, but would be mere -associations, bound together by no law but that of honor. Such men would -always be ready to obey the call of their country in case of necessity. - -The Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun) did argue that it would be -a violation of the Constitution for the President to appoint these -officers without the previous advice and consent of the Senate. Whatever -doubt might have rested upon this point at the organization of our -Government, this power had been exercised, over and over again, ever -since the adoption of the Constitution, under all administrations. The -precedents were numerous. One act had been read which passed during the -late war, conferring upon the President, in express terms, the power of -appointing all the officers of the military force to be raised under its -provisions, but requiring him to submit these appointments to the Senate -for their approbation at the next session. The very same thing was -proposed to be done by this act, in regard to all the officers above the -rank of captain. - -He was afraid to trust his memory in attempting to state the proceedings -of the Committee of Conference. So much had been said, that he could -not, if he would, undertake to report it all. We did not confine -ourselves to the point of disagreement between the two Houses; but -almost every question relating to the military defence of the country -had been ably and eloquently discussed. He had derived much information -on this subject from the members of that committee. - -There was one fact which he would mention, and which demanded the -serious consideration of the country at the present crisis. A gallant -and distinguished officer, who was a member of the committee, (Gen. -Ripley) had stated, that, according to his recollection, the history of -our Indian wars did not present a single case in which a volunteer force -had been beaten by the Indians. Our disasters in this kind of warfare -had always been suffered by the regular troops. Our recent experience -was certainly in accordance with this statement. This important fact, -however, established the necessity of raising volunteer corps, in some -form or other, composed of the brave and hardy youth, accustomed to the -modes of Indian warfare, and who were able and willing to fight the -Indians, man to man, according to their own custom. Such men would best -protect our citizens from the ravages of the Indians, and would soon put -an end to the Creek war. - -He had said more than he intended, as his chief object in rising had -been to request that he might not be appointed a member of the new -Committee of Conference. - -Mr. Buchanan could not now but hope, after having heard the observations -of the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun), that a Committee of -Conference might yet agree upon some compromise which would be -acceptable to both Houses. He now believed, from what he had just heard -from several members of the other House, that another committee ought to -be appointed. - -The Senator from South Carolina had not, he believed, denied any of the -positions which he had stated. They did not materially differ as to -their constitutional views on this subject. His (Mr. B.’s) positions -were these: that any number of individuals within the States might -associate together, either in companies, battalions, or divisions, for -the purpose of entering the army of the United States, for six or for -twelve months, upon any contingency which might render their services -necessary; that these associations would be voluntary and not -compulsory; and would be held together by no tie but that sense of honor -which binds a man to enter the service of his country, after he has -declared, in the presence of the world, that such was his determination; -and that these volunteers, after having arrived at the place of -rendezvous, and after having been mustered into service, but not before, -became a part of the regular army of the United States; and the -President could then, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, -appoint their officers. At one period of the conference, he had believed -that the committee would arrive at these conclusions. - -One of the objections of the Senator from South Carolina was, that the -appointment of the captains of companies and other inferior officers -ought, like that of the superior officers, to be submitted to the -Senate. Mr. B. had been perfectly willing and was still willing to adopt -this modification. He could not, however, agree, nor did he understand -the gentleman now to insist upon it, that these offices could not be -filled without the previous advice of the Senate. Such a provision would -render the law perfectly nugatory. We might not, and probably would not, -be in session when these appointments must be made. The same necessity -which the gentleman alleges to have existed during the late war, for -authorizing the President to make appointments, during the recess of the -Senate, will exist in regard to the appointments to be made under this -act.—Besides, whatever might be our opinion in regard to the power of -the President, if the question were now, for the first time, submitted -to us, Congress have so often authorized him to make appointments, -during the recess, to be submitted to the Senate at its next session, -that this constitutional question must be considered as settled. - -As to the act of 1812, which had just been cited by the other Senator -from South Carolina (Mr. Preston), he thought it went too far. He would -not say that it was unconstitutional, because he had not examined the -subject sufficiently to express a positive opinion. This he would say, -however, that it did authorize the existence of a dormant military force -within the several States, commanded by officers appointed by the -President of the United States, and liable to be called into service at -any moment he might think proper. The individuals composing this force -were exempted from militia duty within the States. Upon the principles -contained in this act, the militia of the several States might be -subverted, and a national militia, under the command of national -officers, might be substituted in its stead. This would certainly be at -war with the spirit of the Constitution, which reserves to the States -respectively the appointment of the officers of the militia, and the -authority of training them according to the discipline prescribed by -Congress. The militia emphatically belongs to the States, and not to the -General Government; and it might be very dangerous for the States to -surrender their control over this force into the hands of Congress. - -Under the act cited by the gentleman, a portion of the militia was taken -from the control of the States, and relieved from the performance of -militia duty, whilst they remained in the heart of the country, mixed up -with the other citizens. This did seem to him to interfere with the -power of the States over their militia, contrary to the provisions of -the Constitution. But these objections did not apply to the bill before -them, nor to the amendment he had suggested. They had drawn a broad line -of separation between the force to be raised and the militia of the -States. What they proposed was, that these volunteers should associate -themselves together for the purpose of offering their services to their -country, and that when they arrived at their places of rendezvous, they -should enrol themselves, and be mustered into service as a part of the -regular army; but until then, that they should remain as they were, -citizens of the several States, liable to the performance of the militia -duty of the States. With these views, he was confident that a new -Committee of Conference might come to such an agreement as would be -acceptable to both Houses, and he therefore hoped that one would be -appointed. He was almost ashamed to say that he had never acquainted -himself sufficiently with the rules which governed the proceedings of a -Committee of Conference. His common sense, however, had taught him that -it was the duty of such a committee to confine itself to the point of -disagreement between the two Houses; but he had been informed by -gentlemen of great experience that the whole subject of the bill was -open to them. Acting upon this principle, they had got into a general -discussion as to the relative value of volunteer and regular as well as -common militia forces. He believed now that a Committee of Conference -might do some good, and that by steering clear of the constitutional -scruples of gentlemen, they might agree on some amendments that would -render the bill acceptable to both Houses, and thus enable them speedily -to adopt a measure so urgently demanded for the protection of the -suffering inhabitants of the frontiers. - -Mr. B. said, as he should not be a member of the new Committee of -Conference, he would read the amendment which had been so much discussed -in the old committee: - -“_Be it enacted_, That the said volunteers shall form themselves into -companies, and designate their company officers, who, if he approve of -such designations, shall be commissioned by the President, after they -shall have been mustered into service; and that the President be, and -hereby is, authorized to organize the volunteers so mustered into -service, as aforesaid, into battalions, squadrons, regiments, brigades -and divisions, as soon as the number of volunteers shall render such -organization, in his judgment, expedient, and shall then appoint the -necessary officers, which appointment shall be submitted to the Senate -at its next session.” - ------ - -Footnote 54: - - Dr. Parrish, Wm. Wharton, Joseph Foulke. - ------ - - - - - CHAPTER XIV. - 1837–1840. - -BILL TO PREVENT THE INTERFERENCE OF FEDERAL OFFICERS WITH - ELECTIONS—DEVOTION OF THE FOLLOWERS OF JACKSON—THE WHIG PARTY LESS - COMPACT IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE RIVALRY BETWEEN MR. CLAY AND MR. - WEBSTER—RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW OF THE BANK QUESTION—THE SPECIE - CIRCULAR—GREAT FINANCIAL DISASTERS. - - -Toward the close of General Jackson’s administration a bill was pending -in the Senate to prevent the interference of certain federal officers -with elections; a subject which has not yet lost its interest. On this -bill, on the 14th of February, 1839, Mr. Buchanan made the following -speech: - -MR. PRESIDENT: The question raised for discussion by the bill now before -the Senate, is very simple in its character. This bill proposes to -punish, by a fine of five hundred dollars—the one moiety payable to the -informer, and the other to the United States—and by a perpetual -disability to hold office under the United States, any officer of this -Government, below the rank of a district attorney, who “shall, by word, -message, or writing, or in any other manner whatsoever, endeavor to -persuade any elector to give, or dissuade any elector from giving, his -vote for the choice of any person to be elector of President and Vice -President of the United States,” or to be a Senator or Representative in -Congress, or to be a governor or lieutenant-governor, or senator or -representative, within any State of the Union, “or for the choice of any -person to serve in any public office established by the law of any of -the States.” The officers of the United States against whom the -penalties of this bill are denounced, consist of marshals and their -deputies, postmasters and their deputies, receivers and registers of -land offices, and their deputies and clerks; surveyors general of the -public lands, and their deputies and assistants; collectors, surveyors, -naval officers, weighers, gaugers, appraisers, or other officers or -persons concerned or employed in the charging, collecting, levying or -managing the customs, or any branch thereof; and engineers, officers, or -agents, employed or concerned in the execution or superintendence of any -of the public works. - -The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Crittenden), before he commenced his -remarks, moved to amend the bill by striking from it the pecuniary -penalty and perpetual disability against these officers, and -substituting, in their stead, the penalty of a removal from office by -the President, upon the production of evidence satisfactory to him that -any of them had been guilty of the offence. - -Now, for myself (said Mr. B.), I shall not vote for this amendment. I -will not take advantage of the amiable weakness of my friend from -Kentucky, in yielding to the solicitation of others that which his own -judgment approved. I will more especially not give such a vote, because -the proposed amendment makes no change in the principle of the bill. -There is a beautiful harmony and consistency in its provisions as it -came fresh from its author which ought to be preserved. I shall not -assist in marring any of its fair proportions. Let it remain in its -perfect original form, and let its friends upon this floor come up to -the baptismal font, and act as its sponsors; and let its avowed -principles be recognized as the established doctrines of the political -church to which they are all devoted. No, sir, no; if a village -postmaster should dare to exercise the freedom of speech, guarantied to -him by an antiquated instrument, called the Constitution of the United -States, and have the audacity “to endeavor to persuade any elector” to -vote for Martin Van Buren, or what would be a much more aggravated -offence, dissuade any good Whig from voting for the other distinguished -Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Clay), a mere forfeiture of his office would -bear no just proportion to the enormity of the crime. Let such a daring -criminal be fined five hundred dollars; let him be disqualified forever -from holding any office under the Government; and let him be pointed at -as a man of blasted reputation all the days of his life. With honest -Dogberry, in the play of “Much ado about Nothing,” I pronounce the -offence to be “flat burglary as ever was committed.” - -There is another reason why I shall vote against the amendment. An issue -has been fairly made between the Senator from Kentucky and my friend -from New Jersey, (Mr. Wall), who, from what we have heard in the course -of this debate, has but a few shattered planks left on which he can -escape from a total shipwreck of his fair fame. In mercy to him I would -not remove any of them. Let him have a chance for his life. He has dared -to make a report against the bill in its original form, as it was -referred to the committee of which he is the chairman; and for this -cause has encountered all the withering denunciations of the Senators -from Kentucky and Virginia, (Messrs. Crittenden and Rives). In justice -to him, the aspect of the question should not now be changed. Let us, -then, have the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill, against -which his report was directed. - -It would seem almost unnecessary to discuss the question whether this -bill be constitutional or not; as the Senator from Kentucky, throughout -the whole course of his argument, never once attempted to point to any -clause of the Constitution on which it could be supported. It is true -that he did cite some precedents in our legislation, which he supposes -have a bearing on the subject; but which, I shall undertake to prove, -hereafter, are wholly inapplicable. The Senator from Virginia (Mr. -Rives) has gone further into the argument, and has attempted to prove -that this bill is constitutional. At the proper time, I shall endeavor -to furnish the proper answer to his remarks. By-the-by, this -Constitution is a terrible bugbear. Whilst a member of the other House, -I once heard an old gentleman exclaim, when it was cited against one of -his favorite measures, “what a vast deal of good it prevents us from -doing!” After this bill shall have passed, it will be a bugbear no -longer, so far as the freedom of speech or the press is concerned. It -will not then alarm even political children. - -The gentlemen have a precedent for their bill. Yes, sir, they have a -precedent in the sedition law; but it does not go far enough for their -purpose. That law, which is the only true precedent on which this bill -can be founded, and on which alone it can be sustained, permitted every -man to write and to publish what he pleased concerning public men and -public measures, and only held him responsible in case his charges -should prove to be false. But this bill is a gag law. It goes to the -fountain at once, and prohibits the officer not only from writing, but -from speaking anything good, bad, or indifferent, whether true or false, -on any subject whatever which may affect any pending election from that -of a President down to a constable. It has a much broader sweep than the -sedition law, which did not interfere with the liberty of speech, -however much it may have abridged the freedom of the press. Indeed, -among the more enlightened despotisms of Europe, I know not one which -prohibits the freedom of speech on all public subjects; it is only in -free and enlightened America that we propose actually to insert the gag. -The sedition law was bad enough, God knows; but it extended only to the -use of the pen, not to that of the tongue. There is, therefore, no -parallel between the two cases. - -Had it not been for the existence of the sedition law, I should have -supposed it to be impossible that there could have been two opinions in -regard to the utter unconstitutionality of this bill. The Constitution, -in language so plain as to leave no room for misconstruction, declares -that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of -the press.” The rule is universal. There is no exception. This bill -proposes not only to abridge, but utterly to destroy the freedom of -speech, and of the press; to interdict their use altogether to the -enumerated officers, on all questions touching the election of any -officer of the Federal or State Government. A plain man would naturally -suppose that, barely to state the contradiction between the Constitution -and this bill was to decide the question. Not so. An ingenious and -astute lawyer, in favor of a liberal construction of that instrument, -can, by inference and ingenuity, confer powers upon Congress in direct -violation both of its letter and its spirit, and of which its framers -never once dreamed. Such was the power to pass the sedition law. That -law engrafted one limitation upon the freedom of the press. It, in -effect, changed the meaning of the general terms “Congress shall make no -law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,” and excepted from -their operation any law which might be passed to punish libels against -the President, the Government, or either House of Congress. The present -bill, in principle at least, proceeds much further. It excepts from the -general prohibition of the Constitution the power of punishing all -persons holding offices under the Government of the United States who -shall dare either to speak or to write at all on questions which may -affect the result of any election. This interpolation must be inserted, -before gentlemen can show any power to pass the present bill. They -cannot advance one step in their argument without it. This Constitution -can never be construed according to the meaning of its framers but by -men of plain, well-informed, and practical judgment. Common sense is its -best expounder. Ingenious men, disposed to raise one implication upon -another in favor of Federal power, and to make each previous precedent -the foundation on which to proceed another step in the march toward -consolidation, may soon make it mean anything or nothing. The liberties -of this country can only be preserved by a strict construction of the -enumerated powers granted by the States to Congress. - -Before I proceed further in my argument against the constitutionality of -this bill, it will be proper that I should develop some of its latent -beauties. I desire to delineate a little more precisely its character—to -present some of its striking features, and to show what it is in -principle, and what it will prove to be in practice. - -There are twenty-six sovereign States in this Confederacy, united by a -Federal compact, called the Constitution of the United States. Each -individual elector in this country sustains two distinct characters. He -is a citizen of some one of the States, and he is also a citizen of the -United States. Now, what does this bill propose? In the older States of -this Confederacy, all the Federal officers which we have in the interior -are postmasters. It is true that at our ports of entry there are -custom-house officers; but in Pennsylvania, for example, from the -Schuylkill to the Ohio and to Lake Erie, our people scarcely feel their -connection with the General Government except through the medium of the -Post Office Department. These postmasters are very numerous. They are -planted in every village and at every cross road. They are agents for -disseminating information throughout the country. I might probably say -that in nine instances out of ten the office is scarcely worth holding -on account of its pecuniary emoluments. In most cases, the postmaster -accepts it for the accommodation of his neighbors. - -Now this postmaster is generally a man of property and of character, -having a deep stake in the community and in the faithful administration -and execution of the laws. Two candidates are presented to the people -for office; say that of a justice of the peace. If one of these village -postmasters should, in the exercise of his unquestionable rights as a -citizen of Pennsylvania, advise his neighbor to vote for one of these -candidates, and against the other, this bill dooms him to a fine of five -hundred dollars, and to a perpetual disqualification from ever holding -any office under the Government of the United States. No matter whether -the merits which he may have ascribed to one of the candidates be true -as holy writ, and the delinquencies which he may have charged against -the other may be susceptible of the clearest proof, this will not arrest -the vengeance of the bill. He is doomed to remain mute, although his -dearest interests may be involved, or incur its penalties. A gag is to -be put into his mouth, and he is to be punished if he dare to express a -preference for one candidate over the other. And let me tell the -gentleman, these postmasters hold all sorts of political opinions. In my -own State a considerable proportion of their number are Whigs and -Antimasons, opposed to the present Administration. I might cite other -examples to depict the enormity of this bill, but I consider it wholly -unnecessary. I might ascend from the justice of the peace or the -constable, through all the gradations of elective office, State and -Federal, to the President of the United States, and show, that at each -ascending grade, the violation of the rights of the citizen becomes more -and more outrageous. I might enumerate the weighers and the gaugers, and -the other proscribed classes of inferior office holders, and paint the -mad and wanton injustice which this bill would inflict upon them. But -enough. - -The man who would accept office upon such terms, must forfeit all -self-respect, and would become at once a fit tool for corruption and for -despotism. He must be degraded in his own eyes, and degraded in the eyes -of his fellow-citizens below the rank of a freeman. If you desire to -depreciate the Government itself under which we live, you cannot do it -more effectually than by placing such a stigma on its officers. - -Why, sir, you could not, by any possibility, carry such a law into -execution. If it should pass to-morrow, it would fall a dead letter upon -your statute book. I would not advocate a forcible resistance to any -law, and do not believe that such was the intention of my friend from -New Jersey (Mr. Wall), when he spoke of resistance; but does not the -Senator from Virginia know that laws may be passed of a character so -odious, that nobody could be found to carry them into execution? Such -are all laws which are entirely opposed to the spirit of the age, and -the united and overwhelming current of public opinion. I firmly believe -this to be the character of the present bill. - -But suppose me to be mistaken in this opinion, and that the law could be -carried into execution, what would be the consequences? The doomed -officer, the postmaster, the weigher or the gauger, is placed in the -midst of a thinking, acting, busy population. Everything around him is -proceeding with the impetuosity of steam. Public opinion is marching -onward with giant strides. The officer is talked at and talked to, daily -and hourly, by the surrounding multitude, whilst the law compels him to -close his lips in silence. Under such circumstances, it would be -impossible for human nature long to refrain. What then? If he utters a -syllable on any of the exciting political topics of the day, and these -are all involved in the perpetual canvass which is proceeding for -offices, high and low, he is at once seized upon by some harpy of an -informer. This bill offers a most tempting bribe to such eavesdroppers. -It would soon call into existence such a race, to dog and surround each -officer, and to catch up every incautious word which might be construed -into an endeavor to persuade or to dissuade an elector. Each individual -in society is stimulated by this bill to become a common informer, by -the tempting offer of a bribe of two hundred and fifty dollars in each -particular case. The proscribed officer thus becomes his prey, and, in -most cases, will be glad to compromise with him for the payment of a -great part, or the whole, of the penalty of five hundred dollars, in -order to avoid the stigma of perpetual disability to hold any office -under this Government. - -There is another remark which I desire to make on this branch of the -subject. Whenever you attempt to violate the plain letter and spirit of -the Constitution, a thousand evils, of which you have never dreamed, -present themselves in the perspective. This law can alone be executed by -the courts of the United States. Where are they situated? In the large -States, such as Pennsylvania or Virginia, they are held at great -distances from each other. A postmaster in either of these States, the -income of whose office does not exceed fifty dollars per annum, may be -dragged from home, a distance of one hundred and fifty or two hundred -miles, to stand his trial under this bill before a federal court. The -expense would be enormous, whilst he is obliged to appear before a -tribunal far from the place where his character, and that of his -prosecutor, are known and appreciated. Under such circumstances, he -would almost be certain to become the victim of the common informer, -under this most unjust and unconstitutional law. He would either be -convicted, or compelled to buy his peace at almost any price. - -In conferring the powers enumerated in the Constitution on the Federal -Government, the States expressly reserved to themselves respectively, or -to their people, all the powers not delegated by it to the United -States, or prohibited by it to the States. Now, I would ask the Senator -from Kentucky when, or where, or how has the State of Pennsylvania -surrendered to Congress the right of depriving any of her citizens, who -may accept office under the General Government, of the freedom of speech -or of the press? Where is it declared by the Constitution, either in -express terms, or from what clause can it fairly be inferred, that -Congress may make a forfeiture of the dearest of all political rights, -an indispensable condition of office? Each one of the people of -Pennsylvania, under her constitution and laws, is secured in the -inalienable right of speaking his thoughts. The State, as well as each -individual citizen, has the deepest interest in the preservation of this -right. I ask the gentleman to lay his finger on the clause of the -Constitution by which it has been surrendered. Where is it declared, or -from what can it be inferred, that because the States have yielded to -the Federal Government their citizens to execute public trusts under the -General Government, that, therefore, they have yielded the rights of -those citizens to express their opinions freely concerning public men -and public measures? The proposition appears to me to be full of -absurdity. In regard to the qualifications of electors, the States have -granted no power whatever to the United States. This subject they have -expressly reserved from federal control. The legislatures of the States, -and they alone, under the Constitution, possess the power of prescribing -the qualifications of the electors of members of the House of -Representatives in Congress. They have reserved the same power to -themselves in regard to voters for the choice of electors of President -and Vice President. What, then, does this bill attempt? To separate two -things which reason and the Almighty himself have united beyond all -power of separation. You might as well attempt, by arbitrary laws, to -separate human life from the power of breathing the vital air, as to -detach the elective franchise from freedom of thought, of speech, and of -the press. In this atmosphere alone can it live, and move, and have its -being. To speak his thoughts is every free elector’s inalienable right. -Freedom of speech and of the press are both the sword and shield of our -Republican institutions. To declare that when the citizens of a State -accept office from the General Government, they thereby forfeit this -right to express an opinion in relation to the public concerns of their -own State and of the nation, is palpable tyranny. In the language -referred to in the report, “it puts bridles into their mouths and -saddles upon their backs,” and degrades them from the rank of a -reasoning animal. The English precedent of the Senator was wiser, much -wiser, in depriving these officers of the right of suffrage altogether. -It does not attempt to separate by the power of man two things which -Heaven itself has indissolubly united. - -If, therefore, the Constitution contained no express provision whatever -prohibiting Congress from passing any law abridging the freedom of -speech or of the press, I think I have shown conclusively that the power -to pass this bill could not be inferred from any of its express grants -of power. But the Constitution is not silent on the subject. Before its -adoption by the States, it was dreaded by the jealous patriots of the -day, that the Federal Government might usurp the liberties of the people -by attacking the liberty of speech and of the press. They, therefore, -insisted upon the insertion of an express provision, as an amendment, -which, in all time to come, would prevent Congress from interfering with -these inestimable rights. The amendment to which I have often referred -was adopted, and these rights were expressly excepted from the powers of -the Federal Government. And yet, in the very face of this express -negative of federal power, we find the Senator from Kentucky coming -forward with his bill declaring direct war against any exercise of the -freedom of speech and of the press by those citizens of the States who -happen to be office holders under the General Government. - -But, says the Senator from Virginia, Congress possess, and have -exercised, the unquestionable power of creating offices under the -Constitution; and they may, therefore, annex to the holding of those -offices such a condition as that prescribed by the bill, or rather the -amendment of the Senator from Kentucky. Now, sir, what is this but to -say that Congress may declare that any citizen of Pennsylvania, who -accepts a federal office, shall take it upon condition that it shall be -forfeited the moment he exercises the dearest political right guarantied -to him and every other citizen, by the Constitution of the United -States? Can Congress impose any such condition upon an office? If they -can, they can repeal the most solemn provision of the Constitution, and -render it a dead letter in regard to every person in the employment of -the General Government. All mankind may then speak and publish what they -please, except those individuals who have been selected, I hope, -generally, for their integrity and ability, to execute the important -public trusts of the country. - -The Senator from Kentucky has adduced several precedents to prove that -similar powers have been already exercised by Congress in other cases. -Let us examine them for a moment. Congress, says he, has declared that -an Indian agent who shall himself trade with the Indians, shall be -punished for this act. But why? It is because this agent is vested with -the power of granting to our citizens licenses to trade with the -Indians, and thus to take care that they shall not be imposed upon and -cheated. To allow him, therefore, to trade with them himself, would be -to make him a judge in his own cause, and to withdraw from them that -protection which the law intended. Besides, Congress have received from -the States, by the Constitution, the power to regulate commerce with the -Indian tribes. The whole subject is thus placed under their control. -What, then, is this precedent worth? Is not the trading of an Indian -agent with the Indians an express and palpable violation of a duty -necessarily involved in his office? Can any thing be clearer than the -power and the duty of Congress to punish him for this offence? But what -interference can there be between the performance of the duties required -by law from a postmaster, or from any other of the proscribed officers, -and his expression of an opinion to his neighbor, either for or against -any candidate for public office? If the postmaster, for example, -performs his whole official duty, if he receives and delivers the -letters entrusted to his care, and regularly settles his accounts with -the department, what human power can arbitrarily place a gag in his -mouth, and declare that he shall be punished for exercising the freedom -of speech and of the press, upon the pretext that the exercise of these -rights of a freeman are inconsistent with the duties of his office? You -might just as well punish him or deprive him of his office for speaking -or writing on natural philosophy, or mathematics, or any other -scientific subject. You would have the same power to violate that clause -in the Constitution conferring upon every man the free exercise of -religion, and punish him for expressing his opinion on religious -subjects, for attending prayer meetings or bible societies, or for -endeavoring to persuade or dissuade any member of the religious society -to which he belongs in relation to the choice of its pastor. The -principle is precisely the same in both cases. Your power hath this -extent, no more. You can punish the officer for neglecting or for -violating the duties which appropriately belong to his office. You can -not repeal the Constitution by declaring it to be an official duty that -he shall abandon the constitutional right of speaking his thoughts upon -any subject whatsoever, whether religious, scientific, or political. In -other words, you have no right to declare that he shall become a slave -when he becomes an officer. - -A similar answer, if it were necessary, might be given to the Senator’s -other precedents. Officers of the customs are prohibited from owning any -vessel or cargo under a pecuniary penalty. And why? Because they -themselves are to direct and superintend the entry of vessels and -cargoes belonging to other persons and the collection of duties; and to -allow them to transact this business for themselves, would be to make -them judges in their own cause. It would be an evident violation of the -duty naturally attached to their office. But will any one contend that -their constitutional freedom of speech, in regard to candidates for -office, is incompatible with the proper entry or unloading of vessels -engaged either in foreign commerce or the coasting trade? - -So the register of a land office is prohibited from entering lands in -his own name, or, in other words, from selling lands to himself. - -Such are the precedents which the Senator has cited to justify himself -in depriving the officers embraced by his bill of the right of freedom -of speech and of the press. - -But I do not mean even to rest the constitutional question here. From -the very nature of the Constitution itself, two great political parties -must ever exist in this country. You may call them by what names you -will, their principles must ever continue to be the same. The one, -dreading federal power, will ever be friendly to a strict construction -of the powers delegated to the Federal Government and to State rights. -The other equally dreading federal weakness, will ever advocate such a -liberal construction of the Constitution as will confer upon the General -Government as much power as possible, consistently with a free -interpretation of the terms of the instrument. The one party is alarmed -at the danger of consolidation; the other at that of disunion. In the -days of the elder Adams the party friendly to a liberal construction of -the Constitution got into power. And what did they do? Among other -things, in the very face of that clause of the Constitution which -prohibited Congress from passing any law abridging the freedom of speech -or of the press, they passed the sedition law. What were its provisions? -It punished false, scandalous, and malicious libels against the -Government of the United States, either House of Congress, or the -President, by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars and imprisonment -not exceeding two years. - -At the present day, it would be useless to waste the time of the Senate -in proving that this law was a violation of the Constitution. It is now -admitted that Congress, in passing it, had transcended their powers. If -any principle has been established beyond a doubt by the almost -unanimous opinion of the people of the United States, it is, that the -sedition law was unconstitutional. Such is the strong and universal -feeling against it, that if it could now be revived, the authors would -probably meet a similar fate with those deluded and desperate men in -France who have themselves lately fallen victims upon the same altar on -which they had determined to sacrifice the liberty of the press. - -The popular odium which followed this law was not so much excited by its -particular provisions, as by the fact, that any law upon the subject was -a violation of the Constitution, and would establish a precedent for -giving such a construction to it as would swallow up the rights of the -States and of their people in the gulf of federal power. - -The Constitution had declared that “Congress shall pass no law abridging -the freedom of speech or of the press.” Its framers well knew that, -under the laws of each of the States composing this Union, libels were -punishable. They, therefore, left the character of all officers created -under the Constitution and laws of the United States to be protected by -the laws of the several States. They were afraid to give this Government -any authority over the subject of libels, lest its colossal power might -be wielded against the liberty of the press. Congress were, therefore, -prohibited from passing any law upon the subject, whether good or bad. -It was not merely because the law was unjust in itself, though it was -bad enough, Heaven knows, that the indignant Republicans of that day -rose against it; but it was because it violated the Constitution. It -expired by its own limitation in March, 1801; but not until it had -utterly prostrated the political party which gave it birth. - -Now, sir, I shall say a few words concerning the Virginia and Kentucky -resolutions of 1798; although the Senator from Virginia may consider it -sacrilege in me to discuss this subject. I have at all times, ever since -I read and understood these resolutions, held to the political doctrines -which they inculcate; and I can assure the Senator I have studied them -with care. I will read a few extracts from the Virginia resolutions: - -The General Assembly, in the third resolution, “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 as no further valid than they are -authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact;” and in the fourth -resolution, they express their deep regret, “that a spirit has, in -sundry instances, been manifested by the Federal Government, to enlarge -its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which -defines them.” In regard to the sedition law, they declare that its -passage was the exercise of “a power not delegated by the Constitution; -but, on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the -amendments thereto; a power, which, more than any other, ought to -produce universal alarm; because it is levelled against that right of -freely examining public characters and measures, and of free -communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly -deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right.” - -Now, sir, what is the essence, what is the root of all these -resolutions? It consists of one plain, clear, fundamental principle, -from which all others proceed as branches. It is this, that -patriotism—that the permanence of our institutions—that all the -principles of correct construction require, that the Federal Government -shall be limited to the express powers granted to it by the States, and -that no implied powers shall ever be exercised, except such as are -evidently and plainly necessary to carry the express powers into effect. -This is the foundation, the corner stone, the vital principle of all the -Virginia and Kentucky resolutions. It was because the sedition law -violated this principle, that the Republican statesmen of Virginia and -Kentucky opposed it with such a determined spirit. It was, as Mr. -Madison says in his report, because such a loose construction of the -Constitution as would bring this law within its pale, would lay the -foundation from which the friends of a strong central government might -proceed to rob the States and the people of their liberties, and -establish a consolidated government. It was the first stride towards a -limited monarchy. - -The Federalists of that day honestly believed that the Government should -be strengthened at the centre, and that the pulsations of the heart were -not powerful enough to extend a wholesome circulation to the -extremities. They, therefore, used every effort to enlarge the powers of -the Federal Government by construction. This was the touchstone which -then divided parties, and which will continue to divide them until, -which God forbid, the Government shall cease to exist. - -Now, sir, if I have correctly stated the principle which runs through -all the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, I would ask whether the bill -now before the Senate is not a more palpable violation of this principle -than the sedition law. I shall now proceed to establish this position. - -In the first place, then, the sedition law did not interfere with the -freedom of speech. The citizen might speak what he thought and say what -he pleased without subjecting himself to its penalties. Under the -despotisms of Europe there is a strict censorship over the press. -Everything written for publication must undergo the supervision and -correction of a Government censor before it can be published. In the -most despotic countries, however, some indulgence is granted to the -liberty of speech on political questions. The bill establishes more than -a universal censorship over the freedom of speech. It compels the -officer to be silent altogether on political questions. He dare not -utter a word without incurring its penalties. In this country, every -public question connects itself with our elections. If there be two -candidates for any State Legislature, and the election should turn upon -internal improvements, or the division of a county, the officer is as -much exposed to the universal sweep of this bill, in case he utters a -word in favor of the one or against the other, as though it were the -Presidential election. He is equally doomed to silence in the one case -as in the other. Such tyranny is unknown to the sedition law. - -Whilst I was abroad some years ago, I heard an anecdote highly -creditable to the King of Prussia, who, although a despot, is, by his -subjects, called a Democratic King. The revolutionary war of Poland -against Russia was then raging, and the Polish subjects of the Prussian -king were highly excited in favor of their brethren under the dominion -of Russia. They talked very freely in favor of taking part in the -contest; of casting off the Prussian yoke, and uniting with their -brethren in re-establishing the independence of Poland. The counsellors -of the king advised him to prohibit and to punish this freedom of -speech. He answered that he would do no such thing; that he would suffer -them to express their opinions, and that there was less danger that they -would rise against his government than if they remained silent. This was -the remark of a liberal and a wise man, who had been instructed in the -school of adversity. - -But, in this favored land of liberty, in the nineteenth century, we are -about to deny to our citizens the privilege of speaking their thoughts. -This is the first attempt which I have ever known or read of, either in -England or in this country, to punish the expression of opinions -relative to candidates for office as a crime. If ever this was done in -England, even in the reigns of the Tudors or the Stuarts, it must have -been a Star Chamber offence. In the more enlightened despotisms of -Europe, they will learn, with astonishment, that a bill has been -introduced into the Senate of the United States, proposing to punish a -postmaster for expressing his opinion in favor of a candidate for -office, as if this were an enormous crime, with a fine of five hundred -dollars, and a perpetual disability to hold any other office under the -Government. Even under the common law of England, oral slander is not -punishable as a crime. The party injured by it is left to his private -remedy. - -In the second place, the sedition law, although it did abridge, did not, -like this bill, totally destroy the freedom of the press. The sedition -law deprived no man of the right or the power, in the first instance, to -write and publish to the world any strictures upon the Government which -he might think proper. To be sure, if in exercising this privilege he -violated the truth, he was made responsible to its penalties. This bill -reaches the very fountains of thought. Its object is to prevent its -victims from speaking or writing at all. No matter how innocent, or -praiseworthy, or true, may be the conversation or the publication, still -if it can be construed into an endeavor to persuade any elector to give -his vote for a particular candidate, he is doomed to a fine of five -hundred dollars, and a perpetual disability to hold office. - -Again: under the sedition law, the accused was permitted to protect -himself against its penalties, by giving the truth of his charge in -evidence. Any individual who had accused the President of the United -States of being a bad and dangerous man, who was aiming a blow at the -liberties of his country, and desired to usurp the powers of the -Government by a latitudinarian construction of the Constitution, was -protected by this law from all responsibility, provided he could prove -the truth of these allegations to the satisfaction of a court and jury -of his countrymen. Not so the present bill. If a postmaster, or a land -officer, or a weigher, or a gauger, should endeavor to dissuade any -elector from voting for a particular candidate, and should say that this -candidate has been guilty of a crime, and therefore his election would -be dangerous to the country, and is brought before a court and jury for -trial under this bill, he must be convicted, although he may be able to -prove the truth of his charge by evidence as clear as a sunbeam. The old -English maxim, “the greater the truth the greater the libel,” is again -revived, with some show of reason; because the language of truth would -be more powerful in persuading or dissuading an elector than that of -falsehood. Although every member of the court and the jury might -personally know that what the accused had uttered was the truth, yet, -under the provisions of this bill, they would be bound to convict and -sentence him to suffer its penalties. - -I think I have thus established my position that this bill is worse, and -more glaringly unconstitutional, than the sedition law. - -I now approach the argument of the Senator from Virginia in favor of the -constitutionality of this bill. The old argument in favor of the -sedition law, as stated by Mr. Madison in his report, was that the -general phrases in the preamble and one clause of the Constitution were -sufficiently powerful to extend the limited grants of power contained in -the body of the instrument, and to confer upon Congress the authority to -enact any law they might think proper for the common defence and the -general welfare. This doctrine has long since been exploded, and was not -adverted to by the Senator from Virginia. We are informed by the same -authority, that another argument used, was, that all the State -Legislatures had passed laws for the punishment of libels; and that, -therefore, the same power belonged to the Government of the United -States. A similar argument could not be urged by the Senator in support -of this bill; because no State Legislature ever has, and I will venture -to say no State Legislature ever will pass such a bill as that now -before the Senate. To what argument then did the Senator resort? I shall -endeavor to state it fairly. He asks if a judge were to use the freedom -of speech or of the press, in canvassing the merits of a cause before -the people, which it would become his duty afterwards to decide, would -it be an abridgment of this freedom to punish him for such conduct? I -answer, certainly not. But does not the gentleman perceive that the -offence in this case is substantive and independent, and amounts to a -total violation of his official duty, for which he ought to be -impeached? The language, oral or printed, which he has used, is the mere -agent which he has employed in the commission of the offence. This -argument is a begging of the question; for it assumes that, under the -Constitution, Congress possess the power to punish one citizen for -persuading another, by fair argument, to give his vote for or against -any candidate for office. This is the very principle to be established. -Again he asks, suppose one of the officers embraced by the bill were to -use the freedom of speech or of the press, in saying to an elector, if -you will give your vote for such a candidate, I will procure you an -office, would not such an officer be punishable? I answer, certainly he -would under the State laws; because this would be an attempt to procure -a vote by corrupt and improper means. It is a distinct offence, the -punishment of which in no manner interferes with the liberty of speech -or the press when exercised to accomplish constitutional purposes. A -similar answer might be given to his interrogatory in regard to giving a -challenge, by word or by writing, to fight a duel. The last question, -which capped the climax of his argument, was, if a man be guilty of a -false and malicious libel against an innocent person, may you not punish -him, under the Constitution, without invading the freedom of speech or -of the press—because it is not the words he may use which you punish, -but the falsehood of the charge, the evil intention, and the injury -inflicted? I ask the Senator if this argument is not a justification of -the sedition law to the fullest extent? I have taken down the Senator’s -words, and cannot be mistaken in their meaning. What did the sedition -law declare? That the authors of “false, scandalous and malicious” -libels, with the evil intentions enumerated in the act, should incur its -penalties. It was not the mere words published that were punished, but -it was their falsehood, their malice, and their evil intentions. The -constitutionality of the sedition law is, therefore, embraced not only -within the spirit, but within the very words, of the Senator’s argument. -Has he not, however unconsciously, defended the sedition law? This -argument, to my knowledge, never occurred to those who passed that law; -but it is one which, if well founded, would give us the power to-morrow -to pass another sedition law. - -Do not Senators perceive that the passage of this bill would utterly -disfranchise a large and respectable class of our people? Under it, what -would be the condition of all the editors of your political journals, -whose business and whose duty it is to enlighten public opinion in -regard to the merits or demerits of candidates for office? Pass this -law, and you declare that no editor of a public paper, of either party, -is capable or worthy of holding any of the proscribed offices. He must -at once either abandon his paper, and with it the means of supporting -himself and his family, or he must surrender any little office which he -may hold under the Government. - -And yet this bill is supported by my friend from Virginia, who, to use -his own language, “has been imbued with the principles of Democracy, and -a regard for State rights, from his earliest youth.” If such a charge -should ever be made against him hereafter, his speech and his vote in -favor of this bill, will acquit him before any court in Christendom, -where the truth may be given in evidence. I yet trust that he may never -vote for its passage. - -Every measure of this kind betrays a want of confidence in the -intelligence and patriotism of the American people. It is founded on a -distrust of their judgment and integrity. Do you suppose that when a man -is appointed a collector or a postmaster, he acquires any more influence -over the people than he had before? No, sir! On the contrary, his -influence is often diminished, instead of being increased. The people of -this country are abundantly capable of judging whether he is more -influenced by love of country or love of office. If they should -determine that his motives are purely mercenary for supporting a -political party, this will destroy his influence. If he be a noisy, -violent, and meddling politician, he will do the administration under -which he has been appointed, much more harm than good. Let me assure -gentlemen that the people are able to take care of themselves. They do -not require the interposition of Congress to prevent them from being -deceived and led astray by the influence of office holders. Whilst this -is my fixed opinion, I think the number of federal officers ought to be -strictly limited to the actual necessities of the Government. Pursue -this course, and, my life for it, all the land officers, and -postmasters, and weighers, and gaugers, which you shall send abroad over -the country, can never influence the people to betray their own cause. -For my own part, I entertain the most perfect confidence in their -intelligence as well as integrity. - -That office holders possess comparatively but little influence over the -people, will conclusively appear from the brief history of the last two -years, the period during which this dreaded man, Mr. Van Buren, has been -in office. What has all this alarming influence of the office holders -effected at the only points where they are to be found in any -considerable number? In the city of Philadelphia, notwithstanding all -the influence of the custom-house, the post-office, and the mint, the -majority at the last election against the administration was tremendous, -being, I believe, upwards of four thousand. The Prætorian guards, as -they have been called, performed but little service on that day in that -city. On the other hand, look at the interior of Pennsylvania. There the -governor, whose patronage within the limits of the State was as great, -under the old Constitution, as that of the King of England, had filled -every office with enemies of the present administration. Of this I do -not complain; for, whether right or wrong, it has been the long -established practice of both parties. It is true that many of the -postmasters were friendly to the administration; but it is equally -certain, that a large proportion of them warmly espoused the cause of -the opposition. What was the result? Those wielding the vast patronage -were entirely routed, notwithstanding the exertions of the office -holders. Gentlemen may quiet their alarms, and be assured that the -people cannot be persuaded to abandon their principles by the influence -of men in office. - -Again: let us look at the State of New York for another example. There -the Albany regency were seated in power. The Democratic party was well -drilled. All the office holders of the State and of the city were -friendly to the administration. Besides, in my opinion, they fought in -the righteous cause; and this same abused Albany regency who were their -leaders, was composed of as able and as honest men as were ever at the -head of any State government. What was the result there? With all this -official power and patronage, both of the State and Federal Governments, -we were beaten, horse, foot and dragoons. There is not the least -necessity for passing an unconstitutional law, to save the people from -the influence of the office holders. - -Have we not been beaten in all the large cities of the Union, where only -there are federal officers in any considerable number? What has been our -fate in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, and New Orleans? We -have been vanquished in all of them. The hobgoblins and chimeras dire -respecting the influence of office holders, which terrify gentlemen, -exist only in their own imagination. The people of this country are not -the tame and servile creatures who can be seduced from their purpose by -the persuasion of the office holders. It is true that in 1828 I did say -that the office holders were the enlisted soldiers of that -administration by which they were sustained. This was too strong an -expression. But admit them to be enlisted soldiers; and whilst I do not -deny them some influence, there is no danger to be apprehended from it, -as long as there is virtue and intelligence among our people. - -And here I hope the Senator from Kentucky will pardon me for suggesting -to him an amendment to his bill. He has, I think, made one or two -mistakes in the classification of his officers; though, in the general, -it is sufficiently perfect. The principle would seem to have been to -separate what may be called the aristocracy of office holders from the -plebeians. Those of the elevated class are still permitted to enjoy the -freedom of speech and of the press, whilst the hard-working operatives -among them are denied this privilege. The heads of departments and -bureaus, the officers of the army and navy, the superintendents and -officers of our mints, and our district attorneys are not affected by -this bill. These gentlemen are privileged by their elevation. They are -too high to be reached by its provisions. Who, then, ought to care -whether weighers and gaugers, and village postmasters, and hard-handed -draymen, and such inferior people shall be permitted to express their -thoughts on public affairs? I would suggest, however, that the -collectors of our principal seaports, the marshals of our extensive -judicial districts, and the post-masters in our principal cities receive -compensation sufficient to enable them to figure in “good society.” They -ought to rank with the district attorneys, and should be elevated from -the plebeian to the patrician rank of office holders. They ought to be -allowed the freedom of speech and of the press. As to the subordinate -officers, they are not worth the trouble of a thought. - -To be sure there is one palpable absurdity on the face of the bill. Its -avowed purpose is to prevent office holders from exercising an influence -in elections. Why, then, except from its operation all those office -holders, who, from their station in society, can exercise the most -extensive influence, and confine its provisions to the humbler, but not -less meritorious class, whose opinions can have but a limited influence -over their fellow-men? The district attorney, for example, is -excepted—the very man of all others, who, from his position and talents, -has the best opportunity of exerting an extensive influence. He may ride -over his district, and make political speeches to secure the election of -his favorite candidate. He is too high a mark for the gentleman’s bill. -But if the subordinates of the custom-house, or the petty postmaster at -the cross-roads with an income of fifty dollars per annum, shall dare, -even in private conversation, to persuade an elector to vote for or -against any candidate, he is to be punished by a fine of five hundred -dollars, and a perpetual disability to hold any office under the -Government. Was there ever a bill more unequal or more unjust? - -Now, sir, I might here, with great propriety, and very much to the -relief both of my audience and myself, leave this subject; but there are -still some other observations which I conceive it to be my duty to add -to what I have already said. Most of them will be elicited by the very -strong remarks of my friend from Virginia; for I trust that I may still -be permitted to call him by that name. - -He and I entered the House of Representatives almost together. I believe -he came into it but two years after myself. We soon formed a mutual -friendship, which has ever since, I may say, on my part, with great -sincerity, continued to exist. We fought shoulder to shoulder, and his -great powers were united with my feeble efforts in prostrating the -administration of the younger Adams. General Jackson came into power; -and during the whole period of that administration he was the steady, -unwavering supporter of all its leading measures, except the Specie -Circular and his advocacy of the currency bill; and, on that bill, I -stood by him, in opposition to the administration. Whilst this man of -destiny was in power—this mail of the lion heart, whose will the Whigs -declared was law, and whose roaring terrified all the other beasts of -the forest, and subdued them into silence—where was then the Senator -from Virginia? He was our chosen champion in the fight. Whilst General -Jackson was exerting all this tremendous influence, and marshalling all -his trained bands of office holders to do his bidding, according to the -language of the opposition, these denunciations had no terror for the -Senator from Virginia. Never in my life did I perform a duty of -friendship with greater ardor than when, on one occasion, I came to his -rescue from an unjust attack made against him by the Whigs in relation -to a part of his conduct whilst minister in France. After holding out so -long together, ought he not, at least, to have parted from us in peace, -and bade us a kind adieu? In abandoning our camp, why did he shoot -Parthian arrows behind him? In taking leave of us, I hope not forever, -is it not too hard for us to hear ourselves denounced by the gentleman -in the language which he has used? “He is amazed and bewildered with the -scenes passing before him. Whither, he asks, will the mad dominion of -party carry us? His mind is filled with despondency as to the fate of -his country. Shall we emulate the servility of the senate and people of -Rome? You already have your Prætorian bands in this city.” I might quote -from his speech other phrases of a similar character; but these are -sufficient. I do not believe that any of these expressions were aimed at -me personally; yet they strike me with the mass of my political friends, -and I feel bound to give them a passing notice. - -And why, let me ask the Senator, why did he not sooner make the -discovery of the appalling danger of executive influence? Is there more -to be dreaded from that cause, under the present administration, than -under that which is past? Is Martin Van Buren more formidable than -General Jackson was? Let his favorite author, De Tocqueville, answer -this question. He says, “the power of General Jackson perpetually -increases, but that of the President declines; in his hands the Federal -Government is strong, _but it will pass enfeebled into the hands of his -successor_.” Do not all now know this to be the truth? Has not the -Government passed enfeebled into the hands of his successor? We see it, -and feel it, and know it, from every thing which is passing around us. -The civilian has succeeded the conqueror; and, I must be permitted to -say, has exercised his high powers with great moderation and purity of -purpose. In what manner has he ever abused his patronage? In this -particular, of what can the gentleman complain? - -In February, 1828, I did say that the office holders were the enlisted -soldiers of the administration. But did I then propose to gag them? Did -I propose to deprive them of the freedom of speech and of the press? No, -sir, no! Notwithstanding the number of them scattered over the country, -I was not afraid of their influence. On the contrary, I commended the -administration for adhering to its friends. I then used the following -language: - -“In my humble judgment, the present administration could not have -proceeded a single year, with the least hope of re-election, but for -their patronage. This patronage may have been used unwisely, as my -friend from Kentucky [Mr. Letcher] (and I am still proud to call him my -friend, notwithstanding our political opposition) has insinuated. I have -never blamed them, I shall never blame them, for adhering to their -friends. Be true to your friends and they will be true to you, is the -dictate both of justice and of sound policy. I shall never participate -in abusing the administration for remembering their friends. If you go -too much abroad with this patronage, for the purpose of making new -friends, you will offend your old ones, and make but very insincere -converts.” - -What was my opinion in 1828, when I was in the opposition, is still my -opinion in 1839, when I am in the majority. I say now, that the -administration which goes abroad with its patronage to make converts of -its enemies, at the expense of its friends, acts both with ingratitude -and injustice. Such an administration deserves to be prostrated. -Although neither from principle nor from feeling am I a root and branch -man, yet, in this respect, I adopt the opinion of General Washington, -the first, the greatest, the wisest, and the best of our Presidents. I -prefer him either to General Jackson or to the great apostle of American -liberty. This opinion, however, may proceed from the relics of old -Federalism. On this subject General Washington says: “I shall not, -whilst I have the honor to administer the Government, bring a man into -any office of consequence, knowingly, whose political tenets are adverse -to the measures which the General Government is pursuing; for this, in -my opinion, would be a sort of political suicide. That it would -embarrass its movements is certain.” - -Now, sir, if any freak of destiny should ever place me in one of these -executive departments, and I feel very certain that it never will, I -shall tell you the course I would pursue. I should not become an -inquisitor of the political opinions of the subordinate office holders, -who are receiving salaries of some eight hundred or a thousand dollars a -year. For the higher and more responsible offices, however, I would -select able, faithful, and well-tried political friends who felt a deep -and devoted interest in the success of my measures. And this not for the -purpose of concealment, for no public officer ought to be afraid of the -scrutiny of the world; but that they might cheerfully co-operate with me -in promoting what I believed to be the public interest. I would have no -person around me, either to hold back in the traces, or to thwart and -defeat my purposes. With General Washington I believe that any other -course “would be a sort of political suicide.” - -In executing the duties of a public office, I should act upon the same -principles that would govern my conduct in regard to a private trust. If -the Senator from Virginia were to constitute me his attorney, to -transact any important business, I should never employ assistants whom I -believed to be openly and avowedly hostile to his interests. - -But says the Senator, you already have your Prætorian bands in this -city. He doubtless alludes to the officeholders in the different -departments of the Government; and, I ask, is Mr. Van Buren’s influence -over them greatly to be dreaded? If, sir, the President relies upon such -troops he will most certainly be defeated. These Prætorian bands are, to -a great extent, on the side of the Senator from Kentucky and his -political friends. I would now do them great injustice if I were to call -them the enlisted soldiers of the administration. Whilst General Jackson -was here they did keep tolerably quiet, but now I understand that many -of these heads of bureaus and clerks use the freedom of speech and of -the press without reserve against the measures of his successor. Of -course I speak from common report. God forbid that I should become an -inquisitor as to any man’s politics. It is generally understood that -about one-half of them are open enemies of the present administration. I -have some acquaintance with a few of those who are called its friends; -and among this few I know several, who, although they declare they are -in favor of the re-election of Mr. Van Buren, yet they are decidedly -opposed to all his prominent measures. Surrounded by such Prætorian -bands, what has this tyrant done? Nothing, literally nothing. I believe -he is the very last man in the country who can justly be charged with -using his official patronage to control the freedom of elections. His -forbearance towards his political enemies in office will unquestionably -injure him to some extent, and especially in those States where, under -the common party law, no person dreams of being permitted to hold office -from his political enemies. His liberality in this respect has been -condemned by many of his friends, whilst he is accused by his enemies of -using his official patronage for corrupt political purposes. This is a -hard fate. The Senator must, therefore, pardon me, after having his own -high authority in favor of General Jackson’s administration, if, under -that of his successor, I cannot now see the dangers of executive -patronage in a formidable light. - -There was one charge made by the Senator from Virginia against the -present administration, which I should have been the first man to -sustain, had I believed it to be well founded. Had the President evinced -a determination, in the face of all his principles and professions, to -form a permanent connection in violation of law, between the Government -and the Bank of the United States, or any other State bank, he should, -in this particular, have encountered my unqualified opposition. In such -an event, I should have been willing to serve under the command of the -Senator against the administration; and hundreds and thousands of the -unbought and incorruptible Democracy would have rallied to our standard. -I am convinced, however, from the reports of the Secretaries of the -Treasury and of War, and from the other lights which have been shed upon -the subject, that “their poverty and not their will consented” to the -partial and limited connection which resulted from the sale of the bond -to the Bank of the United States. Such seems to have been the general -opinion on this floor, because no Senator came to the aid of the -gentleman from Virginia in sustaining this charge. “Where was Roderick -then?” Why did not the Senator from Kentucky come to the rescue and -sustain his friend from Virginia in the accusation against the -administration of having again connected itself with the Bank of the -United States? - -The Senator from Virginia has informed us, that in his State, a law -exists, prohibiting any man who holds office under the Federal -Government from holding, at the same time, a State office. This law -prevents the same individual from serving two masters. A similar law, I -believe, exists in every State of this Union. If there is not, there -ought to be. The Federal and State Governments ought to be kept as -distinct and independent of each other as possible. The General -Government ought never to be permitted to insinuate itself into the -concerns of the States, by using their officers as its officers. These -incompatible laws proceed from a wise and wholesome jealousy of federal -power, and a proper regard for State rights. I heartily approve them. -Then, sir, if there be danger in trusting a postmaster of the General -Government with the commission of a magistrate under State authority, -how infinitely more dangerous would it be to suffer the administration -to connect itself with all the State banks of the country? What immense -influence over the people of the States could the Federal Government -thus acquire! Suffer it to deposit the public money at pleasure with -these banks, and permit them to loan it out for their own benefit, and -you establish a vast federal influence, not over weighers and gaugers -and postmasters, but over the presidents, and directors, and cashiers, -and debtors, and creditors of these institutions. You bind them to you -by the strongest of all ties, that of self-interest; and they are men -who, from their position, cannot fail to exercise an extensive influence -over the people of the States. I am a State rights man, and am therefore -opposed to any connection between this Government and the State banks; -and last of all to such a connection with the Bank of the United States, -which is the most powerful of them all. This is one of the chief reasons -why I am in favor of an independent Treasury. And yet, friendly to State -rights as the Senator professes to be, he complains of the President for -opposing such a connection with the State banks, and thereby voluntarily -depriving himself of the power and influence which must ever result from -such an union. - -There are other reasons why I am friendly to an independent Treasury; -but this is not the proper occasion to discuss them. I shall merely -advert to one which, in my opinion, renders an immediate separation from -the banks indispensable to the public interest. The importation of -foreign goods into New York, since the commencement of the present year, -very far exceeds, according to our information, the corresponding -importations during the year 1836, although they were greater in that -year than they had ever been since the origin of our Government. This -must at once create a large debt against us in England. Meanwhile, what -is our condition at home? New York has established what is called a free -banking law, under whose provisions more than fifty banks had been -established in the beginning of January last, and I know not how many -since, with permission to increase their capital to four hundred and -eighty-seven millions of dollars. These banks do not even profess to -proceed upon the ancient, safe and well established principle of making -the specie in their vaults bear some just and reasonable proportion to -their circulation and deposits. Another and a novel principle is -adopted. State loans and mortgages upon real estate are made to take the -place of gold and silver; and an amount of bank notes may be issued -equal to the amount of these securities deposited with the comptroller. -There is no restriction whatever imposed on these banks in regard to -specie, except that they are required to hold eleven pence in the -dollar, not of their circulation and deposits united, but of their -circulation alone. Well may that able officer have declared, in his -report to the legislature, that “it is now evident that the point of -danger is not an exclusive metallic currency, but an exclusive paper -currency, so redundant and universal as to excite apprehensions for its -stability.” The amount of paper issues of these banks, and the amount of -bank credits, must rapidly expand the paper circulation, and again -produce extravagant speculation. The example of New York will have a -powerful influence on the other States of the Union. Already has Georgia -established a free banking law; and a bill for the same purpose is now -before the legislature of Pennsylvania. If the signs of the times do not -deceive me, we shall have another explosion sooner, much sooner than I -had anticipated. The Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster) nods his -assent. [Here Mr. Webster said, “I think so also.”] This paper bubble -must, from its nature, go on rapidly expanding, until it reaches the -bursting point. The recent suspension of specie payments by the Branch -Bank of Mobile, in the State of my friend from Alabama, (Mr. King), may -be the remote and distant thunder premonitory of the approaching storm. -This is all foreign, however, to the subject before the Senate. I desire -now to declare solemnly in advance, that if this explosion should come, -and the money of the people in the Treasury should again be converted -into irredeemable bank paper and bank credits, the administration will -be guiltless of the deed. We have tried, but tried in vain, to establish -an independent Treasury, where this money would be safe, in the custody -of officers responsible to the people. - -There is one incident in relation to the Bank of the United States which -my friend from Virginia may be curious to know. Under the Pennsylvania -charter it was prohibited from issuing notes under ten dollars. I had -fondly hoped that this example might be gradually followed by our -legislature in regard to the other banks, until the time should arrive -when our whole circulation under ten dollars should consist of gold and -silver. The free banking law of New York has enabled the bank to nullify -this restriction. Under this law it has established a bank in the city -of New York, the capital of which may be increased to $50,000,000, and -has transferred to the comptroller of that State Michigan State loan to -the amount of $200,000. And what notes, Mr. President, do you suppose it -has taken in lieu of this amount of loan? Not an assortment of different -denominations, as the other banks have done, but forty thousand five -dollar notes. These five dollar notes will be paid out and circulated by -the bank at Philadelphia; and thus the wise ten dollar restriction -contained in its Pennsylvania charter is completely annulled. - -If, therefore, I could believe for a moment that this Government -intended to form a permanent connection with the Bank of the United -States, and again make it the general depository and fiscal agent of the -Treasury, even if no other principle were involved than that of the -enormous increase of executive patronage which must necessarily follow, -I should at once stand with my friend from Virginia in opposition to the -administration. But I would not go over with him to the enemy’s camp. I -have somewhere read a eulogy on the wisdom of the Catholic church, for -tolerating much freedom of opinion in non-essentials among its members. -A pious, an enthusiastic, and an ardent spirit, which, if it belonged to -any Protestant church, might produce a schism, is permitted to establish -a new order, and thus to benefit, instead of injuring, the ancient -establishment. I might point to a St. Dominick and a Loyola for -examples. Now, sir, I admit that the Whig party is very Catholic in this -respect. It tolerates great difference of opinion. Its unity almost -consists in diversity. In that party we recognize “the Democratic -Antimasonic” branch. Yes, sir, this is the approved name. I need not -mention the names of its two distinguished leaders. The peculiar tenet -of this respectable portion of the universal political Whig church is a -horrible dread of the murderers of Morgan, whose ghost, like that of -Hamlet’s father, walks abroad, and revisits the pale glimpses of the -moon, seeking vengeance on his murderers. I wish they could be found, -and punished as they deserve. Though not abolitionists in the mass, they -do not absolutely reject, though they may receive with an awkward grace, -the overtures and aid of the abolitionists. In my portion of the -country, at least, the abolitionists are either incorporated with this -branch of the party, or hang upon its outskirts. The Senator from -Virginia and myself could not, I think, go over to this section of the -party, nor would we be received by it into full communion. The Senator -from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) will, I think, find to his cost that he has -done himself great injury with this branch of the opposition, by the -manly and patriotic sentiments which he expressed a few days ago on the -subject of abolition. - -Then comes the Whig party proper, in which the Senator from Kentucky -stands pre-eminent. I need not detail its principles. Now, I humbly -apprehend, that even if the President of the United States should -determine to ally himself with the bank, and force us to abandon him on -that account, neither the Senator from Virginia nor myself could find -refuge in the bosom of this party. We have both sinned against it beyond -forgiveness. We were both in favor of the removal of the deposits—an -offence which, with them, like original sin, “brought death into the -world, and all our woe.” For this, no penitence can atone. - -Again: we both voted for the expunging resolution, which, in their -opinion, was an act of base subserviency and man worship, and, withal, a -palpable violation of the Constitution. So dreadful was this offence, -that my friend from Delaware [Mr. Bayard] will never get over it. He has -solemnly pledged himself to cry aloud and spare not, until this foul -blot shall be removed from the journals of the Senate. I should be glad -to know why he has not yet introduced his annual resolution to efface -this unsightly stain from the record of our proceedings. - -In short, we should be compelled to form a separate branch of the Whig -party. We should be the deposit-removing, expunging, force bill, -anti-bank Jackson Whigs. We should carry with us enough of locofocoism -and other combustible materials to blow them all up. They had better -have a care of us. - -I hope the Senator may yet remain with us, and be persuaded that his old -friends upon this floor do not resemble either the servile band in the -Roman Senate under the first Cæsar, or that which afterwards degraded -themselves so low as to make the favorite horse of one of his successors -high priest and consul. He can never be fully received into the -communion of the faithful Whigs. Although the fathers of the church here -may grant him absolution, yet the rank and file of the party throughout -the country will never ratify the deed. - -I was pleased to hear the Senator from Virginia, on yesterday, make the -explanation which he did to the Senator from North Carolina, [Mr. -Strange] in regard to what he had said in favor of the British -government. I cheerfully take the explanation. I did suppose he had -pronounced a high-wrought eulogy upon that government; but it would not -be fair to hold him, or any other Senator, to the exact meaning of words -uttered in the heat and ardor of debate. - -I agree with him that we are indebted for several of our most valuable -institutions to our British ancestors. We have derived from them the -principles of liberty established and consecrated by magna charta, the -trial by jury, the petition of right, the habeus corpus act, and the -revolution of 1688. And yet, notwithstanding all this, I should be very -unwilling to make the British government a model for our legislation in -Republican America. Look at its effects in practice. Is it a government -which sheds its benign influence, like the dews of Heaven, upon all its -subjects? Or is it not a government where the rights of the many are -sacrificed to promote the interest of the few? The landed aristocracy -have controlled the election of a majority of the members of the House -of Commons; and they, themselves, compose the House of Lords. The main -scope and principal object of their legislation was to promote the great -landed interest, that of the large manufacturers, and of the fund -holders of a national debt, amounting to more than seven hundred and -fifty millions sterling. In order to accomplish these purposes, it -became necessary to oppress the poor. Where is the country beneath the -sun in which pauperism prevails to such a fearful extent? Is it not -known to the whole world that the wages both of agricultural and -manufacturing labor are reduced to the very lowest point necessary to -sustain human existence? Look at Ireland,—the fairest land I have ever -seen. Her laboring population is confined to the potatoe. Rarely, -indeed, do they enjoy either the wheat or the beef which their country -produces in such plentiful abundance. It is chiefly sent abroad for -foreign consumption. - -The people of England are now struggling to make their institutions more -free; and I trust in God they may succeed; yet their whole system is -artificial, and without breaking it down altogether, I do not perceive -how the condition of the mass of the people can be much ameliorated. In -the present state of the world, no friend of the human race ought -probably to desire its immediate destruction. We ought to regard it -rather as a beacon to warn us than as a model for our imitation. We -ought never, like England, to raise up by legislation any great -interests or monopolies to oppress the people, which we cannot put down -without crushing the Government itself. Such is now the condition of -that country. I am no admirer of the British constitution, either in -church or state, as it at present exists. I desire not a splendid -government for this country. - -The Senator from Virginia has quoted with approbation, and sustained by -argument, a sentiment from De Tocqueville to which I can never -subscribe. It is this: That there is greater danger, under a Government -like ours, that the Chief Magistrate may abuse his power, than under a -limited monarchy; because, being elected by the people, and their -sympathies being strongly enlisted in his favor, he may go on to usurp -the liberties of the country with their approbation. - -[Here Mr. Rives rose and explained.] - -Mr. Buchanan. From the gentleman’s explaination, I find that I did not -misquote either his proposition or his argument. I am sorry he speaks -under the dominion of so much feeling. I have none at all on the present -occasion. I shall proceed, and, at the proper time, and, I trust, in the -proper manner, give my answer to this proposition. - -The Senator has introduced De Tocqueville as authority on this question; -and, in order to give greater weight and lustre to this authority, has -pronounced him superior to Montesquieu. Montesquieu was a profound -thinker, and almost every sentence of his is an apothegm of wisdom. He -has stood, and ever will stand, the test of time. I cannot compare De -Tocqueville with Montesquieu. I think he himself would blush at such a -comparison. - -I may truly say that I have never met any Frenchman or Englishman who -could understand the complicated relations existing between our Federal -and State Governments. In this respect, De Tocqueville has not succeeded -much better than the rest. I am disposed to quarrel with him for one -thing, and that is, that he is opposed to the doctrines of the Virginia -and Kentucky resolutions. He is one of those old Federalists, in the -true acceptation of that term, who believe that the powers of the -General Government are not sufficiently strong to protect it from the -encroachment of the States. Hence one great object of his book is to -prove that this Government is becoming weaker and weaker, whilst that of -the States is growing stronger and stronger; and although he does not -think the time near, yet the final catastrophe must be, that it will be -dissolved by its own weakness, and the people at length, tired of the -perpetual struggles of liberty, will finally seek repose in the arms of -despotism. This result, in his opinion, is not to be brought about by -the strength, but by the weakness, of the Federal Government. I might -adduce many quotations to this effect from his book, but I shall trouble -the Senate with but a few. He says, in summing up a long chapter on this -subject, “I am strangely mistaken if the Federal Government of the -United States be not constantly losing strength, retiring gradually from -public affairs, and narrowing its circle of action more and more. It is -naturally feeble, but it now abandons even its pretensions to strength. -On the other hand, I thought that I remarked a more lively sense of -independence, and a more decided attachment to provincial government, in -the States. The Union is to subsist, but to subsist as a shadow; it is -to be strong in certain cases, and weak in all others; in time of -warfare it is to be able to concentrate all the forces of the nation, -and all the resources of the country in its hands; and in time of peace -its existence is to be scarcely perceptible, as if this alternate -debility and vigor were natural or possible.” - -“I do not foresee anything for the present which may be able to check -this general impulse of public opinion; the causes in which it -originated do not cease to operate with the same effect. The change will -therefore go on, and it may be predicted that, unless some extraordinary -event occurs, the Government of the Union will grow weaker and weaker -every day.” Again: “So far is the Federal Government from acquiring -strength and from threatening the sovereignty of the States, as it grows -older, that I maintain it to be growing weaker and weaker, and that the -sovereignty of the Union alone is in danger.” And again: “It may, -however, be foreseen even now, that when the Americans lose their -Republican institutions, they will speedily arrive at a despotic -government, without a long interval of limited monarchy.” - -Speaking of the power of the President, he says: “Hitherto no citizen -has shown any disposition to expose his honor and his life, in order to -become the President of the United States, because the power of that -office is temporary, limited and subordinate. The prize of fortune must -be great to encourage adventurers in so desperate a game. No candidate -has as yet been able to arouse the dangerous enthusiasm or the -passionate sympathies of the people in his favor, for the very simple -reason, that when he is at the head of the Government he has but little -power, but little wealth, and but little glory to share amongst his -friends; and his influence in the State is too small for the success or -the ruin of a faction to depend upon the elevation of an individual to -power.” - -Now, if this greater than Montesquieu is to be believed, and his -authority is to be relied on by the Senator from Virginia, whence his -terror and alarm lest the power of the President might be strengthened -by the influence of the lower class of federal office holders at -elections? Why should they be deprived of the freedom of speech and of -the press, upon the principle that the power of Mr. Van Buren is -dangerous to the liberties of his country? The gentleman’s lauded -authority is entirely against his own position. Now, for my own part, I -differ altogether from De Tocqueville. Although I do not believe that -the power and patronage of the President can with any, even the least, -justice be compared with that of the King of England, yet from the very -nature of things, from the rapid increase of our population, from the -number of new States, from our growing revenue and expenditures, from -the additional number of officers necessary to conduct the affairs of -the Government, and from many other causes which I might enumerate, I am -convinced that the Federal Executive is becoming stronger and stronger. -Rest assured he is not that feeble thing which De Tocqueville represents -him to be. Federal power ought always to be watched with vigilant -jealousy, not with unjust suspicion. It ought never to be extended by -the creation of new offices, except they are absolutely necessary for -the transaction of the public business. - -The Whigs will be astonished to learn that, in the opinion of this -author, General Jackson has greatly contributed, not to strengthen, but -to weaken federal power. “Far from wishing to extend it,” says he; “the -President belongs to the party which is desirous of limiting that power -to the bare and precise letter of the Constitution, and which never puts -a construction upon that act favorable to the Government of the Union; -far from standing forth as the champion of centralization, General -Jackson is the agent of all the jealousies of the States; and he was -placed in the lofty situation he occupies by the passions of the people -which are most opposed to the central Government.” He states the means -adopted by this illustrious man for destroying his own power. They are: -1. Putting down internal improvements. 2. Abandoning the Indians to the -legislative tyranny of the States. 3. Destroying the Bank of the United -States. 4. Yielding up the tariff as a sacrifice to appease South -Carolina. In this list, he mentions the abandonment by Congress of the -proceeds of the sales of the public land to the new States to satisfy -their importunity. These States will be astonished to learn that Mr. -Clay’s land bill, to which they were so violently opposed, gave them the -greatest part of the revenue derived from this source; and my friend -from Missouri [Mr. Benton] will doubtless be much disappointed to hear -that President Jackson had completely adopted the principles of this -bill. De Tocqueville has communicated this information to us, and he is -high authority. Hear him: “Congress,” says he, “has gone on to sell, for -the profit of the nation at large, the uncultivated lands which those -new States contained. But the latter at length asserted that, as they -were now fully constituted, they ought to enjoy the exclusive right of -converting the produce of these sales to their own use. As their -remonstrances became more and more threatening, Congress thought fit to -deprive the Union of a portion of the privileges which it had hitherto -enjoyed; and, at the end of 1832, it passed a law by which the greatest -part of the revenue derived from the sale of lands was made over to the -new western republics, although the lands themselves were not ceded to -them.” And, in a note to this passage, the author says: “It is true that -the President refused his assent to this law; but he completely adopted -it in principle. See message of 8th December, 1833.” - -Here, sir, is a fair sample of the information which passes current in -Europe in regard to us and our institutions, and this proceeds from the -modern Montesquieu! Had he been a genuine Montesquieu, I think he would -have said, General Jackson has strengthened the Federal Government by -arresting it in its career of usurpation, and bringing it back to its -ancient constitutional course. Thus all danger of collision, or even of -jealousy, between it and the States has been avoided; and within its -appropriate sphere, every clog has been removed from its vigorous -action. It has thus become more powerful. Love of the Union is a -sentiment deeply seated in the heart of every American. It grows with -his growth, and strengthens with his strength; and never was it stronger -than at the present moment. One great cause of this is, that General -Jackson has denied himself every power not clearly granted by the -Constitution; whilst he has, with a firmness and energy peculiar to -himself, exerted all those which have been clearly conferred upon the -General Government. But enough of this. - -Now, sir, I cannot agree with the Senator from Virginia, according to -the explanation which he has given, that there is greater danger of -usurpation by an elective President, than by a limited hereditary -monarch. His was an argument to prove that, in this respect, a limited -monarchy has the advantage over our Republican form of Government. If -this be true, then our Government, in one particular at least, is worse -than that of England. Now, sir, upon what argument does the gentleman -predicate this conclusion? Does he not perceive that it is upon an -entire want of confidence in the people of the United States? He fears -their feelings may become so enlisted in favor of some popular Chief -Magistrate who has been elected by their suffrages—their passions may -become so excited—that he may ride upon their backs into despotic power. -Now, I do not believe any such thing. I feel the utmost confidence in -the people. As long as they remain intelligent and virtuous, they will -both be able and willing to defend their own cause, and protect their -own liberties from the assaults of an usurper, whether they be open or -disguised. Their passions will never drive them to commit suicide upon -themselves. It is true the people may go wrong upon some questions. In -my opinion, they have recently gone wrong in some of the States; but I -rely upon their sober second thought to correct the evil. On a question, -however, between liberty and slavery, until they are fit to be slaves, -there can be no danger. - -The Senator has expressed the opinion, with great confidence, that ours -is a far stronger Executive Government than that of England; and has -sustained this opinion by an enumeration of office holders, and an -argument to which I shall not specially refer. Let any man institute a -comparison between the two, and he will find that this is but the -creation of a brilliant imagination. I got a friend in the library last -evening to collect some statistical information for me on this subject. -Even now, in the time of peace, the British army exceeds 101,000 men, -including officers; and their vessels of war in commission are one -hundred and ninety-one. How will our army of 12,000 men, and our navy -consisting of twenty-six vessels in commission, compare with this array -of force, and this source of patronage? The officers of the British army -and navy, appointed by the crown, hold seats in Parliament, and engage -actively in the business of electioneering. No law prohibits them from -exerting their influence at elections; and the bill of the Senator from -Kentucky, in this respect, bears a close resemblance to the act of -Parliament. No jealousy is manifested in either towards the higher -officers. It is only those of the humble class who are deprived of their -rights. - -On the 5th January, 1836, the public debt of Great Britain and Ireland -amounted to £760,294,554 7s. 2-¾d. sterling, say, in round numbers, to -thirty-six hundred millions of dollars. The interest of every man who -owns any portion of this vast national debt is involved in and -identified with the power of the British government. It is by the -exertion of this power alone, that the annual interest upon his money -can be collected from the people. In order to pay this interest and -sustain the government, there was collected from the British people, in -the form of customs and internal taxes, during the year ending on the -5th January, 1836, the sum of £52,589,992 4s. 6¼d. sterling; say, in -round numbers, two hundred and fifty-two millions of dollars. What a -vast field for patronage is here presented! How does our revenue, of -some twenty or twenty-five millions of dollars, compare with this -aggregate? Then there is the patronage attached to the East and West -Indies, to the Canadas, and to British possessions scattered all over -the earth. The government of England is a consolidated government. It is -not like ours, composed of sovereign States, all whose domestic officers -are appointed by State authority. The king is the exclusive fountain of -office and of honors and of nobility throughout his vast dominions. What -is the fact in regard to the General Government? With the exception of -post officers, its patronage is almost exclusively confined to the -appointment of custom-house officers along our maritime frontier, and -land officers near our western limits. Throughout the vast intermediate -space, a man may grow old without ever seeing a federal civil officer, -unless it be a postmaster. I adduce these facts for the purpose, not of -proving that we ought not to exercise a wholesome jealousy towards the -Federal Government, but for that of showing how unjust it is to compare -the power and patronage of the President of the United States with that -of the king of England. You might as well compare the twinkling of the -most distant star in the firmament of heaven with the blaze of the -meridian sun. May this ever continue to be the case! - -I will tell the Senator from Kentucky how far I am willing to proceed -with him in punishing public officers. If a postmaster will abuse his -franking privilege, as I know to my sorrow has been done in some -instances, by converting it into the means of flooding the surrounding -country, with base libels in the form of electioneering pamphlets and -handbills, let such an officer be instantly dismissed and punished. If -any district attorney should either favor or oppress debtors to -Government, for the purpose of promoting the interest of his party, he -ought to share a similar fate. So if a collector will grant privileges -in the execution of his office to one importer, which he denies to -another, in order to subserve the views of his party, he ought to be -dismissed from office and punished for his offence. I would not tolerate -any such official misconduct. But whilst a man faithfully and -impartially discharges all the duties of his office, let him not be -punished for expressing his opinion in regard to the merits or demerits -of any candidate. Above all, let us not violate the Constitution, in -order to punish an officer. - -The Senator from Virginia has of late appealed to us often to rise above -mere party, and to go for our country. Such appeals are not calculated -to produce any deep impression on my mind; because, in supporting my -party, I honestly believe I am, in the best manner, promoting the -interest of my country. I am, but I trust not servilely, a party man. I -support the present President, not because I think him the wisest or -best man alive, but because he is the faithful and able representative -of my principles. As long as he shall continue to maintain these -principles, he shall receive my cordial support; but not one moment -longer. I do not oppose my friends on this side of the House because I -entertain unkind feelings towards them personally. On the contrary, I -esteem and respect many of them highly. It is against the political -principles of which they are the exponents, that I make war. - -I support the President, because he is in favor of a strict and limited -construction of the Constitution, according to the true spirit of the -Virginia and Kentucky resolutions. I firmly believe that if this -Government is to remain powerful and permanent, it can only be by never -assuming doubtful powers, which must necessarily bring it into collision -with the States. It is not difficult to foresee what would be the -termination of such a career of usurpation on the rights of the States. - -I oppose the Whig party, because, according to their reading of the -Constitution, Congress possess, and they think ought to exercise, powers -which would endanger the rights of the States and the liberties of the -people. Such a free construction of the Constitution as can derive from -the simple power “to lay and collect taxes,” that of creating a National -Bank, appears to me to be fraught with imminent danger to the country. I -am opposed to the party so liberal in their construction of the -Constitution, as to infer the existence of a power in the Federal -Government to create and circulate a paper currency for the whole Union, -from the clause which merely authorizes Congress “to regulate commerce -with foreign nations and among the several States, and with the Indian -tribes.” Such constructions would establish precedents which might call -into existence other alien and sedition laws; and it is such a -construction which has given birth to the bill now before the Senate, -denying the freedom of speech and of the press to a respectable portion -of our citizens. - -Should the time ever arrive when these principles shall be carried into -practice, and when the Federal Government shall control the whole paper -system of the country, either by the agency of a National Bank, or an -immediate issue of its own paper, our liberties will then be in the -greatest danger. In addition to the constitutional patronage of the -President, confer upon him the influence which would result from the -establishment of a National Bank, and you may make him too powerful for -the people. Such a bank, spreading its branches into every State, -controlling all the State institutions, and able to destroy any of them -at pleasure, would be a fearful engine of executive power. It would -indissolubly connect the money power with the power of the Federal -Government; and such an union might, I fear, prove irresistible. The -people of the States might still continue to exercise the right of -suffrage; all the forms of the Constitution might be preserved, and they -might delude themselves with the idea that they were yet free, whilst -the moneyed influence had insinuated itself into the very vitals of the -State, and was covertly controlling every election. - -The personal attachment which bound to General Jackson the most -distinguished men of his own party was compounded of something better -than a sordid love of office. To them he was always “the old hero.” He -was their political chief, and to follow him was of the essence of -patriotism. They might sometimes doubt the wisdom of his measures; but -they surrendered their own judgments to his, not, as their political -adversaries charged, from a slavish fear, but because they regarded him -as a great man, honestly and resolutely bent on serving his country. -They knew, as well as his opponents, that he had an imperious will. But -they knew him better than opponents who never approached him, who held -themselves aloof from all contact with his mind, and who formed their -ideas of his character from the stories that told how illiterate he was; -how he never wrote his State papers; how ignorant he was of -constitutional law; how he gave way to his passions, and swore “by the -Eternal.” In nothing was the devotion of the leading men of his party to -Jackson more fervid, more constant, and more true to their sense of -public duty than it was in his warfare against the bank. In the whole of -that conflict, in its progress and in its close, a band of men, who -numbered among them the strongest intellects of the party, stood by him -without the smallest sign of flinching. Some defections there were, but -the seceders were not persons of much importance. The great body of his -strongest supporters shared in his triumphs over the bank, and to the -end of their lives it was to them a victory over a monster, as worthy of -everlasting commemoration as the victory of St. Michael over the dragon. - -In the opposite party convictions were not less strong, and in that -party were some of the foremost minds of the age. As a parliamentary -leader, Mr. Clay has been equalled by no man in our political history. -With a personal fascination and a persuasive eloquence, he united a -temper as dictatorial as Jackson’s; and if he had ever become President, -he would, probably, have been as tyrannical as he was accustomed to say -and as many believed that Jackson was. The massive logic of Webster; his -profound knowledge of our constitutional system and of political -history; his full equipment in the accomplishments of a statesman; his -careful and comprehensive study of every public question on which he had -to act; his vast reputation and his majestic presence made him a far -more formidable adversary of the administration than Mr. Clay ever was. -Clay had never rendered a service comparable to Webster’s defence of the -Constitution against the Nullifiers and his patriotic support of General -Jackson’s measures in assertion of its authority. In all the political -tactics of Mr. Clay—even in his “compromise tariff,” by which he saved -Mr. Calhoun and his followers from a great personal humiliation, and -from a serious peril which they brought upon themselves—the public -suspected, or believed that there might be reason to suspect, some -personal motive. Webster, although as anxious to be President as Clay, -although, like his great rival, ambitious in that lofty sense of -ambition which consists in the desire to render eminent services to -one’s country in the highest attainable position, had more than once in -the course of his public life given proof that he could rise above party -or personal objects, and could support the measures of an administration -when he approved of them, and yet refrain from going over to a party -against whose course in other respects he was bound by his convictions -to exert his utmost resistance. - -Around each of these two prominent leaders of the Whig party was -gathered a body of able men, who were so far united as the bond of -thinking alike concerning the Republic can unite a political party, but -who, in consequence of the rivalry between their respective chiefs, were -never held together so compactly as their opponents, the followers of -Jackson. Perhaps Mr. Clay was more fortunate in securing and holding the -personal attachment of a larger number of political friends than Mr. -Webster. Twice was Clay made the candidate of his party; twice was he -magnanimously and vigorously supported by Webster’s powerful aid; and -twice he was defeated, the first time by Jackson, in 1832, and the -second time by Polk, in 1844. In the interim between these two -elections, namely, in 1836 and 1840, the Whig party, mainly in -consequence of the unreconciled claims of its two greatest statesmen, -resorted to a candidate who was personally and politically -insignificant, but whom they succeeded in electing in 1840 through the -circumstances of the time. But at the period of General Jackson’s second -Presidency, the great Whig opposition was firmly united against all his -measures respecting the bank and the currency. It was a period when the -leading men on all sides were governed by convictions to a very -remarkable degree, notwithstanding the influence which the love of -office or the desire for it exerted throughout the inferior ranks of -politicians in both parties; and among the Whigs the opinion which held -the financial measures of General Jackson to be most injurious to the -country, was not less strong and sincere than was the belief of his -supporters, that the destruction of the bank was necessary to the public -welfare. - -After Mr. Buchanan entered the Senate, he became conspicuous among the -defenders of Jackson’s financial measures. History, however fairly -written, must leave it an undecided question, whether the evils and -sufferings produced by Jackson’s hostility to the bank were, in the long -run, compensated by its destruction, and by the establishment of the -doctrine that such an institution must not be allowed to exist. To one -generation at least they were not compensated. It was impossible that -the connection between the Government and the bank should be severed, as -it was severed by Jackson, and be followed by the measures to which he -resorted, without causing a wide-spread financial disaster, the -bankruptcy and ruin of thousands, and inextricable embarrassment to the -Government itself. But it is sufficient for the present purpose to -describe the situation in which Jackson left the affairs of the country -to his successor, and the troubles through which Mr. Van Buren and his -political friends had to grope their way towards a definite solution of -the true relation between the Government of the United States and the -currency. A short retrospect into the history of the bank will develop -the principal grounds of General Jackson’s hostility to it. - -There would seem to have been no reason, _a priori_, why the United -States, if regarded simply as a nation, should not have a National Bank, -to perform the same kind of functions that have been performed by -similar institutions in other countries. In the luminous report made by -Alexander Hamilton in December, 1790, on a National Bank, he set forth, -with his accustomed ability, the advantage of having one fiscal -corporation, which could act as the depositary of the public funds, -transfer them from place to place as they are wanted at far distant -points, enable the Government to borrow money, and furnish, under proper -safeguards, a paper circulation of equally recognized value and security -throughout the Union, thus increasing the amount of money available for -the uses of legitimate business, and the means of effecting -exchanges.[55] That the Bank of the United States, chartered by Congress -in 1816, had down to the year 1833 well fulfilled these functions, there -could be little doubt. But under the Constitution of the United States, -which had established a government of enumerated and limited powers, -there had always been a question whether Congress possessed authority to -create such a fiscal corporation. - -This question involved the fundamental rule of interpretation that ought -to be applied to the powers of the Constitution:—a rule on which -statesmen had differed from the day of its inauguration, and which came -to be the most important dividing line between political parties, as -soon as parties were formed. The chief canon of interpretation that was -acted upon by those who shaped the measures of Washington’s -administration, and to which the sanction of his great name was given by -his signature of the first charter of a national bank, was that the -express and enumerated powers of the Constitution were described in -general terms, for the accomplishment of certain great objects of -national concern; and that whatever particular powers are necessary as -means to the full execution of the general powers described in the -instrument, are to be rightfully regarded as having been granted to -Congress, because they were included by an implication, without which -the principal powers would be nugatory. This, it was contended, would -have been a necessary and logical deduction, even if the Constitution -itself had not contained a clause defining the scope of the legislative -power of Congress, applicable to all the general powers enumerated in -the previous recitals. But with this clause, granting to Congress -authority “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for -carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers -vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or -in any Department or officer thereof,” it was claimed that Congress had -ample scope for a choice of means in the execution of every enumerated -power granted by the Constitution. Hence arose the doctrine of what have -been called “implied powers,” namely, those powers of government which -result by implication from the grant of authority over certain subjects, -and which, from the nature of political sovereignty, may be employed in -the accomplishment of any object over which that sovereignty extends. It -was not denied that the means resorted to in the exercise of an implied -power must have a relation, as a means, to one or more of the express -powers of the Constitution as its end. By the “strict constructionists,” -however, it was claimed, first, that the doctrine of implied powers was -too broad to be allowed to a government of a special and limited -character; secondly, that the Constitution itself did not grant an -unlimited choice of means or instruments for the execution of its -enumerated powers, but confined the choice to such as are “necessary and -proper,” terms that imported a restriction to those means which are -indispensable in fact to the attainment of the end. In reply, it was -contended by the advocates of the doctrine of implied powers that the -terms “necessary and proper” did not import that the particular means -employed should be so indispensable to the execution of some granted -authority that the authority could not be exercised without resorting to -that means; but that any means could be resorted to, which, in the -exercise of a sound legislative discretion, might be found to be -appropriate, convenient and conducive to the end. Such, it was argued, -was the relation between a bank and certain of the express powers of the -Constitution. - -Satisfied by the powerful intellect and luminous pen of Hamilton that -this was a correct construction of the Constitution, Washington, on the -25th of February, 1791, approved the bill which chartered the first Bank -of the United States. The paper drawn up by Mr. Jefferson, on the same -occasion, controverted the doctrine of implied powers with singular -acuteness, and embodied those stricter principles of constitutional -interpretation for which the party that he afterwards founded, and that -which claimed to be its political successors, have generally -contended.[56] - -The charter of the first Bank of the United States expired in the year -1811, and those who had originally opposed it then defeated a bill for -its renewal. In 1814–15, during the administration of Mr. Madison, while -we were engaged in the war with England, it was supposed that the -exigencies of the country required a national bank. A bill to create one -was passed by the two houses, in January, 1815, but it was “vetoed” by -Mr. Madison, and was not passed over his veto. His objections related to -the details of the charter. As to the constitutional power to create a -national bank, he considered that the repeated acts of all branches of -the Government and a concurrence of the general will of the nation, had -settled the question, although his personal opinion was adverse to the -power. But in 1816, a new charter, which incorporated the last Bank of -the United States, was passed by both houses and received the signature -of Mr. Madison. This charter was limited to twenty years, and was -consequently to expire in 1836.[57] In 1819 the question of its -constitutional validity came before the Supreme Court of the United -States, and the great mind of Chief Justice Marshall formulated in a -judicial decision the doctrine of implied powers, and the bank was -declared to be an instrument to which Congress could legitimately resort -for the execution of certain of the powers enumerated in the -Constitution.[58] - -When President Jackson, in 1832, vetoed a bill for renewing the charter -of the bank, it might, perhaps, have been wiser for him to have -acquiesced, as Mr. Madison did, in the weight of authority and precedent -on the question of constitutional power, especially since that weight -had been greatly augmented by the decision of the Supreme Court. It was -doubtless then, as it always must be, a delicate question whether a -President is officially bound, in approving laws, by the opinion of the -Judicial Department that such laws are constitutional. General Jackson -considered that in his legislative capacity he was not so bound, but -that while it was his duty to give due consideration to the reasoning on -which the judicial decision rested, it was equally his duty to exercise -his own judgment, upon a question of constitutional power, when asked to -approve of a law. All his personal convictions, and the convictions of -his official advisers, were adverse to the construction on which the -constitutional validity of the bank charter depended; and perhaps he and -they, believing that the bank, with a large capital and with certain -practical powers over the whole paper circulation of the country, had -entered the political field in hostility to his administration, did not -choose to forego the use of any weapon that could be wielded against it. -Aside from his personal interests as a candidate for re-election, it is -but justice to believe that he honestly regarded the bank as a dangerous -institution, and that he discerned, or thought he discerned, that the -constitutional objection was the strongest club with which the Hydra -could be assailed. In choosing this weapon, however, as his principal -reliance, he enabled his opponents to represent him as a man who chose -to set up his own arbitrary will against the judgment of two Congresses, -two Presidents of great authority, the Supreme Court of the United -States and the general acquiescence of the nation for a period of twenty -years, on a question of constitutional construction. Had he placed his -veto upon the renewal of its charter on grounds of expediency alone, the -bank might have been compelled to wind up its concerns in a manner that -would have produced less mischievous consequences to the country than -those which ensued. - -His next step, the removal from the bank of the public deposits, in the -summer of 1833, followed by his selection of certain State banks as the -keepers of the public money, and, to a certain extent, as the fiscal -agents of the Government, led to a singular train of evils. Doubtless an -institution, whose legal existence was to expire in three years, and -which could not obtain from Congress a prolongation of its charter -without using its power as a moneyed corporation to affect the politics -of the country, had by this time become an unfit custodian of the public -funds. Still, there was no sufficient warrant of law for placing the -public funds in the custody of State banks, at the time when they were -so transferred, nor had any system been matured by the executive for the -consideration of Congress, which might furnish a substitute for that -which had been in operation so long. The selection of certain State -banks as the depositaries of the public money, was a tentative -experiment, through which the country had to pass, with various -disasters, before any safe and efficient substitute could be found. - -The immediate effect of the withdrawal of the Government funds from the -Bank of the United States, was a diminution of its loans and a -consequent contraction of the currency. The immediate effect of placing -those funds in a few selected State banks, was a wild speculation by -their managers and other favored individuals, leading to their ruin. The -assembling of Congress in December, 1833, was followed by Mr. Clay’s -attack upon the President, and a session through which the Senate was -constantly engaged in the discussion of questions growing out of the -situation in which the Government, the country, the Bank of the United -States and the State banks had been placed by the executive. At length -the Whigs forced from the friends of the administration a disclosure of -the President’s purpose to keep the public moneys in the State banks, to -collect the public revenues through their agency, not to have any -present legislation on the subject, and not to allow another national -bank of any kind to be created. The adoption of Mr. Clay’s resolutions -censuring the President was followed, on the 17th of April, 1834, by the -President’s Protest, a document of singular ability and dignity, setting -forth his views of the executive authority over all public officers, -including the Secretary of the Treasury, in relation to the custody of -the public funds. The Whig majority of the Senate recorded their -rejection of these doctrines; but as the administration held a majority -in the House of Representatives, the session terminated without any -legislation to control in any way the financial experiment which the -President had determined should be tried. - -In the session which began in December, 1834, when Mr. Buchanan entered -the Senate, the Whig majority was still unchanged, but it was destined -to be overthrown by the effect of General Jackson’s constantly -increasing popularity and influence, which his conduct of the foreign -relations of the country greatly tended to strengthen, while in domestic -affairs a majority of the people, although beginning to suffer from his -measures, still approved of his course in regard to the national bank. -Nothing was done, however, at this session, to develope a more definite -relation of the Government to the currency; it was a session in which -both parties were much occupied with the selection of candidates for the -Presidency. The result was, that with the aid of General Jackson’s -powerful influence, Mr. Van Buren became the Democratic candidate. In -the autumn of 1836, he was elected by a majority of forty-six electoral -votes, against General Harrison, the candidate of the Whigs.[59] - -The last of the executive measures of General Jackson, in relation to -the finances and monetary affairs of the country, was the so-called -“Specie Circular,” issued by the Secretary of the Treasury on the 11th -of July, 1836. It directed that after a certain period, nothing but gold -and silver should be received at the land offices in payment for the -public lands. The purpose of this measure was to prevent payment for the -public lands in the depreciated paper of the State banks. But in the -actual condition of things, its effect was to draw the specie of the -country into the vaults of the deposit banks, through the land offices; -and as there was then no efficient means by which the Government could -transfer its funds from place to place, as they were wanted, by any -paper representative of money of equal credit through the Union, specie -had to be moved to and fro in masses. The State banks which were not -depositaries of the Government funds were thus weakened by the want of -specie; they had to curtail their loans, and a great scarcity of money -ensued in many quarters. Before Congress assembled in December the -internal exchanges of the country were entirely deranged, and a general -suspension of specie payments by the banks was not unlikely to take -place in the not distant future. - -It is not improbable that at this juncture the disasters which ensued in -the next year might have been averted, if the political opponents of the -administration on the one hand and its friends on the other could, by -mutual concessions, have found a common ground of action. To remove the -obnoxious Specie Circular was evidently necessary. A bill was passed for -this purpose by the two houses, before the end of the session, but at so -late a period that the President did not return it, and it failed to -become a law. The two opposing parties might have agreed on some -provision for the necessities of the Government and the wants of the -people,—some mode of providing a regulator of the paper currency,—but -for two great obstacles which kept them apart, the one of which was to a -great extent the consequence of the other. In the large commercial -cities, the principal merchants and bankers were still in favor of the -establishment of a national bank, as the true remedy for existing -disorders, and thence these classes almost universally acted with the -Whigs. General Jackson had resolutely determined that no such -institution should ever again be allowed to exist. Although, by the -first use which he made of banking corporations in the fiscal concerns -of the Government, he seemed to admit the power of the Government to -create such corporations, his hostility to a national bank led him and -his political friends to seek for the means of divorcing the fiscal -concerns of the Government from all connection with banks of any kind, -and to deny that the Government of the United States had any duty to -perform towards the paper currency, or to provide any currency but gold -and silver. Had not the question of a national bank, in consequence of -the attitude of so many of the Whigs, entered largely into the issues of -the approaching Presidential election, it is not improbable that the two -parties, in the session of 1836–7, might have discovered and carried out -some means of averting the catastrophe which followed the election. But -the result was that General Jackson turned over the Government to his -successor on the 4th of March, 1837, without anything having been done -for the remedy of existing disorders, and with an imperative necessity -for an extra session of Congress. It was summoned by Mr. Van Buren for -the 4th of September, 1837. Before that day arrived, every bank in the -country had ceased to pay specie. - ------ - -Footnote 55: - - There is, perhaps, no other of the writings of Hamilton which more - strikingly exhibits his marvellous powers, the perspicuity of his - style, and his faculty of illustrating an intricate subject, than this - report. When he made it he was at the age of thirty-three. It reads as - if he had passed a long life in some country where banks had been - established for centuries, and in some official connection with them, - or in mercantile pursuits that had brought him into daily experience - of their operations; yet he had never been out of the United States - since he came from the Island of St. Christopher, at the age of - fifteen; there had been but three banks in this country when he wrote - this report; and every part of his life that had not been passed in - the army, in Congress, or in the proceedings to form and establish the - Constitution of the United States, had been employed in the practice - of the law. This master-piece of exposition may be read with delight - by any person of taste, such are the grace, precision, force and - completeness with which he handles his subject. We need not wonder - that it carried conviction among the members of the body to which it - was addressed. - -Footnote 56: - - Works of Thomas Jefferson. - -Footnote 57: - - See the history of the various bills for creating a national bank - stated more in detail in the Life of Mr. Webster, by the present - writer, vol. I. - -Footnote 58: - - McCullough _vs._ the State of Maryland, 4 Wheaton’s R. 316. - -Footnote 59: - - At the time of the election of Mr. Van Buren, the whole number of - electoral votes was 294, a majority being 148. There was no choice of - a Vice President by the electoral colleges. Richard M. Johnson, of - Kentucky, received 147 votes, and was afterwards elected Vice - President by the Senate. General Harrison, the leading Whig candidate - for the Presidency, received the electoral votes of Vermont, New - Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana, seventy-three - in all. The fourteen votes of Massachusetts were given to Mr. Webster. - Hugh L. White, of Tennessee, received the votes of Tennessee and of - Georgia, twenty-six in all. The votes of South Carolina, eleven, were - given to W. P. Mangum, of North Carolina. It is apparent, therefore, - that at this time the Whigs, if we comprehend in that term all the - opponents of the Democratic party, were in a decided minority in the - country at large. This was partly because their leading candidate was - far inferior to the important men of the opposition; but it was - chiefly because the great States of New York, Pennsylvania and - Virginia still adhered to the financial and other measures of General - Jackson, and because so many of the smaller States were still - indisposed to return to the policy of a national bank. - ------ - - - - - CHAPTER XV. - 1837—1841. - -MR. VAN BUREN’S PRESIDENCY—THE FINANCIAL TROUBLES ACCUMULATING—REMEDY OF - THE INDEPENDENT TREASURY—BUCHANAN ON THE CAUSES OF SPECIE - SUSPENSION, AND THE PENNSYLVANIA BANK OF THE UNITED STATES—GREAT - POLITICAL REVOLUTION OF 1840—BUCHANAN DECLINES A SEAT IN MR. VAN - BUREN’S CABINET. - - -In the condition of things existing when the extra session of Congress, -summoned by Mr. Van Buren, commenced (September, 1837), the immediate -relief of the Government was the first necessity. The temporary -expedient contemplated by the new administration, for this purpose, was -to issue Treasury notes, to be used in paying the public creditors. For -the permanent management of the public finances, it was proposed to make -no further use of banks, but that the revenues of the Government should -be deposited with certain officers of the Treasury, and be paid out to -the public creditors on Treasury orders. This was the scheme which -became afterwards expanded into the “Sub-Treasury.” It was examined and -opposed by Mr. Webster, in an elaborate speech, delivered on the 28th of -September, and on the 29th he was followed by Mr. Buchanan, in an -equally extended and forcible discussion of the causes of the present -distress, and the remedy that should be applied. These two speeches may -be said to have exhausted the two sides of the main controversy between -the opposite parties, in regard to the duty of the General Government to -regulate the paper currency of the country, which then consisted of the -notes of about eight hundred State banks. Such a discussion of course -involved the disputed topics of those clauses of the Constitution from -which the Whigs derived the power and deduced the duty of a general -supervision over the paper circulation. Of Mr. Buchanan’s reasoning on -these subjects, it may be said with justice that, entering into direct -controversy with Mr. Webster, he combated that eminent person’s -constitutional views with singular ability, and energetically defended -what was derisively called “the new experiment,” and was considered by -the party of the administration as a divorce of the Government from all -connection with banks. In conclusion he said: - -Mr. Van Buren is not only correct in his statements of facts, but by his -message he has for ever put to flight the charge of non-committalism—of -want of decision and energy. He has assumed an attitude of moral -grandeur before the American people, and has shown himself worthy to -succeed General Jackson. He has elevated himself much in my own esteem. -He has proved equal to the trying occasion. Even his political enemies, -who cannot approve the doctrines of the message, admire its decided -tone, and the ability with which it sustains what has been called the -new experiment. And why should the sound of new experiments in -Government grate so harshly upon the ears of the Senator from -Massachusetts? Was not our Government itself, at its origin, a new and -glorious experiment? Is it not now upon its trial? If it should continue -to work as it has heretofore done, it will at least secure liberty to -the human race, and rescue the rights of man, in every clime, from the -grasp of tyrants. Still, it is, as yet, but an experiment. For its -future success, it must depend upon the patriotism and the wisdom of the -American people, and the Government of their choice. I sincerely believe -that the establishment of the agencies which the bill proposes, will -exert a most happy influence upon the success of our grand experiment, -and that it will contribute, in no small degree, to the prosperous -working of our institutions generally. The message will constitute the -touchstone of political parties in this country for years to come; and I -shall always be found ready to do battle in support of its doctrines, -because their direct tendency is to keep the Federal Government within -its proper limits, and to maintain the reserved rights of the States. To -take care of our own money, through the agency of our own officers, -without the employment of any banks, whether State or National, will, in -my opinion, greatly contribute to these happy results; and in sustaining -this policy, I feel confident I am advocating the true interest and the -dearest rights of the people. - -This allusion to the decision and energy which Mr. Van Buren had -displayed in his message at the opening of the extra session, and which -had raised him in Mr. Buchanan’s esteem, implies that Mr. Buchanan had -previously doubted about the course of the new President. The following -letters from General Jackson show that he did not share those doubts. - - [GENERAL JACKSON TO MR. BUCHANAN.] - - HERMITAGE, August 24, 1837. - -MY DEAR SIR:- - -Your much-esteemed favor of date July 28th last, has been too long -neglected by me. It reached me in due course of mail and I intended -replying to it immediately, but checkered health and a crowd of company -interposed and prevented me that pleasure until now. - -For your kind wishes, I tender you my sincere thanks—as to my fame, I -rest it with my fellow-citizens—in their hands it is safe—posterity will -do me justice. - -The vile slanders that are heaped upon me by the calumniators of the day -pass unheeded by me, and I trust will fall harmless at my feet. - -What pleasure it affords to learn from you that the Keystone State of -the Union are firmly united in the great Republican cause which now -agitates the whole Union. This will give impulse throughout the Union to -the Democratic cause, and the conflict now raging between the -aristocracy of the few, aided by the banks and the paper-money credit -system, against the democracy of numbers, will give a glorious triumph -to Republican principles throughout our Union, and good old Republican -Pennsylvania will be again hailed, as she deserves, the Keystone to our -Republican arch and preserver of our glorious Union. I feel proud of her -attitude, and my fervent prayers are that nothing may again occur to -separate the Republican ranks, so as to give to the opposition or -shinplaster party the ascendency. I feel to that State a debt of -gratitude which I will cherish to my grave, and I shall ever delight in -her prosperity. - -I have no fears of the firmness of Mr. Van Buren; his message you will -find, or my disappointment will be great, will meet the views and wishes -of the great Democratic family of Pennsylvania; at present a temporizing -policy would destroy him; I never knew it fail in destroying all who -have adopted it. My motto is, to take principle for my guide to the -public good. I have full confidence that Mr. Van Buren will adopt the -same rule for his guide and all will be safe. - -I have always opposed a union between Church and State. From the late -combined treachery of the banks, in suspending specie payments in open -violation of their charters and every honest and moral principle, and -for the corrupt objects they must, from their acts, have had in view, I -now think a union between banks and the Government is as dangerous as a -union with the Church, and what condition would we now be in _if engaged -in a war with England_? I trust Congress will keep this in view, and -never permit the revenue of our country to be deposited with any but -their own agents; it is collected by the agents of the Government, and -why can it not be as safely kept and disbursed by her own agents under -proper rules and restrictions by law? I can see none, nor can it add one -grain of power to the executive branch more than it possesses at -present; the agent can have as secure a deposit as any bank, and always -at command by the Government to meet the appropriations by law; the -revenue reduced to the wants of the Government never can be hoarded up, -for as it comes in to-day, it will be disbursed to-morrow; and if all -cash, no credits, will be more in favor of our home industry than all -tariffs. This I hope will be recommended by the President and adopted by -Congress, and then I will hail our Republic safe, and our Republican -institutions permanent. - -You will please pardon these hasty and crude hints. My family join me in -kind salutations, and believe me your friend, - - ANDREW JACKSON. - -P. S.—Please let me occasionally hear from you. A. J. - - [JACKSON TO BUCHANAN.] - - (Private.) HERMITAGE, December 26, 1837. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I have to offer you an apology for my neglect of not acknowledging -sooner your kind and interesting letter of the 26th of October last, -accompanied with yours and Mr. Wright’s speeches on the subject of the -divorce bill or sub-treasury system. - -I have read these speeches with great attention and much pleasure; they -give conclusive evidence of thorough knowledge of our Republican system -and constitutional law, and must remain a lasting monument of the -talents that made them, and they will become the text-book of the -Republicans for all time to come. I regret very much that these speeches -have not been more generally circulated through the South and West; they -would have produced much good by enlightening the public mind. - -I never for one moment distrusted the firmness of Mr. Van Buren, and I -rejoice to see this confidence confirmed by his undeviating course. I -have no fears of the Republic. The political tornado that has lately -spread over the State of New York must have a vivifying effect upon the -Republican cause. It will open the eyes of the people to the apostacy of -the Conservatives, and prevent them from having the power to deceive -hereafter, and will unite the Republicans from Maine to New Orleans.[60] - -It has (with the exultations of the Whigs here and Mr. Bell’s speech at -Fanueil Hall) had a healing effect in Tennessee. The deluded White men -are just awakening from their delusion, and now say, although they -supported White, they can neither go for Webster nor Clay; that they -have always been Republicans. The election of Mr. Foster instead of Bell -to the Senate shows that Bell’s popularity with the legislature is gone; -and I am informed that the majority of the legislature regret the -premature election of the Senator. I have no doubt but our next -legislature will reverse the election of Senator, upon constitutional -grounds; that there was no vacancy to fill, and none that could happen -within the time for which the present legislature was elected to serve. - -I hope the whole of the Republicans in Congress will rally with energy -and firmness, and pass the divorce or sub-treasury bill into a law; -there is no doubt of the fact that in the Senate the Republicans have a -vast superiority in the argument; would to God we had equal talent in -the House of Representatives. The great body of the people will support -this measure, and the Conservatives will have to return to the -Republican fold, or join the opposition; if they join the opposition, -they then become harmless, and can no longer delude the people by their -hypocrisy and apostacy. I am informed by a gentleman from Western -Virginia, that Mr. Rives has, by his attitude, lost his political -standing there, and Mr. Ritchie has lost his. I sincerely regret the -attitude these two gentlemen have placed themselves in; common sense -plainly proves that if the revenue is again placed in irresponsible -State banks, after their late treachery and faithlessness to the -Government, it will inevitably lead at last to the incorporation of a -national bank. Can any patriot again place our revenue, on which depends -our independence and safety in time of war, in the keeping of State or -any other banks, over whom the Government have no control, and when the -revenue might be most wanted to provide for defence, the banks might -suspend, and compel the Government to make a dishonorable peace? I -answer, no true patriot can advocate such a system, whatever might be -his professions. - -I am proud to see that the Keystone State is preparing for the struggle -next October. I hope nothing may occur in the least to divide the -Republican party; the opposition and some professed friends, but real -apostates and hirelings of banks, will endeavor to divide the party, but -I hope and trust union and harmony will prevail. - -My health is improved, but my vision has failed me much; I hope it may -improve. I write with great difficulty. My whole household joins me in -kind regards and good wishes for your happiness. I will be happy to hear -from you the prospects of the divorce passing in the Court House. - - Your friend sincerely, - - ANDREW JACKSON. - -P.S.—We all present you with the joys of the season. - -The bill to authorize the issue of treasury notes was passed at the -extra session of Congress in 1836. The bill to establish the -sub-treasury was passed in the Senate but failed in the House. The Bank -of the United States, unable to obtain from Congress a prolongation of -its charter, had procured a charter of incorporation from the -Legislature of Pennsylvania. This new corporation became the assignee of -the assets of the old one. It was now, therefore, in a singular and -unprecedented attitude. As a Pennsylvania corporation, it had power to -issue its own notes. As a trustee for winding up the affairs of the old -corporation, it had in its possession the notes of the old bank. It -re-issued these notes, without any authority to do so, used them in the -Southern States, in exchange for the depreciated local currency, with -which it bought cotton for exportation, or to pay its debts abroad, or -purchased specie to replenish its vaults at home. It had thus created an -obstacle to the resumption of specie payments. On the 23d of April, -1838, Mr. Buchanan made a very able speech in the Senate, in support of -a bill to prevent the Pennsylvania Bank from re-issuing and circulating -the notes of the old bank, giving the causes which produced the -suspension of specie payments, and those which might affect a -resumption. - -Mr. Buchanan said there was but one consideration which could induce -him, at the present moment, to take any part in the discussion of the -bill now before the Senate. He felt it to be his duty to defend the -legislature of the State which he had, in part, the honor to represent, -from the charge which had been made against them by the Senator from New -Jersey [Mr. Wall] and other Senators, and by many of the public presses -throughout the country, that, in rechartering the Bank of the United -States, they had conferred upon it the powers of a great trading -company. This charge was wholly unfounded in point of fact. The charter -had not constituted it a trading company; and he felt himself bound to -make the most solemn and public denial of that charge. If this bank had -become the great cotton merchant which was represented, and he did not -doubt the fact, it had acted in express violation of its charter. He -therefore rose, not to criminate, but to defend the legislature of his -native State. - -The Democratic party of Pennsylvania had been, unfortunately, divided in -1835; and the consequence was the recharter of the Bank of the United -States. Of the wisdom or policy of this measure (said Mr. B.) the Senate -of the United States are not constituted the judges. I shall never -discuss that question here. This is not the proper forum. I shall leave -it to the sovereign people of the State. To them, and to them alone, are -their representatives directly responsible for this recharter of the -bank. As a citizen of the State, I have on all suitable occasions, both -in public and in private, expressed my opinion boldly and freely upon -the subject. In a letter from this city, dated on the 30th June, 1836, -which was published throughout the State, I have presented my views in -detail upon this question; and I feel no disposition to retract or -recant a single sentiment which I then expressed. On the contrary, -experience has only served to confirm my first convictions. - -My task is now much more agreeable. It is that of defending the very -legislature who renewed the charter of the bank, from the charge which -has been made and reïterated over and over again, here and throughout -the country, of having created a vast corporation, with power to deal in -cotton, or any other article of merchandise. A mere reference to the -charter, will, of itself, establish my position. It leaves no room for -argument or doubt. The rule of common reason, as well as of common law, -is, that a corporation can exercise no power, except what has been -expressly granted by its charter. The exercise of any other power is a -mere naked usurpation. On the present occasion, however, I need not -resort to this rule. The charter not only confers no such power of -trading, but it contains an express prohibition against it. It was -approved by the Governor on the 18th day of February, 1836, and the -fifth fundamental article contains the following provision: “_The said -corporation shall not, directly or indirectly, deal or trade in any -thing except bills of exchange, gold and silver bullion, or in the sale -of goods really and truly pledged for money lent and not redeemed in due -time, or goods which shall be the proceeds of its lands._” In this -particular, it is but a mere transcript from the charter granted to the -late bank by Congress on the 10th of April, 1816, which was itself -copied from the charter of the first Bank of the United States, -established in the year 1791. I have not recently had an opportunity of -examining the charter of the Bank of England, but I believe it contains -a similar provision. The Senate will, therefore, at once perceive there -is as little foundation for charging the legislature of Pennsylvania -with conferring upon the existing bank the enormous powers of a great -trading company, as there would have been for making a similar charge -against the first or the last Congress which chartered a Bank of the -United States. It is true that the bank, under its existing charter, can -deal much more extensively in stocks than it could have done formerly; -but this power does not touch the present question. - -The bank, by becoming a merchant and dealing in cotton, has clearly -violated its charter, and that, too, in a most essential particular. -Either the legislature or the Governor may direct a _scire facias_ to -issue against it for this cause; and, if the fact be found by a jury, -the Supreme Court of the State can exercise no discretion on the -subject, but must, under the express terms of the act creating it, -adjudge its charter to be forfeited and annulled. Whether the -legislature or the Governor shall pursue this course, is for them, not -for me, to decide. This bank has already so completely entwined itself -around our system of internal improvements and common school education, -that it doubtless believes it may violate its charter with impunity. Be -this as it may, the sin of speculating in cotton lies at the door of the -bank, and not at that of the legislature. - -Heaven knows the legislature have been sufficiently liberal in -conferring powers upon this institution; but I doubt whether a single -member of that body would have voted to create a trading company, with a -capital of $35,000,000, in union with banking privileges. Let us pause -and reflect for a moment upon the nature and consequences of these -combined powers. A bank of discount and circulation, with such an -enormous capital, and a trading company united! By expanding or -contracting its discounts and circulation, as a bank, it can render -money plenty or money scarce, at its pleasure. It can thus raise or -depress the price of cotton, or any other article, and make the market -to suit its speculating purposes. The more derangement that exists in -the domestic exchanges of the country, the larger will be its profits. -The period of a suspension of specie payments is its best harvest, -during which it can amass millions. It is clearly the interest of this -bank, whatever may be its inclination, that specie payments should -continue suspended, and the domestic exchanges should continue deranged -as long as possible. The ruin of the country thus becomes its most -abundant source of profit. Accordingly, what do we find to have been its -course of policy? I have heard it described by several gentlemen from -the South and Southwest, some of whom are members of this body. It has -gone into that region of the Union with these resurrection notes of the -old bank, the reissue of which this bill proposes to prohibit; and, in -some States, it has exchanged them, the one-half for the depreciated -local currency, and the other half for specie. With this local currency -it has purchased cotton, and sent it to England for the purpose of -paying its debts there, whilst with the specie it has replenished its -vaults at home. In other States it has exchanged these dead notes of the -old bank for the notes of the local banks, receiving a large premium on -the transaction, and with the latter has purchased cotton on -speculation. A general resumption of specie payments would at once put -an end to this profitable traffic. It has, then, first violated the -charter from Congress by reissuing the notes of the old bank, and then -violating the charter from Pennsylvania by speculating in cotton. During -the suspension of specie payments, these notes have been the only -universal paper circulation throughout the country; and thus, by -reissuing them, in defiance of the law, the present bank has been -enabled to accumulate extravagant profits. - -This charge against the bank of speculating in cotton has never, to my -knowledge, been contradicted. We have heard it from the other side of -the Atlantic, as well as from the South and Southwest. The Whig press of -our country has commended, nay, almost glorified the bank for going into -the cotton market, when that article was depressed, and making large -purchases, and its friends in England have echoed these notes of praise. -Its example has produced a new era in banking. We find that the Southern -and Southwestern banks have also become cotton merchants; and, from -present appearances, the trade in this great staple of our country is no -longer to be conducted by private merchants, but by banking -corporations. - -Under this system, what will be the fate of your private merchants? This -practice must be arrested, or they must all be ruined. The one or the -other alternative is inevitable. What private individual can enter the -cotton market in competition with the banks of the country? Individual -enterprise can accomplish nothing in such a struggle. It would be the -spear hurled by the feeble hand of the aged Priam, which scarce reached -the buckler of the son of Achilles. The Bank of the United States which, -according to the testimony of its president, might have destroyed, by an -exertion of its power, almost every bank in the country, could, with -much greater ease, destroy any private merchant who might dare to -interfere with its speculations. Such a contest would be that of -Hercules contending against an infant. It can acquire a monopoly against -individual merchants in any branch of mercantile business in which it -may engage; and, after having prostrated all competition, it can then -regulate the price of any article of commerce according to its pleasure. -I do not say that such is either its wish or its intention; but I mean -thus to illustrate the vast and dangerous power which it may exercise as -a merchant. The East India company monopolized the trade of Asia, but it -possessed no banking powers. It could not, therefore, by curtailing or -expanding its issues, make money scarce or make money plenty at -pleasure, and thereby raise or depress the price of the articles in -which it traded. In this respect its power as a merchant was inferior to -that now exercised by the Bank of the United States. - -How vain, then, I might almost say how ridiculous, is it for people of -the South to make the attempt to establish merchants in the southern -seaports for the purpose of conducting a direct trade with Europe in -cotton and other articles of their production, in opposition to the Bank -of the United States and their own local banks. This effort must fail, -or the banks must cease to be merchants. I am glad to learn that, at the -late Southern convention, this alarming usurpation by the banks of the -appropriate business of the merchant has been viewed in its proper -light. The time, I trust, is not far distant when they will be confined, -by public opinion, to their appropriate sphere. What a fatal error it is -for any free people, tempted by present and partial gain, to encourage -and foster such institutions in a course which must, if pursued, -inevitably crush the merchants of the country who conduct its foreign -trade! As a class, these merchants are highly meritorious, and entitled -to our support and protection against a power which, if suffered to be -exerted, must inevitably destroy them. - -Philadelphia is a city devoted to the interests of the bank; but even in -that city, if it should undertake to speculate in flour, in coal, or in -any other article which is poured into her market from the rich -abundance of the State, such conduct would not be submitted to for a -moment. The legislature of the State would at once interpose to protect -our merchants. Such an attempt would at once break the spell of bank -influence. And yet it possesses no more power to deal in southern cotton -than it does in Pennsylvania flour. It will remain a banker at home; -whilst its mercantile speculations will be confined to the southern and -southwestern provinces of its empire. - -The reason will now, I think, appear manifest why the Parliament of -Great Britain, the Congress of the United States, and the Legislature of -Pennsylvania, have so strictly prohibited their banking institutions -from dealing in any thing except bills of exchange and gold and silver -bullion. If the Bank of England should dare to invade the province of -the merchants and manufacturers of that country in a similar manner, the -attempt would instantly be put down. Every man acquainted with the -history and character of the people of England, knows that such would be -the inevitable consequence. And yet this violation of law, on the part -of the Bank of the United States, has been lauded in our free Republic. - -As I am upon the floor, I shall proceed briefly to discuss the merits of -the bill now before the Senate. It proposes to inflict a fine not -exceeding ten thousand dollars, or imprisonment not less than one nor -more than five years, or both such fine and imprisonment, at the -discretion of the court, upon those who shall be convicted under its -provisions. Against whom does it denounce these penalties? Against -directors, officers, trustees, or agents of any corporation created by -Congress, who, after its term of existence is ended, shall reissue the -dead notes of the defunct corporation, and push them into the -circulation of the country, in violation of its original charter. The -bill embraces no person, acts upon no person, interferes with no person, -except those whose duty it is, under the charter of the old bank, to -redeem and cancel the old notes as they are presented for payment, and -who, in violation of this duty, send them again into circulation. - -This bill inflicts severe penalties, and, before we pass it, we ought to -be entirely satisfied, first, that the guilt of the individuals who -shall violate its provisions is sufficiently aggravated to justify the -punishment; second, that the law will be politic in itself; and, third, -that we possess the constitutional power to enact it. - -First, then, as to the nature and aggravation of the offence. The -charter of the late Bank of the United States expired, by its own -limitation, on the 3d of March, 1836. After that day, it could issue no -notes, discount no new paper, and exercise none of the usual functions -of a bank. For two years thereafter, until the 3d of March, 1838, it was -merely permitted to use its corporate name 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, whatsoever_.” Congress had granted the bank no power -to make a voluntary assignment of its property to any corporation or any -individual. On the contrary, the plain meaning of the charter was, that -all the affairs of the institution should be wound up by its own -president and directors. It received no authority to delegate this -important trust to others; and yet what has it done? On the 2d day of -March, 1836, one day before the charter had expired, this very president -and these directors assigned all the property and effects of the old -corporation to the Pennsylvania Bank of the United States. On this same -day, this latter bank accepted the assignment, and agreed to “pay, -satisfy and discharge all debts, contracts, and engagements, owing, -entered into, or made by this [the old] bank, as the same shall become -due and payable, _and fulfil and execute all trusts and obligations -whatsoever arising from its transactions, or from any of them_, so that -every creditor or rightful claimant shall be fully satisfied.” By its -own agreement, it has thus expressly created itself a trustee of the old -bank. But this was not necessary to confer upon it that character. By -the bare act of accepting the assignment, it became responsible, under -the laws of the land, for the performance of all the duties and trusts -required by the old charter. Under the circumstances, it cannot make the -slightest pretence of want of notice. - -Having assumed this responsibility, the duty of the new bank was so -plain that it could not have been mistaken. It had a double character to -sustain. Under the charter from Pennsylvania, it became a new banking -corporation; whilst, under the assignment from the old bank, it became a -trustee to wind up the concerns of that institution. These two -characters were in their nature separate and distinct, and never ought -to have been blended. For each of these purposes it ought to have kept a -separate set of books. Above all, as the privilege of circulating bank -notes, and thus creating a paper currency, is that function of a bank -which most deeply and vitally affects the community, the new bank ought -to have canceled or destroyed all the notes of the old bank which it -found in its possession on the 4th of March, 1836, and ought to have -redeemed the remainder, at its counter, as they were demanded by the -holders, and then destroyed them. This obligation no Senator has -attempted to doubt, or to deny. But what was the course of the bank? It -has grossly violated both the old and the new charter. It at once -declared independence of both, and appropriated to itself all the notes -of the old bank, not only those which were then still in circulation, -but those which had been redeemed before it accepted the assignment, and -were then lying dead in its vaults. I have now before me the first -monthly statement which was ever made by the bank to the auditor general -of Pennsylvania. It is dated on the 2d of April, 1836, and signed J. -Cowperthwaite, acting cashier. In this statement the bank charges itself -with “notes issued,” $36,620,420.16; whilst in its cash account, along -with its specie and the notes of State banks, it credits itself with -“notes of the Bank of the United States and offices,” on hand, -$16,794,713.71. It thus seized these dead notes to the amount of -$16,794,713.71, and transferred them into cash; whilst the difference -between those on hand and those issued, equal to $19,854,706.45, was the -circulation which the new bank boasted it had inherited from the old. It -thus, in an instant, appropriated to itself, and adopted as its own -circulation, all the notes and all the illegal branch drafts of the old -bank which were then in existence. Its boldness was equal to its utter -disregard of law. In this first return, it not only proclaimed to the -legislature and people of Pennsylvania that it had disregarded its trust -as assignee of the old bank, by seizing upon the whole of the old -circulation and converting it to its own use, but that it had violated -one of the fundamental provisions of its new charter. - -In Pennsylvania we have, for many years past, deemed it wise to increase -the specie basis of our paper circulation. We know that, under the -universal law of currency, small notes and gold and silver coin of the -same denomination cannot circulate together. The one will expel the -other. Accordingly, it is now long since we prohibited our banks from -issuing notes of a less denomination than five dollars. The legislature -which rechartered the Bank of the United States, deemed it wise to -proceed one step further in regard to this mammoth institution; and in -that opinion I entirely concur. Accordingly, by the sixth fundamental -article of its charter, they declare that “the notes and bills which -shall be issued by order of said corporation, or under its authority, -shall be binding upon it; and those made payable to order shall be -assignable by endorsement, _but none shall be issued of a denomination -less than ten dollars_.” - -Now, it is well known to every Senator within the sound of my voice, -that a large proportion of these resurrection notes, as they have been -aptly called, which have been issued and reissued by order of the new -bank, are of the denomination of five dollars. Here, then, is a plain, -palpable violation, not only of the spirit, but of the very letter of -its charter. The Senate will perceive that the bank, as if to meet the -very case, is not merely prohibited from issuing its own notes, signed -by its own president and cashier, of a denomination less than ten -dollars, but this prohibition is extended to the notes or bills which -shall be issued by its order, or under its authority. If I should even -be mistaken in this construction of the law, and I believe I am not, it -would only follow that its conduct has not amounted to a legal -forfeiture of its charter. In both cases the violation of the spirit of -its charter, and the contravention of the wise policy of the -legislature, are equally glaring. So entirely did the bank make these -dead notes its own peculiar circulation, that until July last, in its -monthly returns to the Auditor General of Pennsylvania, the new and the -old notes are blended together, without any distinction. In that return -we were, for the first time, officially informed that the bank had ever -issued any notes of its own. - -And here an incident occurs to me which will be an additional proof how -lawless is this bank, whenever obedience to its charter interferes in -the least degree with its policy. By the tenth fundamental article of -that charter, it is required to “make to the Auditor General monthly -returns of its condition, showing the details of its operations -according to the forms of the returns the Bank of the United States now -makes to the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, or -according to such form as may be established by law.” From no idle -curiosity, but from a desire to ascertain, as far as possible, the -condition of the banks of the country, and the amount of their -circulation, I requested the Auditor General, during the late special -session of Congress in September, to send me the return of the bank for -that month. In answer, he informed me, under date of the 22d of -September, that the bank had not made any return to his office since the -15th of the preceding May. Thus, from the date of the suspension of -specie payments until some time after the 22d of September last, how -long I do not know, a period during which the public mind was most -anxious on the subject, the bank put this provision of its charter at -defiance. Whether it thus omitted its duty because at the date of the -suspension of specie payments it had less than a million and a half of -specie in its vaults, I shall not pretend to determine. If this were the -reason, I have no doubt that it sent to the Auditor General all the -intermediate monthly returns on the 2d of October, 1837, because at that -period it had increased its gold and silver to more than three millions -of dollars. - -In order to illustrate the enormity of the offence now proposed to be -punished, Senators have instituted several comparisons. No case which -they have imagined equals the offence as it actually exists. Would it -not, says one gentleman, be a flagrant breach of trust for an executor, -entrusted with the settlement of his testator’s estate, to reissue, and -again put in circulation for his own benefit, the bills of exchange or -promissory notes which he had found among the papers of the deceased, -and which had been paid and extinguished in his lifetime? I answer, that -it would. But, in that case, the imposition upon the community would -necessarily be limited, whilst the means of detection would be ample. -The same may be observed in regard to the case of the trustee, which has -been suggested. What comparison do these cases bear to that of the -conduct of the bank? The amount of its reissues of these dead notes of -its testator is many millions. Their circulation is coextensive with the -Union, and there is no possible means of detection. No man who receives -this paper can tell whether it belongs to that class which the new bank -originally found dead in its vaults, or to that which it has since -redeemed and reissued, in violation of law; or to that which has -remained circulating _lawfully_ in the community, and has never been -redeemed since the old charter expired. There is no earmark upon these -notes. It is impossible to distinguish those which have been illegally -reissued from the remainder. - -I can imagine but one case which would present any thing like a parallel -to the conduct of the bank. In October last, we authorized the issue of -$10,000,000 of Treasury notes, and directed that when they were received -in payment of the public dues, they should not be reissued, but be -canceled. Now, suppose the Secretary of the Treasury had happened to be -the president of a bank in this District, and, in that character, had -reissued these dead treasury notes, which he ought to have canceled, and -again put them into circulation, in violation of the law, then a case -would exist which might be compared with that now before the Senate. If -such a case should ever occur, would not the Secretary at once be -impeached; and is there a Senator upon this floor, who would not -pronounce him guilty? The pecuniary injury to the United States might be -greater in the supposed than in the actual case; but the degree of moral -guilt would be the same. - -Whether it be politic to pass this law is a more doubtful question. -Judging from past experience, the bank may openly violate its provisions -with impunity. It can easily evade them by sending packages of these old -notes to the South and Southwest, by its agents, there to be reissued by -banks or individuals in its confidence. There is one fact, however, from -which I am encouraged to hope that this law may prove effectual. No man -on this floor has attempted to justify, or even to palliate, the conduct -of the bank. Its best friends have not dared to utter a single word in -its defence against this charge. The moral influence of their silence, -and the open condemnation of its conduct by some of them, may induce the -bank to obey the law. - -I now approach the question—do Congress possess the power under the -Constitution to pass this bill? In other words, have we power to -restrain the trustees of our own bank from reissuing the old notes of -that institution which have already been redeemed and ought to be -destroyed? Can there be a doubt of the existence of this power? The bare -statement of the question seems to me sufficient to remove every -difficulty. It is almost too plain for argument. I should be glad if any -gentleman would even prove this power to be doubtful. In that event I -should refrain from its exercise. I am a State rights man, and in favor -of a strict construction of the Constitution. The older I grow, and the -more experience I acquire, the more deeply rooted does this doctrine -become in my mind. I consider a strict construction of the Constitution -necessary not only to the harmony which ought to exist between the -Federal and State Governments, but to the perpetuation of the Union. I -shall exercise no power which I do not consider clear. I call upon -gentlemen, therefore, to break their determined silence upon this -subject, and convince me even that the existence of the power is -doubtful. If they do, I pledge myself to vote against the passage of the -bill. - -If this power could only be maintained by some of the arguments advanced -by the friends of the bill, in the early part of this discussion, it -never should receive my vote. Principles were then avowed scarcely less -dangerous and unsound than the principle on which the Senator from -Vermont (Mr. Prentiss) insists that the friends of the bill must claim -this power. He contends that it does not exist at all, unless it be -under that construction of the Constitution advocated by his friend from -Massachusetts (Mr. Webster), which would give to Congress power over the -whole paper currency of the country under the coining and commercial -powers of the Constitution. The Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Niles) was -the first in this debate who presented in bold relief the principle on -which this bill can securely rest. - -Neither shall I dodge this question, as some Senators have done, by -taking shelter under the pretext that it is a question for the judiciary -to decide, whether the general language of the bill be applicable to the -officers of the Bank of the United States under the Pennsylvania -charter. We all know that it was intended to embrace them. Indeed, it -was their conduct, and that alone, which called this bill into -existence. It is true that the provisions of the bill extend to all -corporations created by Congress; but it is equally certain, that had it -not been intended to apply to the Bank of the United States, it would -have been confined in express terms to the District of Columbia, where -alone corporations now exist under the authority of Congress. Away with -all such subterfuges! I will have none of them. - -Suppose, sir, that at any time within the period of two years thus -allowed by the charter to the president and directors of the bank to -wind up its affairs, these officers, created under your own authority, -had attempted to throw thirty millions of dollars of their dead paper -again into circulation, would you have had no power to pass a law to -prevent and to punish such an atrocious fraud? Would you have been -compelled to look on and patiently submit to such a violation of the -charter which you had granted? Have you created an institution, and -expressly limited its term of existence, which you cannot destroy after -that term has expired? This would indeed be a political Hydra which must -exist forever, without any Hercules to destroy it. If you possess no -power to restrain the circulation of the notes of the old bank, they may -continue to circulate forever in defiance of the power which called them -into existence. You have created that which you have no power to -destroy, although the law which gave it birth limited the term of its -existence. Will any Senator contend that during these two years allowed -by the charter for winding up the concerns of the bank, we possessed no -power to restrain its president and directors from reissuing these old -notes? There is no man on this floor bold enough to advance such a -doctrine. This point being conceded, the power to pass the present bill -follows as a necessary consequence. - -If the president and directors of the old bank could not evade our -authority, the next question is, whether, by assigning the property of -the corporation to a trustee the day before the charter expired, and -delivering up to him the old notes which ought to have been canceled, -they were able to cut this trustee loose from the obligations which had -been imposed upon them by the charter, and from the authority of -Congress. Vain and impotent, indeed, would this Government be, if its -authority could be set at nought by such a shallow contrivance. No, sir, -the fountain cannot ascend beyond its source. The assignee in such a -case is not released from any obligation which the assignor assumed by -accepting the original charter. In regard to Congress, the trustee -stands in the same situation with the president and directors of the old -bank. We have the same power to compel him to wind up the concerns of -the bank, according to the charter, that we might have exercised against -those from whom he accepted the assignment. The question is too plain -for argument. - -The present case is still stronger than the one which I have presented. -It is an assignment by the old Bank of the United States, not to -strangers, not to third persons, but to themselves, in the new character -conferred upon them by the legislature of Pennsylvania. This new charter -expressly incorporates all the stockholders of the old bank, except the -United States, so that the individuals composing both corporations were -identical. For the purpose of effecting this transfer from themselves to -themselves, they got up the machinery of one president and one board of -directors for the old bank, and another president and another board of -directors for the new bank. What kind of answer, then, would it be to -Congress for them to say: True, we accepted a charter under your -authority, by which we were bound to reissue none of our old notes after -the 3d March, 1836, but we have since assumed a new character; and under -our old character, we have transferred the bank which you created, to -ourselves in our new character; and we have thus released ourselves from -all our old obligations, and you have no constitutional power to enforce -them against us? No sir, no sir; we have the power, and it is our duty, -to compel the president and directors of the bank, which we established, -or their assignees, to close its concerns; and this power will continue -until the duty shall be finally accomplished. The one power is a -necessary implication from the other. If this duty has not been -performed within the two years which we have allowed for its fulfilment, -our power depends not upon any such limitation, but upon the fact -whether the concerns of the bank have been actually closed. If this were -not the case, then all the affairs of the bank left unfinished at the -end of these two years would be outlawed. This limitation was intended -not to abridge the power of Congress, but to hasten the action of the -president and directors in winding up the concerns of the bank. At this -very session, and since the two years have expired, Congress has passed -an act, without a shadow of opposition from any quarter, giving the -president and directors of the old bank authority to prosecute and -defend existing suits. I should be glad to see any Senator rise in his -place, and make even a plausible argument in opposition to these plain -and almost self-evident positions. - -In this brief argument, I have not attempted to derive any power from -the fact that the United States were proprietors of one-fifth of the -stock of the old bank, and that they might be rendered responsible, -either legally or equitably, for the eventual redemption of these dead -notes. I disclaim any such source of power. To be a proprietor is one -thing, and to be a sovereign is another. The mere fact that we owned -stock can confer no power upon us, which we would not have possessed, -had we never been interested to the amount of a dollar. We should have -the same power to wind up a bank emanating from our sovereign authority -in the one case as in the other. We possess the same power to close the -concerns of all the banks in the District of Columbia after their -charters shall have expired, although we are not proprietors of any of -their stock, which we have to wind up the Bank of the United States, in -which we were so deeply interested. - -I need scarcely observe that I do not contend for any power to punish -citizens of the United States, or even the officers of banking -institutions, except such of them only as the trustees of the bank -created by ourselves, for issuing these dead notes. We intend to punish -the trustees under our own law, and them alone, for the violation of -that law. These notes may circulate from hand to hand without rendering -those who receive or those who pay them obnoxious to any punishment. -Even if we possessed the power, it would be highly unjust to attempt its -exercise. As I observed before, these notes have no earmarks, and no man -can tell whether any one of them has been illegally reissued by the bank -since the 3d March, 1836, or whether it was issued before that date, and -has continued legally to circulate in the community ever since. - -I repeat, I should be glad to see any Senator, and especially any one -who believes that Congress possesses the constitutional power to charter -a Bank of the United States, rise in his place, and make even a -plausible argument in opposition to the plain and almost self-evident -positions which I have taken in support of the power to pass this bill. -Those Senators who doubt or deny our power to create such a bank are -placed in a different situation, because their vote in favor of this -bill might at first view seem, by implication, to concede that power. -This objection does not appear to me to be sound. That question cannot -be fairly raised by this bill. Whether the charter of the late bank was -constitutional is no longer a fair subject of consideration. It was -adopted by Congress, approved by the President, and afterwards -pronounced to be constitutional by the highest judicial tribunal of the -land. It thus received every sanction necessary to make it binding on -the people of the United States. The question was thus settled beyond -the control of any individual, and it was the duty of every good citizen -to submit. Under every government there must be a time when such -controversies shall cease; and you might now as well attempt to exclude -Louisiana from the Union, because you may believe her admission was -unconstitutional, as to act upon the principle, in the present case, -that Congress had no power to charter the late bank. No man on this -floor had ever avowed that he would vote to repeal the charter of the -late bank, during the twenty years of its existence, because he might -have thought it was originally unconstitutional. During this period all -were obliged to submit. Under such circumstances, it would be carrying -constitutional scruples very far, indeed, for any gentleman to contend -that, although the bank has existed under the sanction of a law which we -were all bound to obey, we cannot now execute that law and close its -concerns, because as individuals we may have deemed it to be originally -unconstitutional. If it had been so, the obligation upon us would only -be the stronger to wind it up finally, and thus terminate its existence. - -I most cheerfully admit that if an attempt should ever be made to -charter another bank, the question of constitutional power would then -again be referred to each individual member of Congress, to be decided -according to the dictates of his own judgment and his own conscience. - -Before I take my seat, I intend to make some remarks on the causes of -the suspension of specie payments by the banks of the country, and the -causes equally powerful which must, and that ere long, compel a -resumption. - -The late manifesto issued by the present Bank of the United States -displays, upon its face, that it has inherited from the old bank an -unconquerable disposition to interfere in the politics of the country. -This has been its curse, its original sin, to which it owes all its -calamities and all its misfortunes. It has not yet learned wisdom from -its severe experience. Would that it might, and confine itself to its -appropriate sphere! As a citizen of Pennsylvania, I most ardently and -devoutly express this wish. It has now set itself up, as the primary -power, against the resumption of specie payments, and has attempted to -enlist in the same cause all the other banks of the country. Its -language to them is, that “the Bank of the United States makes common -cause with the other banks.” And again: “They (the banks) are now safe -and strong, and they should not venture beyond their entrenchments, -while the enemy is in the plain before them.” “The American banks should -do, in short, what the American army did at New Orleans, stand fast -behind their cotton bales, until the enemy has left the country.” - -Thus whilst every eye and every heart was directed to the banks, -expecting anxiously from them a speedy resumption of specie payments, -this grand regulator of the currency has proclaimed to the country that -all its vast power will be exerted to prevent the accomplishment of our -wishes. - -The bank does not even attempt to conceal the fact that, in pursuing -this course, it has been actuated by political hostility against the -present administration. It has been boldly avowed that “if the banks -resume, and are able, by sacrificing the community, to continue for a -few months, _it will be conclusively employed at the next elections to -show that the schemes of the executive are not as destructive as they -will prove hereafter_.” In plain language, the banks must not resume -before the next elections; they must not open their vaults, pay their -honest debts, and thus redeem the country from the curse of an -irredeemable paper currency; because, if they should, this may operate -in favor of the present administration, and place its opponents in a -minority. And such is the conduct of the bank whilst it vaunts its own -ability to resume immediately. - -The bank proceeds still further, and complains that “bank notes are -proscribed not merely from the land offices, but from all payments of -every description to the Government.” I would ask, has any Senator upon -this floor, has any statesman of any party in the country, ever raised -his voice in favor of the receipt by the Government of irredeemable bank -paper? I beg their pardon; two Senators have proposed such a measure, -[Messrs. Preston and Clay]; but I will do them the justice to say, that -although I considered their proposition most unwise and impolitic, and -resisted it as such at the time, yet they intended by this means to -enable the banks the sooner to resume specie payments. - -Mr. Preston. It was exclusively limited to that consideration. - -Mr. Buchanan. Although the proposition was limited to the first of -August, the Senators themselves upon reflection, thought it so improper -that they abandoned it, and we have heard nothing of it since. - -What would have been the condition of the country, at the present -moment, had we received irredeemable bank notes in payments of the -public dues? The banks, by our conduct, would have been encouraged to -increase their discounts and expand their issues, and we should have -gone from bad to worse, until, at this moment, we should have had no -prospect of the resumption of specie payments. Mr. Cheves has informed -us that if the Government had not stood firm in 1819 against the receipt -of irredeemable notes, the banks would at that period have suspended. -Much more necessary is it that we should now maintain the same ground, -in order to secure a resumption. Had we pursued any other course, it is -true we should have but one currency for the Government and the people; -but it would have been currency of irredeemable bank rags, without the -hope of a better. And yet the Bank of the United States complains that -the Government does not receive such paper. In order to have done so, we -must have repealed the existing laws upon the subject; and who has -ventured to propose any such measure? - -The Bank of the United States has succeeded, at the late bank convention -in New York, in keeping its forces behind their cotton bales. The banks -of only two States in the Union have voted against the resolution to -suspend the resumption of specie payments until the first day of January -next. These were New York and Mississippi; and whether the latter voted -thus because their banks are ready now to resume, or desired to postpone -resumption until a still more distant day, I shall not pretend to -determine. After this display of power, no one will question the ability -of the bank to keep its forces behind their entrenchments, unless they -should be driven into the plain by the resistless power of public -opinion. - -Several weeks ago I attempted to imitate the illustrious examples which -had been set before me on this floor, and became a political prophet. I -then predicted that, before the close of the present year, commerce and -manufactures would revive and flourish, and the country would be -restored to its former prosperity. The signs of the times have already -confirmed the truth of this prophecy. Encouraged by past experience, I -shall venture to make another prediction: There is not a sound and -solvent bank in any of the Atlantic States of this Union, including the -Bank of the United States, which will not have resumed specie payments -long before the first of January. All the opposition of the banks -themselves cannot prevent this result. In the very nature of things it -must come to pass. The power of public opinion is yet still greater in -this country than that of the banks. The Bank of the United States will -not be able to keep its forces behind their cotton bags until so late a -period. - -It is now too late in the day for us any longer to doubt what was the -cause of the suspension of specie payments. That question has been -settled on the other side as well as on this side of the Atlantic. -Abundance of light has been shed upon this subject, and no two -sound-judging men, at all acquainted with the facts, can arrive at -different conclusions. It has already become history. And yet the bank, -in its manifesto, has not once alluded to this cause. What was it? In -the perpetual fluctuations which must ever be produced by our present -banking system, unless it should be regulated by State legislation, of -which I now almost despair, it was expanded in the commencement of the -year 1837 almost to the point of explosion. The bubble is created, it -expands, and reflects the most brilliant colors. Its admirers gaze upon -it with hope and ecstasy, when, suddenly, it bursts, and leaves them in -ruin and despair. Such has been the history of the past, and such will -be that of the future. This expansion had produced, as it must ever -produce, enormous speculation and over-trading. The commercial debt -which we then owed to England for foreign merchandise was immense. We -must have suffered the fatal collapse sooner or later, but a -circumstance then occurred in England which at once produced the -explosion. It was the spark applied to the magazine of gunpowder. - -A similar state of expansion then existed in England. They were -threatened with similar evils from extravagant bank credits, and their -inevitable consequence—enormous speculation and over-trading. The Bank -of England had in vain attempted to control the joint-stock banks, and -confine them within reasonable limits. She at last became alarmed for -her own safety. In the beginning of 1837 her stock of specie was reduced -to about four millions of pounds sterling, or one-sixth of her -circulation and deposits. This was not more than one-half of the -proportion which, it is believed, she ought to have in order to render -her secure. The state of the foreign exchanges was gradually withdrawing -the remaining bullion from her vaults. At this crisis, under the -influence of a panic, she withdrew her credits from the American houses -in England, and ruined them. The price of cotton, in consequence, -suddenly fell from nineteen and twenty cents to seven and eight cents -per pound; and thus, according to the best and most discreet estimate -which I have seen, we lost at least thirty million of dollars. The sum -was thus, as it were in a single moment, abstracted from our means of -paying the immense commercial balance against us. At the close of this -disastrous operation, that balance was estimated at forty millions of -dollars. What was the immediate consequence? A drain of specie then -commenced from our banks for exportation, in order to pay this debt, and -they were thus compelled to suspend or be ruined. Another circumstance -existed to increase our embarrassments. Our merchants had drawn heavy -bills upon England, predicated upon the cotton which they had shipped -there, expecting to receive the old prices. In consequence of the sudden -fall of prices, these bills were dishonored, and came back protested. -Thus many of our largest mercantile houses were ruined. - -The catastrophe proceeded from the same causes, and was similar in both -countries, except that in England the banks were not compelled to -suspend specie payments. The revenue of both has been insufficient to -meet the current expenses of the Government, and each will be obliged to -borrow nearly the same sum to supply the deficiency. - -This is now history, which can neither be changed nor perverted. On both -sides of the Atlantic all men of business and practical statesmen have -come to the same conclusion. Away, then, with your Specie Circular, your -mismanagement of the deposits, and your clamor raised by the executive -against bank notes, as the causes of the suspension of specie payments. -The bank calculates too much upon the political credulity of the people, -when, at this late day, after the subject is perfectly understood, it -attempts to palm off upon them such exploded reasons for the suspension. -A convulsion which has shaken the commercial world to its centre, and -has extended over three-quarters of the globe, could never spring from -such trivial causes. - -If the executive has been carrying on a war against the credit system of -the country, and in favor of an exclusive metallic currency for the -people of the United States, I am ignorant of the fact. I have never -even suspected it. I believe this is a mere phantom which has been -conjured up to alarm the fears of the timid. If the President ever -should wage any such war, I shall not fight under his banner. The only -pretext upon which this charge has been founded is, that he and his -political friends desire to separate the business of the Treasury from -that of the banks, not to render them hostile to each other. Until that -propitious day shall arrive, we shall be forever agitated by the -connection of the currency with our miserable party politics. Political -panics, political pressures, charges against the Government for -exercising an improper influence over the banks, and charges against the -banks for interfering with the politics of the country; all, all which -have kept us in a state of constant agitation for the last seven years -will continue to exist, and will be brought into action upon every -successive election for President and Vice President. We shall thus -continue in a state of perpetual commotion; and the great interests of -the country will be sacrificed. Let the Treasury and the banks part in -peace, and whilst they are mutually independent, let them wage no war -against each other; and I solemnly believe it would be the greatest -blessing which could be conferred upon both parties. To this extent, I -should go with the President if I had the power; but when I determine to -obey instructions, I shall do it honestly and fairly. I shall, -therefore, say no more on this subject. - -It is true that at the special session I did endeavor to prove that the -present banking system, under its existing regulations, was one of the -very worst which the art of man could devise. Under it, ruinous -expansions and revulsions must continue to succeed each other at stated -periods, and many of the best and most enterprising men of the country -must become its victims. I then expressed a hope, not unmingled with -fear, that the State legislatures at their next session might impose -wholesome restrictions upon their banking institutions—restrictions -which would prove equally advantageous to the banks and the people. -These legislatures have all now risen without prescribing any such -regulations, and we are destined again and again to pass through the -same vicissitudes which we have so often already witnessed. - -The Whigs have always been exceedingly unlucky in regard to the time of -these periodical revulsions, occasioned by excessive banking. They have -either come too soon or too late to answer their political purposes. Had -the suspension of specie payments occurred one year sooner than it did, -the hero of Tippecanoe might have been the successor of the hero of New -Orleans. But the revulsion came again at the wrong time; and long before -the Presidential election of 1840, the country will again be prosperous. -The effects of the suspension will have passed away, like the baseless -fabric of a vision, without leaving a trace behind. Our late experience -has been so severe, that the next bank explosion may possibly be -postponed until the year 1844. Whom it may then benefit I know not, nor -do I much care. One thing is certain, that these revulsions can never do -anything but injury to the party in power. It is the nature of man to -accuse the Government, or anything else, except his own misconduct, for -his misfortunes. - -I now approach a much more agreeable part of my subject; and that is, to -prove that the banks must and will speedily resume specie payments. I -shall attempt to establish that now is the very time, the accepted time, -the best time, and, within the period of a few months, the only time, -when they can resume, without the least embarrassment. Some of the -causes which will speedily effect this happy result, I shall enumerate. - -In the first place, I shall do the banks of the country generally the -justice to say, that since the suspension of specie payments they have -curtailed their circulation and their loans to a great extent, and have -done everything they reasonably could to atone for their past -extravagance. The banks of Pennsylvania, including that of the United -States, during a period of ten months, commencing in January, and ending -in November, 1837, had reduced their circulation from twenty-five -millions and a quarter to almost seventeen millions, and their discounts -from eighty-six millions and a half to nearly seventy-one millions, -whilst, during the same period, they had increased their specie from -five millions and three-quarters to upwards of seven millions. From all -I can learn, they have been since progressing at nearly the same rate, -though I have not seen their official returns. The banks of other States -have been generally pursuing the same course. The consequence is, that -the confidence of the country in their banking institutions has been, in -a great degree, restored. I feel convinced that if they should resume -specie payments to-morrow, in the interior of Pennsylvania, at least, -there would be no run upon them, except for as much silver change as -might be required to supply the place of the miserable trash now in -circulation under the denomination of shinplasters. Besides they would -soon receive on deposit a greater amount from those who have been -hoarding specie, under the belief that it would be safer at home than in -the banks, and in the hope that they might hereafter use it to great -advantage. No foreign demand now exists to drain the banks of their -specie; on the contrary, the reflux tide has set in strongly, and is now -wafting immense sums of gold and silver to our shores. - -But, sir, another powerful cause of resumption exists. Our exports of -cotton have, many months ago, paid our foreign commercial debt. Whilst -that has been extinguished, the disastrous condition of our currency has -reduced almost to nothing the orders of our merchants for foreign goods. -Our imports are of small comparative value. In the mean time, our cotton -crop of 1837 has been regularly and steadily seeking its accustomed -markets in England and France. We have sold much, and bought little, and -the balance in our favor is nearly all returning in specie. From the -last English accounts which I have seen, the exports of specie from that -country to this were still on the increase; and now, by almost every -vessel from abroad which reaches our shores, we are receiving gold and -silver. Specie, by the latest advices, was the most profitable means of -remittance from England to the United States, yielding a profit of four -per cent. When Congress met in September last, the rate of exchange -against us on England was upwards of twenty per cent. It is now reduced -to six per cent., which is three or four per cent. below the specie par. -A great revolution in so short a period! It proves how vast are the -resources of our country. - -This great revolution has been effected by means of our cotton. The -English manufacturers must have this article, or be ruined. This -necessity has reversed the ordinary laws of trade, and the foreign -market for it has remained firm and steady, although we bring home -scarcely any equivalent, except in specie. - -If a large portion of our cotton crop still remains unsold, so much the -better. The golden tide will continue so much the longer to flow into -our country. It is the policy of our banks to take it at the flood, and -go on to fortune. If the banks do but seize the present golden -opportunity, they will have completely fortified themselves before a -reverse can come. This state of things cannot always continue. A -reaction must occur. If the banks wait for the ebbing tide, and postpone -a resumption until our merchants shall make heavy purchases abroad, and -specie shall begin to be exported, they will then encounter difficulties -which they need not now dread. I again repeat that this moment is the -accepted time for the banks to resume. - -But it is not only the ordinary laws of trade which are now bringing -vast amounts of specie to our country. Two other causes are operating -powerfully to produce this result. - -The conduct of the Bank of England, in arresting its credits to the -American houses, which was the immediate cause of the suspension of -specie payments, has been loudly condemned by men of all parties there. -This measure has done that country nearly as much injury as it has done -this, because England must always suffer from every derangement in our -currency. The Bank is now conscious of this truth, and is retracing her -steps. She has increased her stock of bullion between February, 1837, -and March, 1838, from £4,032,090 to upwards of ten millions sterling. -She is now strong, and it is her interest, as well as that of the people -of England, that she should use this strength in assisting us to resume -specie payments. Accordingly, she has, through the agency of one of our -most intelligent and enterprising citizens, made an arrangement to -furnish the banks of New York one million sterling in specie, to aid -them in resuming payments in gold and silver. This million is now -arriving, by instalments, in the United States. In resuming at the -present moment, our banks have everything to hope, and nothing to fear, -from England. - -Again: The spirit of internal improvement is abroad throughout our land. -States and private companies have loans to make for the purpose of -erecting their public works. Money is now plenty in England, and is -everywhere seeking an investment. The derangement in the business of -that country has thrown capital out of employment. The rate of interest -has been reduced to three and three and a half per cent. Their -capitalists are anxious to make secure investments in loans to our -different State governments, and incorporated companies, at a higher -rate of interest than they can obtain at home. These loans are now being -disposed of in England to a very large amount; and the greater -proportion of their proceeds must return in specie to this country. -Everything is propitious to an immediate resumption by our banks. - -Will the Bank of the United States resume? I confess I do not doubt the -fact. She has made a false movement, and it is the great prerogative of -strength to acknowledge and retrieve an error. Her late manifesto -against the resumption of specie payments has not found a single -advocate on this floor. It has struck dumb all her friends. But -yesterday she might have stood against the world. To-day there is none -so poor as to do her reverence. Even those who must politically suffer -by the resumption, because “it will be conclusively employed at the next -elections, to show that the schemes of the executive are not so -destructive as they will prove hereafter,” have not dared to break a -lance in her defence. This was not wont to be the case in days of yore, -for hitherto her champions have been always ready to do battle in her -cause. Notwithstanding all which has been said upon the subject, I am -not one of those who believe that the Bank of the United States is not -able to resume. Although the statement of her condition, as recently -published, is not very flattering, yet her resources are vast. She is -able if she were willing. Of this I cannot entertain a doubt. - -Again: Will not the bank take compassion on the good city of -Philadelphia, which has ever been devoted to its interest? Boston has -been called the Athens of America; New York, the great Commercial -Emporium; and Baltimore, the Monumental City; whilst Philadelphia has -been distinguished by the name of the City of the Bank or marble palace; -and well have her citizens earned this distinction by their loyalty. -Will the bank now consent to see her commerce and trade languish, and -her star wane before that of New York, rather than retrace its steps and -resume specie payments? No, never. Forbid it, gratitude! - -That this must be the effect, who can doubt? Merchants who come from a -distance to purchase goods with money in hand will go where they can buy -the cheapest; and goods at a specie standard must always be cheaper than -in a depreciated currency. Those who have produce to sell, especially if -the sale is to be made upon credit, will select that market where they -will receive its price in a sound currency. Already the prospect of -resumption in New York has made Philadelphia bank notes worth less by -five per cent. than those of that city. What will this difference become -when the one city shall have resumed, and the circulation of the other -shall be irredeemable paper? Who that has money to remit or deposit will -send it to Philadelphia, to be returned in notes depreciated to an -extent which cannot be foreseen, when they can send it to New York with -a perfect confidence that it will be returned to them according to the -specie standard? Under such a state of things, the trade of New York -must increase and flourish at the expense of that of Philadelphia. I -have not time, at present, to enter into further particulars on this -branch of the subject. - -The people of Pennsylvania have submitted patiently to the suspension of -specie payments by their banks. They have bowed to the necessity which -existed, and have treated them with kindness and generosity. The Bank of -the United States has proclaimed its ability to resume, and our other -banks are in the same situation. The necessity for a further suspension -no longer exists. Pay your honest debts when you are able, is a maxim -dear to the people of Pennsylvania. This duty has now become a question -of morality, far transcending any question of policy. If these -privileged corporations now any longer refuse to pay their honest debts, -either for the sake of their own advantage, or from a desire to elevate -one political party and depress another, the indignation of honest men, -of all parties, will be roused against them. There will be a burst of -popular feeling from our mountains and our valleys, which they will be -compelled to respect. Thank God! public opinion in the interior of -Pennsylvania is yet stronger than the money power. Our people will never -submit to the degradation that their banks shall furnish them no -currency but that of irredeemable paper; whilst, throughout the State of -New York, the banks shall have resumed specie payments. Nothing could be -more wounding to my own pride, as a Pennsylvanian. - -If our banks should hold out, under the command of their great leader, -until the first day of January next, many of them will never be able to -resume. The public confidence, which their conduct since the suspension -has hitherto inspired, will long ere that distant day cease to exist. No -run would now be made on them in case they resume; but if they are -forced into the measure by public opinion, after resisting as long as -they can, the days of many of them will then be numbered. Honesty, duty, -policy, all conspire to dictate to them a speedy resumption. - -In conclusion, permit me to remark, that the people of the United States -have abundant cause for the deepest gratitude towards that great and -glorious man now in retirement for preventing the recharter of the Bank -of the United States. He is emphatically the man of the age, and has -left a deeper and more enduring impress upon it than any individual of -our country. Still, in regard to the bank, he performed but half his -work. For its completion we are indebted to the president of the bank. -Had the bank confined itself, after it accepted the charter from -Pennsylvania, to its mere banking and financial operations—had it -exerted its power to regulate the domestic exchanges of the country—and, -above all, had it taken the lead in the resumption of specie payments, a -new bank, Phœnix-like, might have arisen from the ashes of the old. That -danger, from present appearances, has now passed away. The open defiance -of Congress by the bank—the laws of the country over and over again -violated—its repeated attempts to interfere in the party politics of the -day—all, all have taught the people the danger of such a vast moneyed -corporation. Mr. Biddle has finished the work which General Jackson only -commenced. - -Not one particle of personal hostility towards that gentleman has been -mingled in my discussion of the question. On the contrary, as a private -gentleman, I respect him; and my personal intercourse with him, though -not frequent, has been of the most agreeable character. I am always -ready to do justice to his great and varied talents. I have spoken of -the public conduct of the bank over which he presides with the freedom -and boldness which I shall always exercise in the performance of my -public duties. It is the president of the bank, not the man, that I have -assailed. It is the nature of the institution over which he presides -that has made him what he is. Like all other men, he must yield to his -destiny. The possession of such vast and unlimited power, continued for -a long period of years, would have turned the head of almost any other -man, and have driven him to as great excesses. - -In vain you may talk to me about paper restrictions in the charter of a -bank of sufficient magnitude to be able to crush the other banks of the -country. When did a vast moneyed monopoly ever regard the law, if any -great interest of its own stood in the way? It will then violate its -charter, and its own power will secure it impunity. It well knows that -in its destruction the ruin of hundreds and thousands would be involved, -and therefore it can do almost what it pleases. The history of the bank -for several years past has been one continued history of violated laws, -and of attempts to interfere in the politics of the country. Create -another bank, and place any other man at its head, and the result will -be the same. Such an institution will always hereafter prove too strong -for the Government; because we cannot again expect to see, at least in -our day, another Andrew Jackson in the Presidential chair. On the other -hand, should such a bank, wielding the moneyed power of the country, -form an alliance with the political power, and that is the natural -position of the parties, their combined influence would govern the -Union, and liberty might become an empty name. - - MR. BUCHANAN’S REPLY TO MR. CLAY, ON THE SAME DAY. - -Mr. Buchanan said he had never enjoyed many triumphs, and therefore he -prized the more highly the one which he had won this day. He had forced -the honorable Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Clay] to break that determined -silence which had hitherto sealed his lips on the subject of this bill. -Thus, said Mr. B., I have adorned my brow with a solitary sprig of -laurel. Not one word was he to utter upon the present occasion. This he -had announced publicly. - -[Here Mr. Clay dissented.] - -Mr. Buchanan. I thought he had announced the other day his determination -not to debate the question, and stated this as the reason why he -propounded to the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Wall] the question -whether, in his opinion, John Brockenbrough and Albert Gallatin could be -constitutionally punished by Congress for re-issuing the old notes of -the Bank of the United States. - -[Mr. Clay again explained.] - -Well, said Mr. Buchanan, the Senator did intend to address the Senate on -this subject, and the only sprig of laurel which I ever expected to win -from him has already withered. Yet still there was an evident reluctance -on his part, which all must have observed, to enter into this contest. -The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Prentiss] had made an able constitutional -argument in opposition to the bill. With the exception of that -gentleman, and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Preston), a profound -silence had reigned on this (the Whig) side of the house. The question -had been propounded by the Vice President, and the vote was about to be -taken, when I rose and addressed the Senate. Immediately after I had -taken my seat, the Senator from Kentucky sprang to his feet, and made -one of his best speeches, for it belongs to the character of his mind to -make the ablest efforts with the least preparation. I will venture to -say he had not intended to make that speech when he entered the Senate -chamber this morning. - -[Mr. Clay admitted this to be the fact.] - -Then, said Mr. Buchanan, I have succeeded, and my sprig of laurel is -again green. - -The gentleman says I may hang Nick Biddle, if I please; but I please to -do no such thing. I would be sorry to subject him even to the punishment -of imprisonment denounced by this bill; and if he should ever be -convicted under its provisions, I hope the court may content itself with -the infliction of a mere pecuniary fine. Hang Nick Biddle, indeed! I -wish to keep him for the service of the Whig party, should they ever -come into power. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Preston] had said, -at the extra session, that Mr. Biddle, if appointed Secretary of the -Treasury, would, in thirty or sixty days, I forget which, heal all the -disorders in the currency, and remove all the financial embarrassments -of the Government. His appointment would prove a sovereign panacea for -all existing evils. Now I go for this administration both from principle -and inclination, and shall support the re-election of the present -President; but if I were a Whig, the Senator from Kentucky would be my -first choice. I should, therefore, be very sorry to deprive him of the -services of Mr. Biddle, who will make, in the opinion of the Senator’s -friend from South Carolina, the very best Secretary of the Treasury in -the whole country. - -The Senator from Kentucky asks me why I do not defend Mr. Biddle, a -distinguished citizen of my own State. My answer is at hand. I cannot -defend his conduct as president of the bank, because I believe it to be -wholly indefensible; and he has been attacked in no other character. I -should have been proud and happy to undertake this task, could I have -performed it consistently with my conscience. But why does the Senator -propound such a question to me? I confidently expected Mr. Biddle would -have been defended by a much more eloquent tongue. I defend him! when -the eloquent gentlemen all around me are his own peculiar friends; and -yet, strange to tell, not one of them has attempted to justify his -conduct. “But yesterday he might have stood against the world.” “He has -fallen, fallen from his high estate.” Whence this ominous silence? I -wished to hear him defended, if it could be done, by gentlemen of his -own political party, who have never hitherto shrunk from such a -responsibility. - -The Senator asserts that the Bank of the United States is no longer in -existence. But are not the president, directors, and officers, the same -that they were under the old charter? Has it not branch banks in at -least two States—Louisiana and Georgia—and branch agencies scattered -over the rest of the Union? And to render its continued existence still -more palpable, has it not seized all the notes of the old bank, good, -bad, and indifferent, and converted them to its own use? Why, sir, -according to its very last return, it has but little more than three -hundred thousand dollars of new notes in circulation, whilst the -circulation of its old notes exceeds six millions. Is it not still -diffusing its blessings and its benefits everywhere, in the opinion of -its friends and admirers? Why has it not, then, proved to be the grand -regulator of the currency, and prevented a suspension of specie -payments? If that were impossible, why is it not, at least, the first -among the banks to urge their resumption? Had it acted thus, it is -possible it might have obtained another charter from Congress. But when -we find not only that it could not save itself from the general crash, -but that it is now the great leader in opposing a resumption of specie -payments, we must lose our confidence in its power as a grand regulator. - -But this bank, says the Senator, is a mere domestic institution of -Pennsylvania. With one of its arms stretched across the Atlantic, for -the purpose of loaning money, buying bills, and regulating exchanges -there, whilst, with the other, it conducts immense banking and trading -operations here, co-extensive with the Union, how can it be called a -mere domestic institution of a single State? Nay, more: it seems, by its -last manifesto, to have taken “the great commercial and pecuniary -interests” of the Union into its keeping, both at home and abroad. Sir, -a single State cannot furnish employment for its immense capital. It -would starve within such narrow limits. It is no more a State -institution now than it was under the old charter, except that its -existence as the same identical corporation has been continued by an act -of the legislature of Pennsylvania, instead of an act of Congress; and -that, too, with much greater powers than it formerly possessed. It never -ventured to plant itself in England under the old charter. No, sir, let -not gentlemen delude themselves. The old Bank of the United States still -lives, and moves, and has its being, without even having changed its -name. - -The Senator from Kentucky asks, why pass this bill? He says it is wholly -unnecessary; and whilst he admits that the present bank had no legal -power to reissue these old notes, he thinks it ought not to be prevented -from acting thus, because these notes furnish the best and only -universal currency in the Union. The Senator reminds me of the ancient -heretics which existed in the Church, mentioned and condemned by the -Apostle Paul. Their doctrine was, that it was lawful to do evil that -good might come. It seems we are now to have a similar sect of political -heretics, whose doctrine is, violate the law, if you can thereby furnish -a good currency for the people. But there was not the least necessity -for any such violation. As the old notes came in, the bank might have -supplied their place by circulating its own new notes. They are a better -currency in every respect; because the present bank is under a legal -obligation to redeem them on demand. Not so in regard to the old notes. -Their immediate redemption depends upon the honor of the bank, and -nothing more. I have no doubt Mr. Biddle intends to redeem them, but he -may be succeeded by another and a different man. Besides, the bank may, -in the course of time, become insolvent; and in that event the payment -of its own notes and debts must be preferred to that of these -resurrection notes. It is certain that no direct remedy can be had upon -them against the present bank. - -The Senator denounces the present bill not only as unconstitutional, but -as the most enormous stretch of power he has ever known to be attempted. -I am glad to find that the Senator has become the advocate of a strict -construction of the Constitution, and an enemy to the exercise of -doubtful powers. In this particular we agree. And I am much pleased to -learn from himself that he does not concur with the Senator from -Massachusetts [Mr. Webster] in deriving power over the paper currency of -the country from the clauses in the Constitution authorizing Congress to -coin money and regulate commerce. By abandoning this latitudinarian -construction, however, he virtually surrenders up the power to create a -national bank. The Senator shakes his head, but I shall endeavor to -prove that this is the dilemma in which he has placed himself. On what -ground did the Supreme Court decide the bank to be constitutional? It -was because Congress, possessing the express power to levy and collect -taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the United States, might -create a bank by implication, if they believed it to be a necessary -agent in the execution of this taxing power. Now will any man, at this -day, pretend that the taxes of the Government cannot be collected, and -its debts paid, without the agency of such a bank? I think not. It must -have been for the purpose of extricating himself from this dilemma, and -finding a power somewhere else to establish a bank, that the Senator -from Massachusetts asserted a general power in Congress to create and -regulate the paper currency of the country, and derived it from the -coining and commercial clauses in the Constitution. I should be pleased -always to agree with the Senator from Kentucky, and I am glad that we -unite in denying the power claimed by the Senator from Massachusetts. - -In regard to the power to pass this bill, I shall state the proposition -of the Senator from Kentucky as fairly as I can. He says that the Bank -of the United States is a corporation created by a sovereign State, and -that this bill, intended to operate upon such a corporation, is wholly -unconstitutional and subversive of State rights. Now, sir, if the bill -were intended to act upon the bank, as a Pennsylvania corporation, I -should abandon the argument. The president and directors of this bank -sustain two characters, totally separate and distinct from each other. -They are officers of the Pennsylvania Bank; and in that character they -are beyond our control. But they have voluntarily assumed another -character, by becoming assignees and trustees of the old bank chartered -by Congress, for the purpose of winding up its concerns; and it is in -this character, and this alone, that we have any jurisdiction over them. -We do not attempt to interfere with the bank as a corporation of the -State of Pennsylvania. No, sir; we only undertake to operate upon it as -the assignee of our old bank. The gentleman asked if the old bank had -assigned its property to individual trustees, could we pass any law to -compel these trustees to wind up its concerns? Most certainly we could; -because, no matter into whose hands the duty of winding up our bank may -have passed, we should possess the power to compel a performance of that -duty. This power of Congress can never be evaded or destroyed by any -transfer to trustees made by officers created by our own law, whether -the transfer be legal or illegal. Our power attaches to such trustees, -and will continue until they shall have closed the concerns of the bank. - -The gentleman says that the power to create a bank is one implication, -and that to wind it up is a second implication, and to pass this bill -would be piling implication upon implication, like Pelion upon Ossa, -which cannot be done under the Constitution. Now, sir, to what -absurdities does not this argument lead? By implication you can create a -bank for a limited period, which you cannot destroy after that period -has expired. Your creature, the term of whose existence you have -foreordained, becomes eternal in defiance of your power. And this -because you cannot add implication to implication. The gentleman asks -where do you find this winding up power in the Constitution? I answer, -wherever he finds the creating power. The one necessarily results from -the other. If not, when you call a bank into existence, its charter, -although limited to a few years, becomes in fact perpetual. You cannot -create that which you cannot destroy, after it has lived its appointed -time. - -As to Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Brockenbrough—nobody pretends you can touch -them or their banks by your law. The bill is confined to your own -agents, acting under your own law, and therefore subject to your own -jurisdiction. These agents are as much yours for the purpose proposed by -the bill, as the president and directors of the old bank would have -been. There is a perfect privity, as the lawyers would say, between the -two; nay, there is a perfect identity. It is no argument to say that the -old bank is dead; but even this is not the fact. We have extended its -existence at the present session, without a dissenting voice, in either -House, for the purpose of prosecuting and defending its suits, and it -has always continued to elect a president and board of directors. - -The Senator has asked, if the Bank of England or any of the banks in -Canada had ceased to exist, and their agents in this country should -reissue their old notes, whether we would claim the power of punishing -them for that cause. This question, in my opinion, presents the only -instance of haste and want of sufficient reflection in the gentleman’s -speech. There is no analogy between the two cases. Congress never -created the Bank of England, nor any bank in Canada, and therefore -Congress can never claim any power to close their concerns. We assert no -power except over our own bank and its trustees. We cannot interfere -with the banks of the several States, much less with those of a foreign -country. - -The Senator thinks he has caught me in a palpable inconsistency. He says -I first condemned the expansion of the banks in this country, and -afterwards condemned the contraction of the Bank of England. I might -have done so, in the special case of the refusal of that bank to extend -its accustomed credits to the American houses, without any -inconsistency; but I expressed no opinion of my own upon the subject. In -stating the causes which produced the suspension of specie payments in -the United States, I said that this act of the Bank of England had been -condemned in that country both by their statesmen and men of business. I -passed no censure whatever on the conduct of that bank, and the -gentleman, therefore, need not have reminded me that it would but little -regard my censure. I am content to confine my humble exertions to our -own institutions at home, leaving to other gentlemen the glory of having -South America on one side of the Atlantic and Greece on the other, -shouting hosannas in their praise. - -The gentleman asks, with a triumphant air, where are England and France -at the present moment? Are they not prosperous, whilst we are -embarrassed? In regard to England, I answer that money there is plenty -and cheap; and this simply because business has been paralyzed by the -great convulsion under which we have both suffered; and it is the -capital which has been thrown out of active employment, from this very -cause, which is now seeking investment at a low rate of interest. The -commerce and trade of England have fallen off to such an extent that -Parliament has been obliged to borrow two millions sterling to meet the -current expenses of the Government. In this particular they are placed -in a similar situation with ourselves. And yet after all the light which -has been shed upon this subject, the gentleman still attributes that -convulsion which has shaken the commercial world to its centre, to the -removal of the deposits, the Specie Circular, and General Jackson. - -I have but lately turned prophet; and there has been such poor success -in that line on this side of the House, that I have almost determined to -abandon the trade forever. In one respect I resemble the false prophets -of old, because they prophesied nothing but good. This may probably -result from my sanguine temperament, and my desire to look upon the -bright side of human affairs. In my prophetic vision I have therefore -never, like the gentleman, denounced war, pestilence, and famine against -the country. - -The gentleman strongly condemns the members of the present cabinet. I am -willing to accord to the President the privilege of selecting his own -agents and advisers, without any interference on my part. When he, or -they, shall recommend measures of which I disapprove, I shall exercise -my right of opposing them as an independent Senator. I do not believe -that any evidence can be produced that the President and his cabinet are -opposed to the credit system of the country. If this should ever appear, -it will then be time enough for me to denounce such a policy. My -instructions have prevented me from expressing my views at length upon -this subject. They contain nothing, however, which forbid me from -saying, nay I am only expressing their sentiment when I assert, that a -separation of the business of the Government from that of the banks -would be one of the greatest blessings which could be conferred on the -country. In releasing the banks from the Government, and the Government -from the banks, the interests of both parties would be promoted, mutual -jealousies and recriminations would be ended, and the currency and -business of the country would cease to be involved in the perpetual -struggles which exist for political power. - -I might say much more in reply to the gentleman, but I forbear. - -Through the session of 1839–40 the financial policy of Mr. Van Buren -continued to be the same. Still the plan of the “Independent Treasury,” -as it was called, continued to occupy the attention of the Senate, and -still Mr. Buchanan was among the ablest and steadiest of its supporters. -On the 12th of January, 1840, and again at the same session, on the 3d -of March, he took a leading part in the discussion of these subjects. -These seven years of political warfare on the relations of the General -Government to the currency, commencing in 1833 and extending into the -year 1840, were a period of unexampled commercial distress; and when the -two parties arrayed their forces and named their candidates for the next -election of a President, the Democrats, although in possession of -official power, were in a position in which the prevailing public and -private embarrassments could be charged by their adversaries as the -direct consequence of their measures. A great political revolution was -at hand. That victorious party which claimed to have been founded by -Jefferson, which nearly thirty years before its present precarious -situation had carried Madison through a war with England, which had by -its forbearance made for Monroe “the era of good feeling,” which had -beaten the administration of the second Adams into the dust, which had -twice elected Jackson and would have elected him a third time but for a -sacred tradition of the Republic, which had enabled Jackson to name his -successor, which filled the important offices and wielded the whole -patronage of the Government, was now to be swept out of power by a -popular tempest, such as the country had never known in a time of peace. -It was broken in New York, it was broken in Pennsylvania, it was broken -in many other States which for twelve years had been among its -strongholds. - -The summer and autumn of 1840 saw a popular excitement, in which there -was much that history might condemn, but which the sober wisdom of -history can both account for as natural, and regard as not unwholesome. -There had come to be a feeling that the public men who had so long been -entrusted with the Government of the country, and been sustained with so -large a share of the popular confidence, who had been the peculiar -friends of the people, whose party designation implied a democracy of a -purer type, and a wider regard for the welfare of the masses, had grown -indifferent to the general suffering. - -At first, the course of General Jackson towards the Bank of the United -States, his vast popularity and the influence which it gave him, enabled -him and his followers to maintain their power. Hardly had there ever -been a popular confidence greater than that which was reposed in -Jackson, through the whole of his conflict with a moneyed institution, -which a great majority of the people of the United States regarded, with -him, as a dangerous instrument. But when year after year passed away and -nothing was done for the relief of the prevailing embarrassment, when -thousands had become bankrupt, when labor was unemployed or was -remunerated in a depreciated and discredited currency, when the -mercantile, the manufacturing, the agricultural classes were involved in -a common distress, elements of political excitement, scarcely ever -before combined, were united in a vague longing for a great political -change. Then were to be seen the highest statesmen discussing before -huge masses of the people the most profound questions of public finance -and constitutional construction, and stump orators of all degrees, -sounding the depths of popular agitation. The songs, the mottoes, the -cries, the emblems of the party which had adopted the name of Whigs, a -name which, both in English history and in our own, had represented -popular interests against the prerogatives of government, were at once -puerile and effective. They convey a scarcely intelligible meaning to -the present generation, but to those who listened to and looked upon -them, they expressed feelings and passions which stirred the popular -heart.[61] For once, the Whigs had laid hold of a string, coarse indeed -and rude, but which vibrated to every touch throughout the land with -singular force. The divorce of the Government from all connection with -the currency, the disclaimer of all responsibility about the circulating -medium which must be used by the people, the exclusive regard for the -monetary concerns of the Government as distinguished from the monetary -interests of the community, were arrayed by the Whigs as the favorite -and pernicious doctrines of the party in power. In all this there was -some injustice, but when does not popular suffering produce injustice? - -The result of this upheaving of society was the election of General -William Henry Harrison, of Ohio, as President, and of John Tyler, of -Virginia, as Vice President, by a majority of 114 electoral votes. Never -was a political defeat more overwhelming than the defeat of Mr. Van -Buren. He obtained but 60 out of the 234 electoral votes. Of the larger -States, he held only Virginia.[62] - -Mr. Buchanan’s personal position was unaffected by this political -change. He had been re-elected to the Senate in January, 1837, by a very -large vote, and for a full term, which would not terminate until the 3d -of March, 1843.[63] When the political “campaign” of 1840 came on, he -did his part, and did it valiantly, for the success of his party and the -re-election of Mr. Van Buren. The detail of his exertions would not be -interesting now. It is enough to say that in the arrangements of the -public meetings held by his political associates in various States, he -was much relied upon as an antagonist to the great Whig leaders, and was -often in one sense pitted against Mr. Webster and Mr. Clay, although it -was not the habit of the time for public men on opposite sides to -encounter each other on the same platform. As a popular orator, there -was no one on the Democratic side who was listened to with more respect -than Mr. Buchanan. But popular eloquence was not his forte. On the -platform, as in the Senate, he was grave, earnest, perspicuous and -impressive: but he did not kindle the passions or arouse the enthusiasm -of audiences: nor indeed was there much enthusiasm to be evoked in the -defence of a cause against which almost all the elements of ardent -popular feeling were at the command of its adversaries. - -Mr. Buchanan might have escaped from the Senate into the Cabinet of Mr. -Van Buren, if he had wished to do so. It was Mr. Van Buren’s desire, in -1839, that Mr. Buchanan should become Attorney-General in his -administration, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr. -Grundy. The correspondence between them discloses that Mr. Buchanan -preferred to remain in the Senate. - - [MR. VAN BUREN TO MR. BUCHANAN.] - - WASHINGTON, Dec. 27th, 1839. - -DEAR SIR:— - -The office of Attorney-General of the United States has become vacant by -the resignation of Mr. Grundy. Although I have no reason to suppose that -it would be desirable to you to change your present position in the -public service, I have nevertheless felt it to be my duty to offer the -seat in my cabinet, which has thus been placed at my disposal, for your -acceptance, and to assure you that it will afford me sincere pleasure to -hear that it will be agreeable to you to accept it, a sentiment in which -those who would be your associates, will, I am confident, cordially -participate. - -Should you decide otherwise, the occasion will have been presented, and -cheerfully embraced, to express the high sense I entertain of your -talents, and also my confidence in your patriotism and friendship for -the administration. - -Please to let me hear from you at your earliest convenience, and believe -me to be very respectfully and truly your friend and obedient servant, - - M. VAN BUREN. - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO MR. VAN BUREN.] - - WASHINGTON, Dec. 28th, 1839. - -DEAR SIR:— - -I have received your note of yesterday evening, tendering to me the -office of Attorney-General. Whilst I regard it, with grateful -sensibility, as a distinguished mark of your kindness and confidence, -yet I prefer my position as a Senator from Pennsylvania to the -Attorney-Generalship, high and honorable as it is justly considered. -Nothing could induce me to waive this preference, except a sense of -public duty; and happily upon the present occasion, this presents no -obstacle to the indulgence of my own inclination. Devotedly attached, as -I am, to the great principles upon which your administration has been -conducted, I feel that I can render a more efficient support to these -principles on the floor of the Senate than I could in an executive -office, which, from its nature, would necessarily withdraw me, in a -great degree, from the general politics of the country, and again -subject me to the labors of the profession. - -Permit me to embrace this occasion of again respectfully reiterating my -earnest desire that you would confer this appointment upon Judge Porter. -I believe him to be eminently qualified to discharge the duties of the -station; and that it would be highly gratifying to the Democracy of -Pennsylvania to be represented in your cabinet by a gentleman who enjoys -so large a portion of their confidence. - -With the highest esteem, I remain very respectfully your friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - [TO GENERAL PORTER.] - - WASHINGTON, May 30th, 1840. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I have received yours of the 28th inst., and it afforded me much -pleasure. - -I have had a long and free conversation with Mr. Van Buren this morning -on the subject of Pennsylvania politics. It was the first of the kind -for some time. In the course of it I took occasion to read your letter -to him, with which he was much gratified. - -I impressed upon him, in the same terms I used to yourself, the absolute -necessity of union and harmony between the State and national -administration. I told him that if one portion of the party in -Pennsylvania said they were for Paul, and another for Apollos, the great -cause with which both Paul and Apollos were identified might be ruined. -He expressed, as he ever has done, a great regard for you, and said he -had given conclusive evidence of it by the appointment of Judge Blythe, -and that he never had concealed the fact that this appointment was made -to gratify your wishes. Upon a suggestion of mine, that an opportunity -might probably be presented, on the 4th of July, to manifest his regard -for you by giving a toast in your favor, he said he doubted the policy -of that course, both in regard to you and himself. That the better mode -was for both to evince their feelings by their conduct. He spoke freely -of certain politicians in Philadelphia, and I have no doubt from what he -said, that he will exert his influence in some manner to prevent them -from any longer treating you unfairly. Upon the whole, I left him more -convinced than I ever was before, that he is your friend. He made the -very observation to me which I had made to you, that in the progress of -the Presidential canvass, when the party became excited, the feeling -which now existed against you in a few places would be entirely -forgotten. Of this I am perfectly convinced, _especially if the hill -should pass imposing the restrictions on the banks recommended in your -January message_. There is no man in the State who more ardently desires -this result than myself, and none who will more endeavor to accomplish -it. Devoted as I am to bank reform, from a conviction of its absolute -necessity, and having always expressed the same opinion on this subject, -publicly and privately, this bill would place a powerful weapon in my -hand. I shall have to visit Westmoreland County, on the business of my -late brother-in-law’s estate, very soon after the adjournment of -Congress, and I am under the impression that I can do much good there. I -shall be very much rejoiced indeed to hear of the passage of this bill. - -I have had a long and a strong talk with —— ——. I am confident his -feelings towards you are not unkind. - -The resolution of the Senate, expressing their opinion in favor of the -bankrupt system will place me in an embarrassing position, should it -pass the House. Had the legislature instructed me, I should obey with -pleasure, because all my sympathies are in favor of the suffering -debtors. If left to myself, my judgment is so much opposed to my -feelings, that I believe I should vote against the bill without making -any speech. The expression of a legislative opinion would probably -compel me to give my reasons for dissenting from their opinion. If there -be a majority of the House in favor of the measure, why not change the -expression of their opinion into instructions, and then I shall be -relieved from all responsibility on the subject. I made a long speech in -opposition to the bankrupt bill during the first session of my service -in Congress, 1821–2; and I have yet heard nothing materially to shake my -ancient opinions, though I am still open to conviction. I have not yet -heard from Mr. Espy. - - Ever your friend, - - Very respectfully, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - [TO GENERAL PORTER.] - - SENATE CHAMBER, WASHINGTON, February 9, 1841. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -The third crash of the Bank of the United States so soon after its -resumption has taken us all by surprise. I sincerely hope that it has -made its last struggle, and may now go into final liquidation. Whilst I -regret the sufferings to which its stockholders may be exposed, I yet -believe that its dissolution is necessary to the prosperity of the -country. As long as it shall continue to exist, it will continue to -derange the business of the country, and produce again and again those -revulsions to which we have been subjected. It has ever been a lawless -institution, and has done what it pleased, knowing that to destroy it -would subject the people to evils which they would be unwilling to -encounter. We ought to rejoice that it has now destroyed itself. I most -sincerely hope that you may take this view of the subject; and adhere -strictly, as I have no doubt you will, to your opposition to permitting -the banks to issue notes under five dollars. - -As a sincere friend, both personally and politically, I have deemed it -to be my duty to make these suggestions, and I have no doubt you will -receive them as they are intended. - - From your friend, sincerely, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - [TO GENERAL PORTER.] - - WASHINGTON, February 17, 1841. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -Sitting “solitary and alone” in my private room, the thought has just -struck me that I would address you a few lines. If I were capable of -envying any man, I should envy the position in which you are now placed. -The eyes of the Democracy of the whole Union are now directed towards -you with intense anxiety; and all you have to do to render yourself an -object of their respect and admiration is to adhere firmly to your -avowed principles. That you will adopt this course, I have not the -shadow of a doubt. - -To put down the Bank of the United States will be a measure of the -greatest relief to the State. It has not strength enough to assist the -people; but must exist by borrowing money and crippling other -institutions. If it were out of the way, the other State institutions -might safely be left to the people of the State. And I firmly believe -there would be no serious attempt to forfeit their charters. The Bank of -the United States makes a merit of having loaned large sums to the State -government, when, by this means, it has preserved its existence this -long. It exchanged its own paper for what would command specie, and -enable it to raise money abroad. Whilst, therefore, I feel for the -distress of those whom it has ruined, I believe its going into -liquidation would be the best relief measure which could be adopted. It -may occasion much suffering for the present; but this will soon be over, -and all may then again hope to see settled times. - -When I sat down, I wanted to say a word against small notes; but I am -interrupted and must stop. - - Ever sincerely your friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO GEORGE G. LEIPER, ESQ.] - - LANCASTER, October 23, 1841. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I most sincerely sympathize with you in your domestic afflictions, and -trust that He who tempers the wind to the shorn lamb may comfort and -sustain your daughter in her distress. - -I reciprocate your congratulations on our recent victory with all my -heart. It is a great moral triumph. After the late Presidential election -many, who had formerly felt an abiding confidence in the integrity and -intelligence of the people, began to waver. The ridiculous mummeries -which apparently had an effect upon them were insults to their -understanding. But nobly have they redeemed themselves, and have proved -to the world that if they can be made to slumber over their rights for a -moment, they are certain to awake with a firmer determination than ever -to maintain them. Governor Porter has now a fine opportunity of -distinguishing himself; and most ardently do I hope that he may embrace -it. By doing his duty fearlessly, he will make a name for himself, which -no other governor of Pennsylvania has ever yet enjoyed. On the other -hand, should he falter, we shall lose the State, if not at the next -election, at the next gubernatorial contest. He must devote himself to -reforming the administration of our internal improvements, and rendering -them productive; he must firmly resist any increase of the State debt. -And if he does no more, he must veto every bill to create a new bank or -renew the charter of an old one. These are principles on which the -Democracy will insist. Besides, he ought to recommend and urge a -thorough investigation of the Bank of the United States, and the -Pennsylvania and other banks. The time has passed for consulting mere -expediency; and the Democratic party has risen again upon its -principles, and it will continue to stand no longer than it maintains -them. I do not think that the Presidential question to which you allude -will occasion any serious embarrassment to the party. Throughout the -Union, with the exception of Philadelphia, they all appear to be alive -to the necessity of forbearance. When the proper time shall arrive, the -choice of a candidate will be made without serious difficulty; because I -believe that the candidates who will be the most prominent are all -willing to yield their pretensions, if that should be found necessary to -promote the success of the great causes. - -Please to remember me, in the kindest terms, to your family, and believe -me to be your friend sincerely, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - [TO MR. WILLIAM FLINN, JR.] - - WASHINGTON, September 5th, 1841. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I thank you for your kind and acceptable letter, and feel much gratified -that the honest and incorruptible farmers of your county have expressed -their approbation of my political course. To live in their esteem would -be a high reward. - -The second bank bill, or “kite-flying fiscality,” is now before -President Tyler, and I have no doubt but that it will share the fate of -its predecessor. Should the second veto be of a firm and manly -character, precluding all hope of the establishment of a national bank -during the present Presidential term, it will be, as it ought to be, -hailed with enthusiasm by the Democratic party. In Congress we shall -pursue the straight line of political duty, and shall yield the measures -of the President, so far as they may be in accordance with our -principles, a cheerful and hearty support. As to President-making, we -shall leave that to the people, where it ought to be left. - -I should be pleased to see you established as the editor of a Democratic -paper. That is a much more honorable and independent vocation than to be -hanging about the public offices here as a subordinate clerk. Should you -become the editor of the _Mercury_, however, whilst I am deeply sensible -of your kindness, I would not wish you to bring out my name as a -candidate for the Presidency. It is yet too soon to agitate this -question in the public journals; and any premature movement would only -injure the individual it was intended to benefit. Besides, I have no -ambitious longings on this subject. Let events take their course; and my -only desire is, that at the proper time, the individual may be selected -as our candidate, who will best promote the success of the party and its -principles. - -I am rejoiced at our flattering prospects in Pennsylvania. Should the -Keystone State come “booming” into the Democratic line in October next, -by a handsome majority, this auspicious event will do much to prostrate -the present Whig party. - -With sentiments of regard, I remain your friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - ------ - -Footnote 60: - - The persons here referred to as “Conservatives,” were a class of - Democrats or Republicans, who stood aloof for a time from their party. - -Footnote 61: - - Subsequent generations will need a key to the “log cabin” and the - barrel of “hard cider,” the shouts of “Tippecanoe and Tyler too,” the - long processions of trades, the enormous multitudes that gathered at - the great open-air meetings. _Omnia quæ vidi_, the writer might say, - and he might add with a variation, _quorum pars minima fui_. - -Footnote 62: - - The sixty electoral votes obtained by Mr. Van Buren were given by the - States of New Hampshire, Virginia, South Carolina, Illinois, Alabama, - Missouri and Arkansas. - -Footnote 63: - - In a letter from one of his friends, which lies before me, written at - the time of his re-election, it is said that he was the first person - who had been elected a second time to the Senate of the United States - by the legislature of Pennsylvania. - ------ - - - - - CHAPTER XVI. - 1841–1842. - -DEATH OF PRESIDENT HARRISON—BREACH BETWEEN PRESIDENT TYLER AND THE - WHIGS—TYLER’S VETOES—BUCHANAN’S REPLY TO CLAY ON THE VETO POWER—HIS - OPPOSITION TO THE BANKRUPT ACT OF 1841. - - -Rarely has a party in a constitutional government come into power with -apparently a better prospect of doing good to their country, and -retaining their hold upon it, than did the Whigs under President -Harrison. This worthy man, who was by no means a statesman of the first -or even of the second order, was a person of fair intelligence, of -entire honesty of character, and was moderately well taught in the -principles of the Constitution. Almost his first act, after his -election, was to tender the chief place in his cabinet to Mr. Webster. -This was done with the concurrence of Mr. Clay, whom it suited to remain -in the Senate, as its leader, and who expected to carry a new national -bank, as a remedy for the existing disordered condition of the currency. - -But General Harrison died on the day which completed the first month of -his official term.[64] His successor, John Tyler, of Virginia, had been -chosen as Vice President, with very little attention to his political -opinions on the part of those who selected him for that position, or of -those who voted for him. When he assumed the duties of the Presidency, -he requested the members of General Harrison’s cabinet to remain in -office. They were all of that political school which regarded a national -bank of some kind as a necessity, and held it to be an instrument of -Government which Congress might constitutionally create.[65] President -Harrison and his official advisers had deemed it necessary to convene an -extra session of Congress; and his proclamation had summoned it for the -31st of May. When that day arrived, it began to be remembered that Mr. -Tyler had theretofore been among those who denied the power of Congress -to establish a national bank, and that as a Senator he had voted against -one. Here, then, the long-cherished policy of the leading Whigs, which -they claimed had been affirmed by the people in the late election, was -in peril of encountering the opposition of the President. In July, a -bill for a bank, with power to establish offices of discount and deposit -in the several States, either with or without their consent, was passed -by both Houses and sent to the President. He returned it on the 16th of -August, with his objections, from which it appeared that he held such a -bank to be unconstitutional. In the Senate, Mr. Clay made a bitter -attack upon the President; the Whigs in the House of Representatives -burst into a fury of indignation. But the Whig majority was not large -enough to pass the bill over the President’s “veto.” A new bill to -create a “Fiscal Corporation of the United States” was brought in. In -the mean time the President was denounced in the press by persons who -stood in close relations with Mr. Clay, as a man faithless to the party -which had made him Vice President. In the debate on the new bill, Mr. -Clay again assailed the President with great violence, expecting by that -means to prevent a second “veto.” Mr. Tyler remained firm to his own -convictions; the second “veto” came; an irreparable breach between the -Whigs and the President ensued; four of the members of the cabinet -appointed by President Harrison resigned their places, without previous -conference with Mr. Webster, who remained in office.[66] Thus within six -months after the death of General Harrison, the Whigs lost the power of -shaping the financial legislation of the country, which their triumphant -success in the late election appeared to have given them. - -Mr. Buchanan, if not now the leader of the opposition in the Senate, was -one of its most prominent debaters. It has already been said that he was -not an orator, in the highest sense of that term. But in all the -polemics of debate he was exceedingly efficient. He could mingle logic -with humor; and although in discussions which were largely occupied with -party topics and with grave constitutional questions, he was not sparing -in his thrusts, there was a gentleman-like manner in his wielding of the -rapier, as well as force in handling the weightier weapon of argument. -On both of the bills which were prepared with a good deal of design to -encounter the anticipated opposition of Mr. Tyler, and the last of which -was almost avowedly gotten up as a means of “heading him off” from a -union with the democratic opposition, Mr. Buchanan spoke at the extra -session with remarkable energy and effect. His most elaborate speech on -the first bill was delivered on the 7th of July. It related partly to -the old question of the constitutional power of Congress to create a -national bank of any kind; and in the course of this discussion he -treated the topic of the binding authority of the Supreme Court of the -United States, in reference to the legislative department, with new and -forcible illustrations, contending that upon any new bank, Senators were -bound to follow their conscientious convictions. The residue of the -speech was a severe criticism upon the details of the bill, which he -contended would establish a dangerous connection between a moneyed -institution and the executive of the United States, far worse than that -which had existed in the case of either of the former banks. Such a -speech was well calculated to produce a strong impression at once upon -the mind of the President before whom the bill was likely to come, and -upon the country. Mr. Buchanan looked forward to the time when all -question about a national bank, as a fiscal agent of the Government in -the collection and disbursement of its revenues, would be at an end, and -the “Independent Treasury” system would be resorted to as the -substitute.[67] - -Upon the second bill he spoke on the 2d of September, in reply to Mr. -Clay. This scheme of a “Fiscal Corporation of the United States,” which -was to have the power of dealing in bills of exchange drawn between -different States, or on foreign countries, but was not to be allowed to -discount promissory notes, was assailed by Mr. Buchanan with great -vigor. His speech placed the advocates of the bill in a somewhat -ridiculous position, for it did not appear whether they concurred in -founding it on the power to regulate commerce, or on the power to -collect and disburse the public revenue: and in the practical operation -of the scheme, he made it very plain that it would become a mere -“kite-flying” machine. Mr. Clay thought that Mr. Buchanan did not -succeed in “attempts at wit.” Buchanan retorted that this was true, and -that his opponent as rarely succeeded in argument. An impartial reader -would now say that Buchanan had the argument on his side, and a very -respectable share of what was certainly a telling species of humor, if -it was not wit. His description of the heterogeneous political materials -that made up the famous “Harrisburg Convention,”—the body which -nominated Harrison and Tyler, with such an entire disregard of the -opinions of the candidates that it became afterwards a disputed question -whether they were “bank” or “anti-bank” men,—was not an unhappy hit.[68] - -Under the advice of Mr. Webster, the Whigs postponed the subject of a -bank to the next regular session of Congress. But some important -measures were passed at the extra session, and approved by the -President, among which was a Bankrupt Act. Mr. Buchanan opposed it in -the following speech, delivered on the 24th of July, 1841: - -The question being on the passage of the bill— - -Mr. Buchanan said, that when he entered the Senate chamber this morning, -he had not intended to say one word on the subject of the bankrupt bill. -He was content that the question should have been taken silently on its -final passage, and decided in its favor, as all knew it would be, from -the vote yesterday upon its engrossment. The able remarks of the Senator -from New York (Mr. Tallmadge) had induced him to change his purpose, and -endeavor to place himself in a proper position before the public in -relation to this important measure. - -He trusted that he felt as much sympathy for the unfortunate as any -Senator on this floor. It would, therefore, have afforded him heartfelt -pleasure to be able to vote for this bill. He was sorry, very sorry, -that from a deep sense of public duty, he should be compelled to vote -against it. Would to Heaven that this were not the case! - -It had been asserted over and over again, that there were five hundred -thousand bankrupts in the United States anxiously awaiting relief from -the passage of this bill. Now, from the very nature of the case, this -must be a monstrous exaggeration of the number of these unfortunate men. -Less than two millions and a half of votes had been given at the late -Presidential election; and, if you add to this number five hundred -thousand, the aggregate of three millions would exceed the number of all -the male inhabitants of the United States who could by possibility -become bankrupts. Could any man believe that half a million of this -number were in a state of bankruptcy? That every sixth man in the United -States was in this wretched condition? The experience of us all must -demonstrate that this was impossible. There were several States in the -Union where this bill would be almost a dead letter for want of subjects -on which it could operate. Although we had suffered much from the spirit -of wild speculation, which had been excited to madness by our -unrestricted banking system, yet he did not believe there were more than -one hundred thousand bankrupts in the United States who would apply for -relief under this bill. - -Now, sir, what was the nature of this bill? Whom did it embrace in its -provisions? He would answer, every individual in the United States who -was an insolvent debtor. There was no limitation, no restriction -whatever. It would discharge all the insolvent debtors now in existence -throughout the Union, from all the debts which they had ever contracted, -on the easiest terms possible. It was said that the bill contained -provisions both for voluntary and involuntary bankruptcy; and so it did -nominally: but in truth and in fact, it would prove to be almost -exclusively a voluntary bankrupt bill. - -The involuntary clause would scarcely ever be resorted to, unless it -might be by a severe and vindictive creditor, for the purpose of -unjustly oppressing his unfortunate debtor. And why would this prove in -practice to be a voluntary bankrupt bill, and that alone? The compulsory -clause applied only to merchants—wholesale and retail, to bankers, -factors, brokers, underwriters, and marine insurers. These were objects -of compulsory bankruptcy, provided they owed debts to the amount of two -thousand dollars. In order to enable their creditors to prosecute -petitions against them, for the purpose of having them declared -bankrupt, they must have committed one of the acts of bankruptcy -specified by the bill. What were they? The debtor must either have -departed from the State of his residence, with intent to defraud his -creditors;—or concealed himself to avoid being arrested;—or fraudulently -procured himself to be arrested or his goods or lands to be attached, -distrained, sequestered, or taken in execution;—or removed and concealed -his goods and chattels to prevent them from being levied upon or taken -in execution;—or made a fraudulent conveyance or assignment of his -lands, goods, or credits. These were the five acts of bankruptcy -specified in the bill; and could it be supposed that any merchant or man -of business, in insolvent circumstances, would wait and subject himself -to this compulsory process by committing any of these acts; whilst the -bill threw the door wide open to him, in common with all other persons, -to become a voluntary bankrupt, at any time he might think proper? He -would select the most convenient time for himself to be discharged from -his debts; and would cautiously avoid any one of these acts of -bankruptcy, which might restrain the freedom of his own will, and place -him in some degree within the power of his creditors. He would “swear -out” when it suited him best, and would not subject himself to their -pleasure. This bill, then, although in name compulsory as well as -voluntary, was in fact, from the beginning to end, neither more nor less -than a voluntary bankrupt law. - -Now it might be wise, on a subject of such great importance, to consult -the experience of the past. In 1817, the British Parliament had -appointed a commission on the subject of their bankrupt laws. The -testimony taken by the commissioners was decidedly against these laws; -and the Lord Chancellor declared that the abuses under them were a -disgrace to the country; that it would be better to repeal them at once -than to submit to such abuses; and that there was no mercy to the -bankrupt’s estate nor to the creditors. Mr. B. spoke from memory; but he -felt confident he was substantially correct in the facts stated. This -was the experience of England, and that, too, notwithstanding their -bankrupt laws had interposed many more guards against fraud than the -present bill contained, and were executed with an arbitrary severity, -wholly unsuited to the genius of our institutions. In that country, -however, these laws had existed for so long a period of time, and were -so interwoven with the business habits of the people, that it was found -impossible to abolish them altogether. - -We have had some experience on this subject in our own country. Congress -passed a bankrupt law in April, 1800. It was confined to traders, and -was exclusively compulsory in its character. The period of its existence -was limited to five years and until the end of the next session of -Congress thereafter. It so entirely failed to accomplish the objects for -which it was created, and was the source of so many frauds, that it was -permitted to live out but little more than half its appointed days. It -was repealed in December, 1803; and a previous resolution, declaring -that it ought to be repealed, passed the House of Representatives by a -vote of 77 to 12. - -The State of Pennsylvania had furnished another important lesson on this -subject. In March, 1812, the legislature of that State passed a bankrupt -or insolvent law absolving all those who chose to take advantage of it -from the payment of their debts. It was confined to the city and county -of Philadelphia; but within these limits, like the present bill, it -offered relief to everybody who desired to be relieved. This act was -repealed, almost by acclamation, at the commencement of the very next -session after its passage. Its baneful effects were so fully -demonstrated during this short intervening period, that the -representatives from the city and county who had, but a few months -before, strained every nerve to procure its passage, were the most -active and zealous in urging its repeal. - -During the first session of his service in the House of Representatives -(that of 1821–2), powerful efforts were made to pass a bankrupt law. -There was then a greater and more general necessity for such a measure -than had ever existed since. The extravagant expansion of the Bank of -the United States in 1816, ’17 and ’18 had reduced it to the very brink -of insolvency. In order to save itself from ruin, it was compelled to -contract its loans and issues with a rapidity beyond all former example. -The consequence was, that the years 1819, ’20 and ’21 were the most -disastrous which the country had ever experienced since the adoption of -the federal Constitution. Not only merchants and speculators were then -involved in ruin; but the rage for speculation had extended to the -farmers and mechanics throughout the country, and had rendered vast -numbers of them insolvent. The cry for relief, by the passage of a -bankrupt bill, therefore, came to Congress from all classes of society, -and from almost every portion of the Union. - -The best speech which he (Mr. B.) had ever made in Congress was in -opposition to that bill. The reason was, that he had derived much -assistance from conversations with Mr. Lowndes upon the subject. That -great and good statesman was then suffering under the disease which -proved fatal to him soon after. He attempted to make a speech against -the bill, but was compelled to desist by physical exhaustion before he -had fairly entered on his subject. It was his decided conviction, that -no bankrupt law, of which the English system was the model, could ever -be adopted by Congress without great injury to the country. He (Mr. B.) -had attempted to demonstrate this proposition, at that period, and he -should now again, after the lapse of nearly twenty years, make a very -few observations on the same subject. - -And in the first place, it would be physically impossible for the -district courts of the United States to carry this law into execution; -and if it were even possible, it would be extremely burdensome and -oppressive to the people generally. - -The bill prescribes that all applicants for its benefit shall file their -petitions in the district court of the district in which they reside. -Twenty days’ notice only is required, and that not to be served -personally on the creditors, but merely by newspaper publication. At the -time and place appointed, the creditors of the applicant may appear and -show cause why the prayer of his petition should not be granted. If -there be no appearance on the part of the creditors, or sufficient cause -be not shown to the contrary, then the court decree the applicant to be -a bankrupt; and thus ends the first stage of the proceedings, so far as -he is personally concerned. - -After such applicant has been thus declared a bankrupt, and has complied -with all the provisions of the act, he may then file another petition to -be discharged from his debts, which may be granted at any time after -ninety days from the date of the decree declaring him a bankrupt. -Seventy days’ notice is to be given to his creditors to appear in court, -and oppose his discharge, if they think proper. - -It thus appeared that there might be two formal hearings in each case -before the district court upon every application; and that there would -be, in many of the cases, was beyond a doubt. Besides, from the very -nature of the proceedings in bankruptcy, and from the provisions of the -bill, the interlocutory applications, and the examinations of the -bankrupt before the court, must be very numerous. At every stage of the -proceedings a large portion of the time of the court must necessarily be -devoted to the subject. - -Should the district court decide that the bankrupt shall not be -discharged, he might then demand a trial by jury, or appeal from this -decision to the circuit court. This would be another prolific fountain -of business for the district and circuit courts of the United States. - -Thus far the proceeding was confined to the bankrupt personally. But -before what court was his estate to be settled? By the terms of the -bill, the demands of all creditors of the bankrupt, if disputed, must be -tried in the district court; the controversies which might arise between -the creditors and the assignees of the bankrupt, and also between the -bankrupt himself and his assignees, must be settled in the district -court; and, to use the comprehensive terms of the bill, the jurisdiction -of that court was extended “to all acts, matters, and things to be done -under and in virtue of the bankruptcy, until the final distribution and -settlement of the estate of the bankrupt, and the close of the -proceedings in bankruptcy.” - -There were also several criminal offences created by the bill; all of -which must be tried in the district courts of the United States. - -From the nature of the federal Constitution, all the business which he -had enumerated must necessarily be transacted in the courts of the -United States. It could not be transferred to the State courts. - -Now, sir, said Mr. B., this bill will prove to be a _felo de se_. It can -never be carried into effect, for want of the necessary judicial -machinery. Another midnight judiciary must be established, to aid -bankruptcy. The number of these midnight judges which were added to the -federal judiciary in February, 1801, was eighteen; and if these were -necessary at that time, three times the number would not be sufficient -at present. - -He had just examined McCullough’s Commercial Dictionary, under the title -Bankruptcy. He there found that the annual number of commissions of -bankruptcy opened in England on an average of nine years, ending with -the year 1830, was a little below seventeen hundred. The average annual -number of all the commissions which issued during the same period, was -about two thousand one hundred. One-half of these seventeen hundred -cases were what are called town cases, and the other half country cases. -To transact the town business alone, consisting of eight hundred and -fifty cases annually, it had been found necessary to establish a new -court of bankruptcy, similar to the ancient courts at Westminster Hall, -consisting of one chief judge, and three puisne judges. To this court -there were attached six commissioners, two principal registrars, and -eight deputy registrars. Such was the judicial force found necessary in -England to examine and decide upon the cases of seven hundred and fifty -bankrupts in each year. - -Then what provision had the present bill made to discharge half a -million of bankrupts, the number which its friends assert exist at -present in the United States? None whatever, except to cast this burden -upon the district courts of the United States, which, in the large -commercial cities, where the cases of bankruptcy must chiefly be heard, -had already as much business as they could conveniently transact. The -courts could not transact all this business, if there were half a -million of bankrupts to be discharged, within the next twenty years. -Sir, unless you establish new courts, and increase your judicial force -at least ten fold, it is vain for you to pass the present bill. Without -this, the law can never be carried into effect. The moment it goes into -operation, these unfortunate bankrupts will rush eagerly to the district -courts in such numbers as to arrest all other judicial business. This -bill provides that these courts shall be considered open every day in -the year, for the purpose of hearing bankrupt cases. - -The district courts of the United States were scattered over the Union -at great distances from each other. For example, there were in the State -of New York, he believed, but two of these courts. In Pennsylvania, one -was held in Philadelphia, another in Pittsburg, and a third in -Williamsport. Pittsburg and Philadelphia were three hundred miles apart; -and parties, jurors, and witnesses must constantly be in attendance from -great distances at these two places, on the hearing of the different -bankrupts, and on the trial of all the causes which might arise out of -the settlement of their estates. By the operation of this bill, all -these causes would and must be transferred from the State to the Federal -courts. This would be an intolerable oppression to the people. - -Without entering into any detail of the frauds to which this bill would -give birth, he must be permitted to advert to the effect which it would -have upon the rights of creditors in States distant from the court where -the debtor might make his application. It would speedily sponge away all -the indebtedness, now very great, of the Southwestern portion of the -Union to the Eastern cities. Our merchants in those cities, should the -bill pass, would have no difficulty in balancing their books. This would -be done for them by the bill in the easiest possible manner. - -Under all other bankrupt laws which had ever existed, or ever been -proposed, either in this country or in England, or anywhere else, as he -believed, the debtor could not obtain his certificate of discharge -without the express written assent of a certain proportion of his -creditors in number and value. This rule had never been found to operate -severely in practice on honest debtors, whilst it afforded some security -to the creditors. Under the present bankrupt laws of England, the -certificate of discharge must be signed by four-fifths in number and -value of the creditors of the bankrupt; and under our old bankrupt law -of 1800, two-thirds in number and value of the creditors were required -to sign. Without this express assent, no bankrupt could receive his -certificate of discharge. But the present bill had completely reversed -this rule. Under it the debtor must be discharged, “unless a majority in -number and value of his creditors, who have proved their debts, shall -file their written dissent thereto.” Now he should put a case; and many -such would occur under the present bill. A merchant in Philadelphia had -a debtor in Mississippi, who owed him $20,000. This debtor applies to -the district court of that State for the benefit of the act. The -merchant believes he has been guilty of fraud, and determines to oppose -his discharge. He goes or sends to Mississippi for this purpose. I ask -you, sir, what chance he would have to obtain the necessary proof, in a -country where thousands were at the same time applying for the benefit -of the bankrupt law. The task would be hopeless; and consequently the -attempt would be made in very few cases. Had the law required the -express assent of two-thirds or even a majority in number and value of -the bankrupt’s creditors, the merchant would have had one security left. -The debtor must have satisfied him that he had acted honestly before he -could have obtained his assent. Now the debtor would be discharged -unless a majority expressly dissent. The ancient rule had been reversed; -and instead of an express assent being required to produce his -discharge, there must now be an express dissent to prevent it. And if -the majority did dissent, what would be the consequence? Was this -conclusive, and would the debtor still remain liable? No, sir, no. The -Philadelphia merchant would then have to enter upon a new law suit. -Notwithstanding this express dissent, the question would, under the -bill, be referred to a jury, and if they decided in the bankrupt’s -favor, he was discharged from his debts forever, even against the -dissent of all his creditors. This jury would necessarily be composed of -his own neighbors, all having a sympathetic feeling with him, and -looking upon the distant Philadelphia creditor as an unjust and an -unfeeling man. This was a natural feeling, and common to almost all men -in similar circumstances. It implied no imputations upon their honesty. -Truly this bill was a measure to relieve all debtors who might desire to -cut loose from their debts, without any adequate provision for the -security of creditors. - -But all these evils were nothing when compared with the baneful effects -which the bill would have upon the morals of the people of this country. -Our people were already too much addicted to speculation, and too -anxious to become suddenly rich. As a nation, we required the rein and -the bit much more than the spur. The present bill would stimulate the -spirit of speculation almost to madness. Men would be tempted by the -hope of realizing rapid fortunes, and living in affluence the remainder -of their days, to embark in every wild undertaking, knowing that they -had everything to gain and nothing to lose. This bill proclaimed not -merely to merchants and insurers, whose business was from its nature -hazardous; but to every citizen of the United States, “you may be as -wild and extravagant in your speculations as you please—you may attempt -to seize the golden prize in any manner you choose: if you succeed you -will then possess what your heart most desires; if not, your debts shall -be blotted out in the easiest manner possible, and you may begin the -world again.” This was in effect the language of the bill. The -consequence must be that the faith of contracts would soon become an -idle word. Our former bankrupt law was wholly compulsory in its -character, and was confined to traders. The present English bankrupt law -expressly excludes farmers and graziers from its provisions. We went a -long distance in advance of both. The present bill would be in effect -wholly voluntary, and it embraced everybody under the sun, and all debts -which had been, or might be, contracted. - -He would venture to predict, that when this bill should go into -operation the people of the United States would soon become astonished -and alarmed at its consequence: and it would be blotted out of existence -in less time than had elapsed between the passage and repeal of the act -of 1800. - -He might be asked if he were opposed to a bankrupt law in any form. He -could answer that he was not. He would most cheerfully vote for any safe -measure of this nature which could be carried into execution by the -courts of the United States, and he did not believe that it would be -very difficult to frame such a measure. The judicial system of the -Federal Government was of such a character, that it could never execute -a bankrupt law, modelled after the English system, without producing -great fraud, delay, and injustice. If you changed this system, and -increased the number of courts and judges, so as to enable them to -transact the business under this bill, with proper deliberation and -within a reasonable time, you would go far towards producing a judicial -consolidation of the Union. It was the opinion of Mr. Lowndes, that we -should be compelled to abandon the idea of framing a bill upon the -English model, and adopt the system which prevailed in countries subject -to the civil law. For example, he (Mr. B.) would permit a debtor in -failing circumstances to make any composition he could obtain from a -majority or two-thirds in number and value of his creditors. In that -event, he would discharge him from his debts as against the remainder, -unless they could prove that he had been guilty of fraud. He would never -place any unfortunate, but honest debtor, in the power of a few -vindictive creditors against the will of the majority. Such a law would, -in a great degree, execute itself, and dispense with nearly all the -machinery of this bill. The composition between the debtor and his -creditors, and his assignment of his property for the benefit of them -all, which he should consider indispensable, might be filed in the -district court, and receive its sanction. He would not take time at -present to do more than hint at the nature of the bankrupt law, which he -thought would be applicable to this country. It would very much resemble -the _cessio bonorum_ which now prevailed in Louisiana, where the civil -and not the common law governed the proceedings of the courts. - -But what great and overruling necessity existed for Congress to pass any -bankrupt law? Each State could now pass bankrupt laws, which would -relieve their citizens from the obligation of debts contracted with -other citizens of the same State subsequent to the passage of such laws. -This point had been solemnly adjudged by the Supreme Court of the United -States, in the case of Ogden _vs._ Saunders, reported in 12th Wheaton, -213; and its authority was confirmed in the case of Boyle _vs._ -Zacharie, reported in 6 Peters, 635. - -This discharge, however, would be confined to debts contracted between -citizens of the same State where the discharge was granted. The decision -rested on the principle, that the State law under which the discharge -would take place, had become a part of the original contract, in the -contemplation of the parties. But if a citizen of Pennsylvania had -loaned money to a citizen of New York, who should afterwards take the -benefit of a bankrupt law existing in the latter State, this would not -discharge the debt; but the Pennsylvanian might, notwithstanding, -recover the amount due from the New Yorker, in either the federal or -State courts. But, even in such a case, if the Pennsylvania creditor -should accept his dividend of the estate of the New York debtor, he -would then be bound for ever, and the debt would be discharged. [Vide -the case of Clay _vs._ Smith, 3 Peters, 411.] Foreign creditors would, -in almost every instance, accept such dividends, if they amounted to -anything considerable; and this would be an encouragement for debtors, -in failing circumstances, not to struggle on till all their property was -gone, but to surrender it while something remained for the general -creditors. Thus, then, it was clear that the States could provide for -all prospective cases, and could enact bankrupt laws which would have -the same force and effect between their own citizens as though they had -been passed by Congress. Besides, the State courts, established in every -county, could carry those laws into effect with promptitude, and without -inconvenience to the people. - -A thought had struck him at the moment. Why might not Congress declare -by law that a discharge under all State bankrupt laws should be as -effectual against citizens of other States as they could be against -citizens of the same State? This would render the system complete in -regard to future debts, without any further interposition of Congress. -He would not say that we possessed the power, under the Constitution, to -pass such a law, because he had never considered the subject; but, if we -did, it would be the best mode in which we could exercise our power over -bankruptcy. Every State would then be left at liberty to adopt the -policy in relation to bankrupts required by its own peculiar -circumstances, and to execute the laws which operated chiefly upon the -domestic concerns of its own citizens according to its own discretion. - -Mr. B. said, as he had referred to the speech which he had made in the -House of Representatives on this subject, nearly twenty years ago, he -felt bound to acknowledge that, upon one point, he had fallen into a -then prevailing error. Of this he had been fully convinced by the debate -in the Senate at the last session. In 1822, it was his opinion that the -constitutional power of Congress was confined to traders, or that class -of persons which were embraced by the bankrupt laws of England at the -time of the adoption of the Federal Constitution. This he now believed -was too narrow a construction. The Constitution declared that “Congress -shall have power to establish uniform laws on the subject of -bankruptcies, throughout the United States.” The subject of bankruptcies -was thus placed generally under our control; and wherever bankruptcy -existed, no matter what might have been the pursuits of the bankrupt, -whether he had been a trader or not, our power extended over him. It -also, in his opinion, embraced artificial as well as natural persons. -Was it not absurd to say, that an individual manufacturer on one side of -the street at Lowell might be subjected to the compulsory operation of a -bankrupt law; whilst two or three individual manufacturers on the other -side of the same street, who had obtained a charter of incorporation -from the legislature of Massachusetts, could thus withdraw themselves in -their corporate capacity from the power conferred upon Congress over -bankruptcies? He, therefore, entertained no doubt of the power of -Congress to pass a compulsory bankrupt law against banks. If it could -not pass such a law, a firm of individual bankers would be embraced by -our power; but if these very individuals obtained a charter of -incorporation, they might then place that power at defiance. He -entertained as little doubt of the policy of such a law as applied to -banks. The knowledge of its existence would of itself, in almost every -instance, prevent the necessity of its application. Banks, then, in -order to save themselves from destruction, would take care to conduct -their business in such a manner as always to be able to pay their -liabilities in specie. He indulged no hope of a permanently sound -convertible paper currency except what arose from the power of Congress -to subject banks to a bankrupt law. This was the only practicable method -which could be devised of securing to the people this great blessing. - -Mr. B. thought it might be shown that this bill was deficient in its -details. He would now only refer to one particular. It dispensed with -the use of commissioners of bankruptcy altogether. In this respect it -was a departure from the English statute of bankruptcy, and from our own -act of 1800. Now whilst he admitted that compulsory bankruptcy would -rarely occur under this bill, unless it might be to gratify the -malignity of a severe creditor; yet he asked the chairman of the -committee (Mr. Berrien) to say what would become of the debtor’s -property between the time which would intervene between filing the -petition against him by the creditor, and the final decree of the court -declaring him a bankrupt. The debtor might require a trial by jury -before the court to ascertain the fact whether or not he had committed -an act of bankruptcy. This trial might, and probably would, often be -delayed for years, whilst it ought to proceed immediately. What was to -become of the debtor’s property in the mean time, without commissioners? -Was he to be left to squander it at pleasure? On the other hand, if the -petitioning creditor should proceed without sufficient cause, the act of -1800 gave the debtor a remedy against him. He was bound, before the -commission was sued out, to give bond, with such surety as the court -might direct, conditioned that the obligor should prove the debtor to be -a bankrupt. In case of failure, the debtor had his remedy on the bond to -the amount of the injury he might have sustained, in case the condition -of it had been violated. Surely this was no more than justice. After the -debtor had been arrested in the pursuit of his business by a charge of -bankruptcy—after his prospects in life had been blasted—after his credit -had been destroyed—and after he had been pursued for years in a course -of litigation which eventually terminated in his favor, justice required -that he should have some remedy. He asked, therefore, why these -provisions of the act of 1800 had been left out of the present bill? - -It had been contended that as the Constitution had conferred upon -Congress the power to pass a bankrupt law, it was therefore their duty -to exercise this power. But power was one thing and duty another. The -language of power was that you may—of duty that you must. The -Constitution had also conferred upon Congress the power of declaring -war, of imposing taxes, and of raising and supporting armies; but would -any Senator contend that it was our duty to give life and energy to -these powers by calling them into action, unless the interest or honor -of the country demanded it at our hands? These sovereign powers were to -be exercised or not, according to the dictates of a sound discretion; -and we were under no obligation whatever to pass a bankrupt law, unless -we believed that under all the circumstances of the country, such a law -would promote the best interests of the people. - -Upon the whole, he could declare that such was his sympathy for these -unfortunate debtors, that he had never given a vote in his life more -disagreeable to his feelings than the vote which he should be compelled -to give upon the present occasion. He was convinced, however, that the -bill, in its effects, would prove disastrous to the people; and, -therefore, although reluctantly, he should record his vote against its -passage. - -At the session which commenced in December, 1841, a measure in which -President Tyler and his cabinet had united was recommended to Congress. -It proposed the establishment of an “Exchequer Board,” to consist of -certain Government officers and other commissioners, with branch -agencies in the different States. As it never took effect, it is only -needful to refer to Mr. Buchanan’s description of it in a speech made on -the 29th of December, from which it appears that he regarded it as only -another form of a Government bank. He professed his readiness to concur -with the President in any unobjectionable measure confined to the -collection, safe-keeping, and disbursement of the public money, “in the -hope that, after all experiments should have been tried, and reason -should have time to prevail, the people and the Government would at -length return to and re-establish the Independent Treasury.”[69] But as -the Senate continued to be occupied through the winter of 1841–2 with -the discussion of these subjects of finance, Mr. Clay kept on in his -bitter criticisms of the President’s “vetoes” of bills which had been -passed by those who had, as he claimed, bestowed on Mr. Tyler the office -that had made him the successor of General Harrison. Mr. Clay went so -far as to propose a joint resolution for an amendment of the -Constitution, so as to require but a bare majority of all the members of -each house to pass any bill into a law, notwithstanding the objections -of the President. That he really expected to bring about such a change -in the fundamental rule which had alone made the President’s negative of -any practical value, may be doubtful. He was then looking for a -nomination to the Presidency by the next national convention of the -Whigs, and this proposal to curtail the “veto” power would probably be, -under the circumstances of the times, a popular topic on which to make -his canvass against the Democratic party. It is, perhaps, to be -regretted that Mr. Webster was not in the Senate at this time; but as he -was not, it is fortunate that Mr. Buchanan was.[70] Notwithstanding the -many differences of opinion between these two statesmen, on the scope of -the legislative powers of Congress, I regard it as certain that they -would not have differed in their views of the fundamental purpose of the -Constitution in requiring two-thirds of each House to pass a bill over -the President’s objections. Great and eminent as were Mr. Webster’s -powers of understanding and enforcing the principles of the -Constitution, and commanding as was his reputation, Mr. Buchanan was an -equally conscientious and careful student of that instrument, and -equally faithful to its great purposes. His speech on the veto power, in -reply to Mr. Clay, delivered on the 2d of February, 1842, may be ranked -very high as an exposition of one of the most important parts of our -political system. There is a good deal in it of the temporary and party -controversies of that period; and there is also a great deal of sound -and comprehensive reasoning, valuable now and hereafter. - -Mr. President: I am now sorry that I ever committed myself to make a -speech upon this subject. I assure you that it has become extremely -cold; and I think I never shall again pledge myself to address the -Senate at the end of a week or ten days, to be occupied in the -discussion of an intervening and different question. Cold as the subject -had become, it is now still colder, after having waited for an hour to -hear a debate on the mere reference of a memorial to the Committee on -Commerce. But although the subject may have lost its freshness to my -mind, and I may not be able to reply to the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. -Clay) with as much effect as if the discussion on the bankrupt bill had -not intervened, yet it has lost none of its intrinsic importance. - -Before I commence the discussion, however, let me clearly and distinctly -state the question to be decided by the Senate. - -Under the Constitution of the United States, as it now exists— - -“Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the -Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of -the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall -return it, with his objections, to that House in which it shall have -originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal and -proceed to reconsider it. _If after such reconsideration two-thirds of -that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with -the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be -reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that House, it shall -become a law._ But, in all such cases, the votes of both Houses shall be -determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and -against the bill, shall be entered on the journal of each House -respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within -ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, -the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless -the Congress, by their adjournment, prevent its return, in which case it -shall not be a law.” - -The same constitutional rule is applicable to “every order, resolution -or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of -Representatives may be necessary, except on a question of adjournment.” - -The joint resolution offered by the Senator, proposes to change the -existing Constitution, so as to require but a bare majority of all the -members belonging to each House to pass any bill into a law, -notwithstanding the President’s objections. - -The question then is, whether the Constitution ought to be so amended as -to require but a bare majority of all the members of each House, instead -of two-thirds of each House, to overrule the President’s veto; and, in -my opinion, there never was a more important question presented to the -Senate. Is it wise, or is it republican, to make this fundamental change -in our institutions? - -The great Whig party of the country have identified themselves, in the -most solemn manner, with this proposed amendment. Feeling sensibly, by -sad experience, that they had suffered since the late Presidential -election, from not having previously presented a clear exposition of -their principles “to the public eye,” they determined no longer to -suffer from this cause. Accordingly, the conscript fathers of the church -assembled in convention at the city of Washington, on the 13th September -last—at the close of the ever memorable extra session—and adopted an -address to the people of the United States. This manifesto contains a -distinct avowal of the articles of their creed; and, first and foremost -among them all, is a denunciation of the veto power. I shall refer very -briefly to this address; although to use the language of my friend, the -present Governor of Kentucky, it contains much good reading. So -exasperated were the feelings of the party then, and so deeply were they -pledged to the abolition of the veto power, that they solemnly and -formally read John Tyler out of the Whig church, because he had -exercised it against the bills to establish “a fiscal agent” and a -“fiscal corporation” of the United States. The form of excommunication -bears a resemblance to the Declaration of Independence which severed -this country forever from Great Britain. I shall give it in their own -emphatic language. They declare that John Tyler— - -“By the course he has adopted in respect to the application of the veto -power to two successive bank charters, each of which there was just -reason to believe would meet his approbation; by the withdrawal of -confidence from his real friends in Congress and from the members of his -Cabinet; by the bestowal of it upon others notwithstanding their -notorious opposition to leading measures of his administration, has -voluntarily separated himself from those by whose exertions and -suffrages he was elevated to that office through which he reached his -present exalted station,” etc. - -After a long preamble, they proceed to specify the duties which the Whig -party are bound to perform to the country, and at the head of these -duties, the destruction of the veto power contained in the Constitution -stands prominently conspicuous. The following is the language which they -have employed: - -“First. A reduction of the executive power, by a further limitation of -the veto, so as to secure obedience to the public will, _as that shall -be expressed by the immediate Representatives of the people and the -States_, with no other control than that which is indispensable to avert -hasty or unconstitutional legislation.” - -Mark me, sir, the object is not to secure obedience to the public will -as expressed by the people themselves, the source of all political -power; but as expounded by their Senators and Representatives in -Congress. - -After enumerating other duties, they declare that “to the effectuation -of these objects ought the exertions of the Whigs to be hereafter -directed.” And they make a direct appeal to the people by announcing -that “those only should be chosen members of Congress who are willing -cordially to co-operate in the accomplishment of them.” Twenty thousand -copies of this manifesto were ordered to be printed and circulated among -the people of the United States. - -This appeal to the people, sir, was a vain one. The avowal of their -principles destroyed them. The people did not come to the rescue. Never -was there a more disastrous defeat than theirs, at the last fall -elections, so immediately after their triumphant victory. Thank Heaven! -the people have not thus far responded to this appeal, and I trust they -may never consent to abolish the veto power. Sir, the Democratic party, -in regard to this power, in the language of the doughty barons of -England, centuries ago, are not willing that the charter of their -liberties shall be changed. We shall hold on to this veto power as one -of the most effectual safeguards of the Union, and one of the surest -means of carrying into effect the will of the people. - -In my humble judgment, the wise statesman ought equally to avoid a -foolish veneration for ancient institutions on the one hand, and a -restless desire for change on the other. In this respect, the middle is -the safer course. Too great a veneration for antiquity would have kept -mankind in bondage; and the plea of despots and tyrants, in every age, -has been that the wisdom of past generations has established -institutions which the people ought not to touch with a sacrilegious -hand. Our ancestors were great innovators; and had they not been so, the -darkness and despotism which existed a thousand years ago would have -continued until the present moment. For my own part, I believe that the -human race, from generation to generation, has in the main been -advancing, and will continue to advance, in wisdom and knowledge; and -whenever experience shall demonstrate that a change, even in the Federal -Constitution, will promote the happiness and prosperity of the people, I -shall not hesitate to vote in favor of such a change. Still, there are -circumstances which surround this instrument with peculiar sanctity. It -was framed by as wise men and as pure patriots as the sun of heaven ever -shone upon. We have every reason to believe that Providence smiled upon -their labors, and predestined them to bless mankind. Immediately after -the adoption of the Constitution, order arose out of confusion; and a -settled Government, capable of performing all its duties to its -constituents with energy and effect, succeeded to the chaos and disorder -which had previously existed under the Articles of Confederation. For -more than half a century, under this Constitution, we have enjoyed a -greater degree of liberty and happiness than has ever fallen to the lot -of any other nation on earth. Under such circumstances, the Senator from -Kentucky, before he can rightfully demand our votes in favor of a -radical change of this Constitution, in one of its fundamental articles, -ought to make out a clear case. He ought not only to point out the evils -which the country has suffered from the existence of the veto power, but -ought to convince us they have been of such magnitude, that it is not -better “to bear the ills we have, than fly to others that we know not -of.” For my own part, I believe that the veto power is one of the -strongest and stateliest columns of that fair temple which our ancestors -have dedicated to liberty; and that if you remove it from this -time-honored edifice, you will essentially impair its strength and mar -its beauty. Indeed there will then be great danger that in time it may -tumble into ruins. - -Sir, in regard to this veto power, as it at present exists, the -convention which framed the Constitution, although much divided on other -subjects, were unanimous. It is true that in the earlier stages of their -proceedings, it was considerably discussed, and presented in different -aspects. Some members were in favor of an absolute veto, and others were -opposed to any veto, however qualified; but they at length unanimously -adopted the happy mean, and framed the article as it now stands in the -Constitution. According to Mr. Madison’s report of the debates and -proceedings in the convention, we find that on Saturday the 21st July, -1787, “the tenth resolution giving the executive a qualified veto, -requiring two-thirds of each branch of the legislature to overrule it, -was then agreed to _nem. con._” The convention continued in session for -nearly two months after this decision; but so far as I can discover, no -member ever attempted to disturb this unanimous decision. - -A principle thus settled ought never to be rashly assailed under the -excitement of disappointed feelings occasioned by the veto of two -favorite measures at the extra session, on which Senators had fixed -their hearts. There ought to have been time for passion to cool and -reason to resume her empire. I know very well that the Senator from -Kentucky had announced his opposition to the veto power so far back as -June, 1840, in his Hanover speech; but that speech may fairly be -considered as a declaration of his own individual opinion on this -subject. The great Whig party never adopted it as one of the cardinal -articles of their faith, until, smarting under disappointment, they saw -their two favorite measures of the extra session fall beneath this -power. It was then, and not till then, that the resolution, in effect to -abolish it, was adopted by them as a party, in their manifesto. The -present amendment proposes to carry this resolution into execution. - -I should rather rely upon the judgment of the Senator from Kentucky on -any other question, than in regard to the veto power. He has suffered so -much from its exercise as to render it almost impossible that he can be -an impartial judge. History will record the long and memorable struggle -between himself and a distinguished ex-President, now in retirement. -This was no common party strife. Their mighty war shook the whole -Republic to its centre. The one swayed the majority in both Houses of -Congress; whilst the other was sustained by a majority of the people. -Under the lead of the one, Congress passed bills to establish a Bank of -the United States;—to commence a system of internal improvements;—and to -distribute the proceeds of the public lands among the several States; -whilst the other, strong in his convictions of duty, and strong in his -belief that the voice of the sovereign people would condemn these -measures of their representatives, vetoed them every one. And what was -the result? Without, upon the present occasion, expressing an opinion on -any one of these questions, was it not rendered manifest that the -President elected by the mass of the people, and directly responsible to -them for his conduct, understood their will and their wishes better than -the majority in the Senate and House of Representatives? No wonder then -that the Senator from Kentucky should detest the veto power. It ought -never to be torn from its foundation in the Constitution by the rash -hands of a political party, impelled to the deed under the influence of -defeated hopes and disappointed ambition. - -I trust now that I shall be able to prove that the Senator from Kentucky -has entirely mistaken the character of the veto power; that in its -origin and nature it is peculiarly democratic; that in the qualified -form in which it exists in our Constitution, it is but a mere appeal by -the President of the people’s choice from the decision of Congress to -the people themselves; and that whilst the exercise of this power has -done much good, it never has been, and never can be, dangerous to the -rights and liberties of the people. - -This is not “an arbitrary and monarchical power;” it is not “a -monarchical prerogative,” as it has been designated by the Senator. If -it were, I should go with him, heart and hand, for its abolition. What -is a monarchical prerogative? It is a power vested in an emperor or -king, neither elected by, nor responsible to, the people, to maintain -and preserve the privileges of his throne. The veto power in the hands -of such a sovereign has never been exerted, and never will be exerted, -except to arrest the progress of popular liberty, or what he may term -popular encroachment. It is the character of the public agent on whom -this power is conferred, and not the nature of the power itself, which -stamps it either as democratic or arbitrary. In its origin we all know -that it was purely democratic. It owes its existence to a revolt of the -people of Rome against the tyrannical decrees of the Senate. They -retired from the city to the Sacred Mount, and demanded the rights of -freemen. They thus extorted from the aristocratic Senate a decree -authorizing them annually to elect tribunes of the people. On these -tribunes was conferred the power of annulling any decree of the Senate, -by simply pronouncing the word “_veto_.” This very power was the only -one by means of which the Democracy of Rome exercised any control over -the government of the republic. It was their only safeguard against the -oppression and encroachments of the aristocracy. It is true that it did -not enable the people, through their tribunes, to originate laws; but it -saved them from all laws of the Senate which encroached on their rights -and liberties. - -Now, sir, let me ask the Senator from Kentucky, was this an arbitrary -and monarchical power? No, sir; it was strictly democratic. And why? -Because it was exercised by tribunes elected by the people, and -responsible annually to the people; and I shall now attempt to prove -that the veto power, under our Constitution, is of a similar character. - -Who is the President of the United States, by whom this power is to be -exercised? He is a citizen, elected by his fellow-citizens to the -highest official trust in the country, and directly responsible to them -for the manner in which he shall discharge his duties. From the manner -in which he is elected, he more nearly represents a majority of the -whole people of the United States than any other branch of the -Government. Sir, one-fourth of the people may elect a decided majority -of the Senate. Under the Constitution, we are the representatives of -sovereign States, and little Delaware has an equal voice in this body -with the Empire State. How is it in regard to the House of -Representatives? Without a resort to the gerrymandering process which of -late years has become so common, it may often happen, from the -arrangement of the Congressional districts, that a minority of the -people of a State will elect a majority of representatives to Congress. -Not so in regard to the President of the United States. From necessity, -he must be elected by the mass of the people in the several States. He -is the creature of the people—the mere breath of their nostrils—and on -him, as the tribune of the people, have they conferred the veto power. - -Is there any serious danger that such a magistrate will ever abuse this -power? What earthly inducement can he have to pursue such a course? In -the first place, during his first term, he will necessarily feel anxious -to obtain the stamp of public approbation on his conduct, by a -re-election. For this reason, if no other existed, he will not array -himself, by the exercise of the veto power, against a majority in both -Houses of Congress, unless in extreme cases, where, from strong -convictions of public duty, he may be willing to draw down upon himself -their hostile influence. - -In the second place, the Constitution leaves him in a state of -dependence on Congress. Without their support, no measure recommended by -him can become a law, and no system of policy which he may have devised -can be carried into execution. Deprived of their aid, he can do nothing. -Upon their cordial co-operation the success and glory of his -administration must, in a great degree, depend. Is it, then, at all -probable that he would make war upon Congress, by refusing to sanction -any one of their favorite measures, unless he felt deeply conscious that -he was acting in obedience to the will of the people, and could appeal -to them for support? Nothing short of such a conviction, unless it be to -preserve his oath inviolate to support the Constitution, will ever -induce him to exercise a power always odious in the eyes of the majority -in Congress, against which it is exerted. - -But there is still another powerful influence which will prevent his -abuse of the veto power. The man who has been elevated by his -fellow-citizens to the highest office of trust and dignity which a great -nation can bestow, must necessarily feel a strong desire to have his -name recorded in untarnished characters on the page of his country’s -history, and to live after death in the hearts of his countrymen. This -consideration would forbid the abuse of the veto power. What is -posthumous fame in almost every instance? Is it not the voice of -posterity re-echoing the opinion of the present generation? And what -body on the earth can give so powerful an impulse to public opinion, at -least in this country, as the Congress of the United States? Under all -these circumstances, we must admit that the opinion expressed by the -Federalist is sound, and that “it is evident that there would be greater -danger of his not using his power when necessary, than of his using it -too often or too much.” Such must also have been Mr. Jefferson’s -opinion. When consulted by General Washington in April, 1792, as to the -propriety of vetoing “the act for an apportionment of Representatives -among the several States, according to the first enumeration,” what was -his first reason in favor of the exercise of this power upon that -occasion? “Viewing the bill,” says he, “either as a violation of the -Constitution, or as giving an inconvenient exposition to its words, is -it a case wherein the President ought to interpose his negative?” “I -think it is.” “_The non user of his negative power begins already to -excite a belief that no President will ever venture to use it; and -consequently, has begotten a desire to raise up barriers in the State -legislatures against Congress throwing off the control of the -Constitution._” I shall not read the other reasons he has assigned, none -of them being necessary for my present purpose. Perilous, indeed, I -repeat, is the exercise of the veto power, and “no President will ever -venture to use it,” unless from the strongest sense of duty, and the -strongest conviction that it will receive the public approbation. - -But, after all, what is the nature of this qualified veto under the -Constitution? It is, in fact, but an appeal taken by the President from -the decision of Congress, in a particular case, to the tribunal of the -sovereign people of the several States, who are equally the masters of -both. If they decide against the President, their decision must finally -prevail, by the admission of the Senator himself. The same President -must either carry it into execution himself, or the next President whom -they elect, will do so. The veto never can do more than postpone -legislative action on the measure of which it is the subject, until the -will of the people can be fairly expressed. This suspension of action, -if the people should not sustain the President, will not generally -continue longer than two years, and it cannot continue longer than four. -If the people, at the next elections, should return a majority to -Congress hostile to the veto, and the same measure should be passed a -second time, he must indeed be a bold man, and intent upon his own -destruction, who would, a second time, arrest it by his veto. After the -popular voice has determined the question, the President would always -submit, unless, by so doing, he clearly believed he would involve -himself in the guilt of perjury, by violating his oath to support the -Constitution. At the end of four years, however, in any and every event, -the popular will must and would be obeyed by the election of another -President. - -Sir, the Senator from Kentucky, in one of those beautiful passages which -always abound in his speeches, has drawn a glowing picture of the -isolated condition of kings, whose ears the voice of public opinion is -never permitted to reach; and he has compared their condition in this -particular, with that of the President of the United States. Here too, -he said, the Chief Magistrate occupied an isolated station, where the -voice of his country and the cries of its distress could not reach his -ear. But is there any justice in this comparison? Such a picture may be -true to the life when drawn for an European monarch; but it has no -application whatever to a President of the United States. He, sir, is no -more than the first citizen of this free Republic. No form is required -in approaching his person, which can prevent the humblest of his -fellow-citizens from communicating with him. In approaching him, a -freeman of this land is not compelled to decorate himself in fantastic -robes, or adopt any particular form of dress, such as the court -etiquette of Europe requires. The President, intermingles freely with -his fellow-citizens, and hears the opinions of all. The public press -attacks him—political parties, in and out of Congress, assail him, and -the thunders of the Senator’s own denunciatory eloquence are -reverberated from the Capitol, and reach the White House before its -incumbent can lay his head upon his pillow. His every act is subjected -to the severest scrutiny, and he reads in the newspapers of the day the -decrees of public opinion. Indeed, it is the privilege of everybody to -assail him. To contend that such a Chief Magistrate is isolated from the -people, is to base an argument upon mere fancy, and not upon facts. No, -sir; the President of the United States is more directly before the -people, and more immediately responsible, than any other department of -our Government: and woe be to that President who shall ever affect to -withdraw from the public eye, and seclude himself in the recesses of the -Executive mansion! - -The Senator has said, and with truth, that no veto of the President has -ever been overruled, since the origin of the Government. Not one. -Although he introduced this fact for another purpose than that which now -induces me to advert to it, yet it is not the less true on that account. -Is not this the strongest possible argument to prove that there never -yet has been a veto, in violation of the public will? - -[Here Mr. Clay observed that there had been repeated instances of -majorities in Congress deciding against vetoes.] - -Mr. Buchanan resumed. I am now speaking of majorities, not of Congress, -but of the people. I shall speak of majorities in Congress presently. - -Why, sir, has no veto been ever overruled? Simply because the President -has never exercised, and never will exercise, this perilous power on any -important occasion, unless firmly convinced that he is right, and that -he will be sustained by the people. Standing alone, with the whole -responsibility of his high official duties pressing upon him, he will -never brave the enormous power and influence of Congress, unless he -feels a moral certainty that the people will come to the rescue. When he -ventures to differ from Congress and appeal to the people, the chances -are all against him. The members of the Senate and the House are -numerous, and are scattered over the whole country, whilst the President -is but an individual confined to the city of Washington. Their personal -influence with their constituents is, and must be, great. In such a -struggle, he must mainly rely upon the palpable justice of his cause. -Under these circumstances, does it not speak volumes in favor of the -discretion with which the veto power has been exercised, that it has -never once been overruled, in a single instance, since the origin of the -Government, either by a majority of the people in the several States, or -by the constitutional majority in Congress. - -It is truly astonishing how rarely this power has ever been exercised. -During the period of more than half a century which has elapsed since -the meeting of the first Congress under the Constitution, about six -thousand legislative acts have been passed. How many of these, sir, do -you suppose have been disapproved by the President? Twenty, sir; twenty -is the whole number. I speak from a list now in my hand prepared by one -of the clerks of the Senate. And this number embraces not merely those -bills which have been actually vetoed; but all such as were retained by -him under the Constitution, in consequence of having been presented at -so late a period of the session that he could not prepare his objections -previous to the adjournment. Twenty is the sum total of all! - -Let us analyze these vetoes (for I shall call them all by that name) for -a few moments. Of the twenty, eight were on bills of small comparative -importance, and excited no public attention. Congress at once yielded to -the President’s objections, and in one remarkable instance, a veto of -General Jackson was laid upon the table on the motion of the Senator -from Kentucky himself. No attempt was even made to pass the bill in -opposition to this veto, and no one Senator contested its propriety. -Eleven of the twelve remaining vetoes upon this list, relate to only -three subjects. These are, a Bank of the United States; internal -improvements in different forms; and the distribution of the proceeds of -the public lands among the several States. There have been four vetoes -of a Bank of the United States; one by Mr. Madison, one by General -Jackson, and two by Mr. Tyler. There have been six vetoes on internal -improvements, in different forms; one by Mr. Madison, one by Mr. Monroe, -and four by General Jackson. And General Jackson vetoed the bill to -distribute the proceeds of the sales of the public lands among the -several States. These make the eleven. - -The remaining veto was by General Washington; and it is remarkable that -it should be the most questionable exercise of this power which has ever -occurred. I refer to his second and last veto, on the first of March, -1797, and but three days before he retired from office, on the “Act to -alter and amend an act, entitled an act to ascertain and fix the -military establishment of the United States.” In this instance, there -was a majority of nearly two-thirds in the House of Representatives, -where it originated, in favor of passing the act, notwithstanding the -objections of the Father of his Country. The vote was fifty-five in the -affirmative to thirty-six in the negative. This act provided for the -reduction of the military establishment of the country; and the day will -probably never again arrive when any President will venture to veto an -act reducing the standing army of the United States. - -Then in the range of time since the year 1789, there have been but -twenty vetoes; and eleven of these related to only three subjects which -have radically divided the two great political parties of the country. -With the exception of twenty, all of the acts which have ever passed -Congress, have been allowed to take their course without any executive -interference. - -That this power has never been abused, is as clear as the light of the -sun. I ask Senators, and I appeal to you, sir, whether the American -people have not sanctioned every one of the vetoes on the three great -subjects to which I have referred. Yes, sir, every one, not excepting -those on the Fiscal Bank and Fiscal Corporation—the leading measures of -the extra session. Notwithstanding the solemn denunciation against the -President, made by the Whig party, and their appeal to the people, there -has been no election held since that session in which the people have -not declared, in a voice of thunder, their approbation of the two vetoes -of President Tyler. I shall not, upon the present occasion, discuss the -question whether all or any of these vetoes were right or wrong. I -merely state the incontrovertible fact that they have all been approved -by the American people. - -The character of the bills vetoed shows conclusively the striking -contrast between the veto power when entrusted to an elective and -responsible chief magistrate, and when conferred upon a European -sovereign as a royal prerogative. All the vetoes which an American -President has imposed on any important act of Congress, except the one -by General Washington, to which I have alluded, have been so many -instances of self-denial. These acts have all been returned, accompanied -by messages remonstrating against the extension of executive power, -which they proposed to grant. Exerting the influence which these acts -proposed to confer upon him, the President might, indeed, have made long -strides towards the attainment of monarchical power. Had a national bank -been established under his control, uniting the moneyed with the -political power of the country; had a splendid system of internal -improvements been adopted and placed under his direction, presenting -prospects of pecuniary advantage to almost every individual throughout -the land; and in addition to all this, had the States become pensioners -on the bounty of the Federal Government for the amount of the proceeds -of the sales of the public lands, we might soon have witnessed a -powerful consolidated Government, with a chief at its head, far -different from the plain and unpretending President recognized by the -Constitution. The General Government might then have become everything, -whilst the State governments would have sunk to nothing. Thanks to the -vetoes of our Presidents, and not to Congress, that most of these evils -have been averted. Had these acts been all approved by the President, it -is my firm conviction that the Senator himself would as deeply have -deplored the consequences as any other true patriot, and that he would -forever have regretted his own agency in substantially changing the form -of our Government. Had these bills become laws, the executive power -would then have strode over all the other powers of the Constitution; -and then, indeed, the Senator might have justly compared the President -of the United States with the monarchs of Europe. Our Presidents have -had the self-denying firmness to render all these attempts abortive to -bestow on themselves extraordinary powers, and have been content to -confine themselves to those powers conferred on them by the -Constitution. They have protected the rights of the States and of the -people from the unconstitutional means of influence which Congress had -placed within their grasp. Such have been the consequences of the veto -power in the hands of our elective chief magistrate. - -For what purposes has this power been exerted by European monarchs, with -whom our President has been compared? When exercised at all, it has -always been for the purpose of maintaining the royal prerogative and -arresting the march of popular liberty. There have been but two -instances of its exercise in England since the Revolution of 1688. The -first was in 1692, by William the Third, the rival of Louis the -Fourteenth, and beyond question the ablest man who has sat upon the -throne of Great Britain for the last century and a half. He had the -hardihood to veto the Earl of Shrewsbury’s bill, which had passed both -houses, limiting the duration of Parliaments to three, instead of seven -years, and requiring annual sessions to be held. He dreaded the -influence which members of the House of Commons, responsible to their -constituents at the end of each period of three years, might exert -against his royal power and prerogatives; and, therefore, held on by -means of the veto to septennial Parliaments. And what did George the -Third? In 1806 he vetoed the Catholic Emancipation bill, and thus -continued to hold in political bondage millions of his fellow-men, -because they insisted upon worshipping their God according to the -dictates of their own consciences. - -[Here Mr. Clay observed that this was a mistake, and expressed his -belief that, upon the occasion alluded to, the matter had gone no -further than the resignation of the Grenville administration.] - -Mr. Buchanan. I shall then read my authority. It is to be found in -“Random Recollections of the House of Lords, by Mr. Grant,” page 25. The -author says: - -“But if the king refuses his signature to it, [a bill] _as George the -Third did in the case of the Catholic Emancipation bill of 1806_, it -necessarily falls to the ground. The way in which the king intimates his -determination not to give his assent to the measure, is not by a -positive refusal in so many words; he simply observes, in answer to the -application made to him for that purpose, ‘Le roi s’avisera,’ namely, -‘The king will consider of it,’ which is understood to be a final -determination not to sanction the measure.” - -But, sir, be this author correct or incorrect, as to the existence of a -veto in 1806, it is a matter of trifling importance in the present -argument.[71] I admit that the exercise of the veto power has fallen -into disuse in England since the revolution. And what are the reasons? -First, because its exercise by a hereditary sovereign to preserve -unimpaired the prerogatives of the crown against the voice of the -people, is always an odious exertion of the royal prerogative. It is far -different from its exercise by an elective magistrate, acting in the -character of a tribune of the people, to preserve their rights and -liberties unimpaired. And secondly, because this veto power is no longer -necessary to secure the prerogatives of the crown against the assaults -of popular liberty. - -Two centuries ago, the people of England asserted their rights by the -sword against their sovereign. They dethroned and beheaded him. Since -that time, the kings of England have changed their course. They have -discovered from experience that it was much easier to govern Parliament -by means of the patronage and money at the command of the crown, than -openly to resist it by the veto power. This system has succeeded -admirably. Influence has taken the place of prerogative; and since the -days of Walpole, when the votes of members were purchased almost without -disguise, corruption has nearly destroyed the independent action of -Parliament. It has now descended into the ranks of the people, and -threatens destruction to the institutions of that country. In the recent -contest for power between the Whigs and the Tories, the bargain and sale -of the votes of the electors was open and notorious. The bribery and -corruption of both parties sought no disguise. In many places the price -of a vote was fixed, like any other commodity in the market. These -things have been proclaimed without contradiction on the floor of -Parliament. The Tories had the most money to expend; and the cause of -dear bread, with a starving population, prevailed over the modification -or repeal of the corn laws. In a country so venal, it is easy for the -crown, by a politic distribution of its honors, offices and emoluments, -and if these should all fail, by a direct application of money, to -preserve its prerogatives without the use of the veto power. - -Besides, the principal ministers of the crown are always members of the -House of Lords or the House of Commons. It is they who originate the -important laws; and they, and they alone, are responsible, because it is -a maxim of the British government, that the king can do no wrong. If -they cannot maintain a majority in Parliament by the use of the -patronage and influence of the crown, they must yield their places to -their successful rivals; and the king, without the least hesitation, -will receive as his confidential advisers to-morrow, the very men whose -principles he had condemned but yesterday. Such is a king of England. He -can do no wrong. - -On one memorable occasion, when the ministers of the crown themselves—I -refer to the coalition administration of Mr. Fox and Lord North—had -passed their East India Bill through the House of Commons, it was -defeated in the House of Lords by the direct personal influence of the -sovereign. George the Third, it is known, would have vetoed that bill, -had it passed the House of Lords; and well he might. It was an attempt -by his own ministers to obtain possession of the wealth and the power of -India, and to use them for the purpose of controlling both the sovereign -and the people of England. This was not the common case of a mere -struggle between opposite parties as to which should administer the -government, about which the sovereign of England might be perfectly -indifferent; but it was an attempt to deprive the crown of its power and -prerogatives. - -Under such circumstances, can the Senator seriously contend that, -because the veto power has been disused by the kings of England, -therefore, it ought to be taken from the President of the United States? -The king is a hereditary sovereign—the President an elective magistrate. -The king is not responsible to the people for the administration of the -executive government—the President is alone responsible. The king could -feel no interest in using the veto power, except to maintain the -prerogatives of the crown; and it has been shown to be wholly -unnecessary for this purpose; whilst the President has never exerted it -on any important occasion, but in obedience to the public will, and then -only for the purpose of preventing encroachment by Congress on the -Constitution of the country, on the rights of the States, and on the -liberties of the people. - -The Senator is mistaken in supposing that the veto power has never been -exercised in France. It is true, I believe, that it has never been -exerted by the government of Louis Philippe; but his government is as -yet nothing but a mere experiment. It has now existed less than twelve -years, and during this short period there have been nineteen different -cabinets. I saw a list of them a few days ago, in one of the public -journals. To cite the example of such a government as authority here, is -to prove that a Senator is hard run for arguments. The unfortunate Louis -the Sixteenth, used the suspensive veto power conferred upon him by the -first French Constitution, upon more than one occasion; but he used it -not to enforce the will of the people as our Presidents have done, but -against public opinion, which was at that time omnipotent in France. -These vetoes proved but a feeble barrier against the tremendous torrent -of the Revolution, which was at that time overwhelming all the corrupt -and tyrannical institutions of the ancient monarchy. - -The Senator has referred to the Declaration of Independence, to show -that the exercise of this veto power by the king on the acts of the -colonial legislature was one of the causes of the Revolution. In that -instrument he is charged with having “refused his assent to laws the -most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” In those days a -douceur was presented, in Pennsylvania, to the proprietary governor, -with every act of assembly in which the people felt a deep interest. I -state this fact on the authority of Dr. Franklin. After the act was -approved by the governor, it had then to be sent three thousand miles -across the Atlantic for the approbation of a hereditary sovereign, in no -manner responsible to the people of this country. It would have been -strange, indeed, had not this power been abused under such -circumstances. This was like the veto of Augustus after he had usurped -the liberties of the Roman people, and made himself sole tribune—not -like that of the tribunes annually elected by the Roman people. This was -not the veto of James Madison, Andrew Jackson, or John Tyler—not the -veto of a freeman, responsible to his fellow-freemen for the faithful -and honest exercise of his important trust. This power is either -democratic or arbitrary, as the authority exercising it may be dependent -on the people or independent of them. - -But, sir, this veto power, which I humbly apprehend to be useful in -every State government, becomes absolutely necessary under the peculiar -and complex form of the Federal Government. To this point I desire -especially to direct the attention of the Senate. The Federal -Constitution was a work of mutual compromise and concession; and the -States which became parties to it, must take the evil with the good. A -majority of the people within each of the several States have the -inherent right to change, modify, and amend their Constitution at -pleasure. Not so with respect to the Federal Constitution. In regard to -it, a majority of the people of the United States can exercise no such -power. And why? Simply because they have solemnly surrendered it, in -consideration of obtaining by this surrender all the blessings and -benefits of our glorious Union. It requires two-thirds of the -representatives of the States in the Senate, and two-thirds of the -representatives of the people in the House, even to propose an amendment -to the Constitution; and this must be ratified by three-fourths of the -States before it can take effect. Even if twenty-five of the twenty-six -States of which the Union is composed should determine to deprive -“little Delaware” of her equal representation in the Senate, she could -defy them all, whilst this Constitution shall endure. It declares that -“no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage -in the Senate.” - -As the Constitution could not have been adopted except by a majority of -the people in every State of the Union, the members of the convention -believed that it would be reasonable and just to require that -three-fourths of the States should concur in changing that which _all_ -had adopted, and to which _all_ had become parties. To give it a binding -force upon the conscience of every public functionary, each Senator and -Representative, whether in Congress or the several State legislatures, -and every executive and judicial officer, whether State or Federal, is -bound solemnly to swear or affirm that he will support the Constitution. - -Now, sir, it has been said, and said truly by the Senator, that the will -of the majority ought to prevail. This is an axiom in the science of -liberty, which nobody at the present day will dispute. Under the Federal -Constitution, this will must be declared in the manner which it has -prescribed; and sooner or later, the majority must and will be obeyed in -the enactment of laws. But what is this majority to which we are all -bound to yield? Is it the majority of Senators and Representatives in -Congress, or a majority of the people themselves? The fallacy of the -Senator’s argument, from beginning to end, consists in the assumption -that Congress, in every situation and under every circumstance, truly -represents the deliberate will of the people. The framers of the -Constitution believed it might be otherwise, and therefore they imposed -the restriction of the qualified veto of the President upon the -legislative action of Congress. - -What is the most glorious and useful invention of modern times in the -science of free government? Undoubtedly, written constitutions. For want -of these, the ancient republics were scenes of turbulence, violence and -disorder, and ended in self-destruction. And what are all our -constitutions, but restraints imposed, not by arbitrary authority, but -by the people upon themselves and their own representatives? Such -throughout is the character of the Federal Constitution. And it is this -Constitution thus restricted, which has so long secured our liberty and -prosperity, and has endeared itself to the heart of every good citizen. - -This system of self-imposed restraints is a necessary element of our -social condition. Every wise and virtuous man adopts resolutions by -which he regulates his conduct, for the purpose of counteracting the -evil propensities of his nature, and preventing him from yielding under -the impulses of sudden and strong temptation. Is such a man the less -free—the less independent, because he chooses to submit to these -self-imposed restraints? In like manner, is the majority of the people -less free and less independent, because it has chosen to impose -constitutional restrictions upon itself and its representatives? Is this -any abridgment of popular liberty? The true philosophy of republican -government, as the history of the world has demonstrated, consists in -the establishment of such counteracting powers,—powers always created by -the people themselves,—as shall render it morally certain that no law -can be passed by their servants which shall not be in accordance with -their will, and calculated to promote their good. - -It is for this reason that a senate has been established in every State -of the Union to control the House of Representatives: and I presume -there is scarcely an individual in the country who is not convinced of -its necessity. Fifty years ago, opinions were much divided upon this -subject, and nothing but experience has settled the question. In France, -the National Assembly, although they retained the king, rejected a -senate as aristocratic, and our own Franklin was opposed to it. He -thought that the popular branch was alone necessary to reflect the will -of the people, and that a senate would be but a mere incumbrance. His -influence prevailed in the convention which framed the first -constitution for Pennsylvania, and we had no senate. The Doctor’s -argument against it was contained in one of his homely but striking -illustrations. Why, said he, will you place a horse in front of a cart -to draw it forward, and another behind to draw it back? Experience, -which is the wisest teacher, has demonstrated the fallacy of this and -all other similar arguments, and public opinion is now unanimous on the -subject. Where is the man who does not now feel that the control of a -senate is necessary to restrain and modify the action of the popular -branch? - -And how is our own Senate composed? One-fourth of the people of this -Union, through the agency of the State legislatures, can send a majority -into this chamber. A bill may pass the House of Representatives by a -unanimous vote, and yet be defeated here by a majority of Senators -representing but one-fourth of the people of the United States. Why does -not the Senator from Kentucky propose to abolish the Senate? His -argument would be much stronger against its existence than against that -of the veto power in the hands of a Chief Magistrate, who, in this -particular, is the true representative of the majority of the whole -people. - -All the beauty, and harmony, and order of the universe arise from -counteracting influences. When its great Author, in the beginning, gave -the planets their projective impulse, they would have rushed in a -straight line through the realms of boundless space, had he not -restrained them within their prescribed orbits by the counteracting -influence of gravitation. All the valuable inventions in mechanics -consist in blending simple powers together so as to restrain and -regulate the action of each other. Restraint—restraint—not that imposed -by arbitrary and irresponsible power, but by the people themselves, in -their own written constitutions, is the great law which has rendered -Democratic Representative Government so successful in these latter -times. The best security which the people can have against abuses of -trust by their public servants, is to ordain that it shall be the duty -of one class of them to watch and restrain another. Sir, this Federal -Government, in its legislative attributes, is nothing but a system of -restraints from beginning to end. In order to enact any bill into a law, -it must be passed by the representatives of the people in the House, and -also by the representatives of the sovereign States in the Senate, -where, as I have observed before, it may be defeated by Senators from -States containing but one-fourth of the population of the country. After -it has undergone these two ordeals, it must yet be subjected to that of -the Executive, as the tribune of the whole people, for his approbation. -If he should exercise his veto power, it cannot become a law unless it -be passed by a majority of two-thirds of both Houses. These are the -mutual restraints which the people have imposed on their public -servants, to preserve their own rights and those of the States from -rash, hasty, and impolitic legislation. No treaty with a foreign power -can be binding upon the people of this country unless it shall receive -the assent of the President and two-thirds of the Senate; and this is -the restraint which the people have imposed on the treaty-making power. - -All these restraints are peculiarly necessary to protect the rights and -preserve the harmony of the different States which compose our Union. It -now consists of twenty-six distinct and independent States, and this -number may yet be considerably increased. These States differ -essentially from each other in their domestic institutions, in the -character of their population, and even, to some extent, in their -language. They embrace every variety of soil, climate, and productions. -In an enlarged view, I believe their interests to be all identical; -although, to the eye of local and sectional prejudice, they always -appear to be conflicting. In such a condition, mutual jealousies must -arise, which can only be repressed by that mutual forbearance which -pervades the Constitution. To legislate wisely for such a people is a -task of extreme delicacy, and requires much self-restraining prudence -and caution. In this point of view, I firmly believe that the veto power -is one of the best safeguards of the Union. By this power, the majority -of the people in every State have decreed that the existing laws shall -remain unchanged, unless not only a majority in each House of Congress, -but the President also, shall sanction the change. By these wise and -wholesome restrictions, they have secured themselves, so far as human -prudence can, against hasty, oppressive, and dangerous legislation. - -The rights of the weaker portions of the Union will find one of their -greatest securities in the veto power. It would be easy to imagine -interests of the deepest importance to particular sections which might -be seriously endangered by its destruction. For example, not more than -one-third of the States have any direct interest in the coasting trade. -This trade is now secured to American vessels, not merely by a -protective duty, but by an absolute prohibition of all foreign -competition. Suppose the advocates of free trade run mad should excite -the jealousy of the Senators and Representatives from the other -two-thirds of the States against this comparatively local interest, and -convince them that this trade ought to be thrown open to foreign -navigation. By such a competition, they might contend that the price of -freight would be reduced, and that the producers of cotton, wheat, and -other articles ought not to be taxed in order to sustain such a monopoly -in favor of their own ship building and navigating interest. Should -Congress, influenced by these or any other consideration, ever pass an -act to open this trade to the competition of foreigners, there is no man -fit to fill the executive chair who would not place his veto upon it, -and thus refer the subject to the sober determination of the American -people. To deprive the navigating States of this privilege, would be to -aim a deadly blow at the very existence of the Union. - -Let me suppose another case of a much more dangerous character. In the -Southern States, which compose the weaker portion of the Union, a -species of property exists which is now attracting the attention of the -whole civilized world. These States never would have become parties to -the Union, had not their rights in this property been secured by the -Federal Constitution. Foreign and domestic fanatics—some from the belief -that they are doing God’s service, and others from a desire to divide -and destroy this glorious Republic—have conspired to emancipate the -Southern slaves. On this question, the people of the South, beyond the -limits of their own States, stand alone and unsupported by any power on -earth, except that of the Northern Democracy. These fanatical -philanthropists are now conducting a crusade over the whole world, and -are endeavoring to concentrate the public opinion of all mankind against -this right of property. Suppose they should ever influence a majority in -both Houses of Congress to pass a law, not to abolish this property—for -that would be too palpable a violation of the Constitution—but to render -it of no value, under the letter, but against the spirit of some one of -the powers granted; will any lover of his country say that the President -ought not to possess the power of arresting such an act by his veto, -until the solemn decision of the people should be known on this -question, involving the life or death of the Union? We, sir, of the -non-slaveholding States, entered the Union upon the express condition -that this property should be protected. Whatever may be our own private -opinions in regard to slavery in the abstract, ought we to hazard all -the blessings of our free institutions—our Union and our strength—in -such a crusade against our brethren of the South? Ought we to jeopard -every political right we hold dear, for the sake of enabling these -fanatics to invade Southern rights, and render that fair portion of our -common inheritance a scene of servile war, rapine, and murder? Shall we -apply the torch to the magnificent temple of human liberty which our -forefathers reared at the price of their blood and treasure, and permit -all we hold dear to perish in the conflagration? I trust not. - -It is possible that at some future day the majority in Congress may -attempt, by indirect means, to emancipate the slaves of the South. There -is no knowing through what channel the ever active spirit of fanaticism -may seek to accomplish its object. The attempt may be made through the -taxing power, or some other express power granted by the Constitution. -God only knows how it may be made. It is hard to say what means -fanaticism may not adopt to accomplish its purpose. Do we feel so -secure, in this hour of peril from abroad and peril at home, as to be -willing to prostrate any of the barriers which the Constitution has -reared against hasty and dangerous legislation? No, sir, never was the -value of the veto power more manifest than at the present moment. For -the weaker portion of the Union, whose constitutional rights are now -assailed with such violence, to think of abandoning this safeguard, -would be almost suicidal. It is my solemn conviction, that there never -was a wiser or more beautiful adaptation of theory to practice in any -government than that which requires a majority of two-thirds in both -Houses of Congress to pass an act returned by the President with his -objections, under all the high responsibilities which he owes to his -country. - -Sir, ours is a glorious Constitution. Let us venerate it—let us stand by -it as the work of great and good men, unsurpassed in the history of any -age or nation. Let us not assail it rashly with our invading hands, but -honor it as the fountain of our prosperity and power. Let us protect it -as the only system of government which could have rendered us what we -are in half a century, and enabled us to take the front rank among the -nations of the earth. In my opinion, it is the only form of government -which can preserve the blessings of liberty and prosperity to the -people, and at the same time secure the rights and sovereignty of the -States. Sir, the great mass of the people are unwilling that it shall be -changed. Although the Senator from Kentucky, to whom I cannot and do not -attribute any but patriotic motives, has brought himself to believe that -a change is necessary, especially in the veto power, I must differ from -him entirely, convinced that his opinions on this subject are based upon -fallacious theories of the nature of our institutions. This view of his -opinions is strengthened by his declarations the other day as to the -illimitable rights of the majority in Congress. On that point he differs -essentially from the framers of the Constitution. They believed that the -people of the different States had rights which might be violated by -such a majority; and the veto power was one of the modes which they -devised for preventing these rights from being invaded. - -The Senator, in support of his objections to the veto power, has used -what he denominates a numerical argument, and asks, can it be supposed -that any President will possess more wisdom than nine Senators and forty -Representatives. (This is the number more than a bare majority of each -body which would at present be required to pass a bill by a majority of -two-thirds.) To this question, my answer is, no, it is not to be so -supposed at all. All that we have to suppose is, what our ancestors, in -their acknowledged wisdom, did suppose; that Senators and -Representatives are but mortal men, endowed with mortal passions and -subject to mortal infirmities; that they are susceptible of selfish and -unwise impulses, and that they do not always and under all -circumstances, truly reflect the will of their constituents. These -founders of our Government, therefore, supposed the possibility that -Congress might pass an act through the influence of unwise or improper -motives; and that the best mode of saving the country from the evil -effects of such legislation was to place a qualified veto in the hands -of the people’s own representative, the President of the United States, -by means of which, unless two-thirds of each House of Congress should -repass the bill, the question must be brought directly before the people -themselves. These wise men had made the President so dependent on -Congress that they knew he would never abuse this power, nor exert it -unless from the highest and most solemn convictions of duty; and -experience has established their wisdom and foresight. - -As to the Senator’s numerical argument, I might as well ask him, is it -to be supposed that we are so superior in wisdom to the members of the -House that the vote of one Senator ought to annul the votes of -thirty-two Representatives? And yet the bill to repeal the bankrupt law -has just been defeated in this body by a majority of one, although it -had passed the House by a majority of thirty-two. The Senator’s -numerical argument, if it be good for anything at all, would be good for -the abolition of the Senate as well as of the veto; and would lead at -once to the investment of all the powers of legislation in the popular -branch alone. But experience has long exploded this theory throughout -the world. The framers of the Constitution, in consummate wisdom, -thought proper to impose checks, and balances, and restrictions on their -Governmental agents; and woe betide us, if the day should ever arrive -when they shall be removed. - -But I must admit that another of the Senator’s arguments is perhaps not -quite so easily refuted, though, I think, it is not very difficult to -demonstrate its fallacy. It is undoubtedly his strongest position. He -says that the tendency of the veto power is to draw after it all the -powers of legislation; and that Congress, in passing laws, will be -compelled to consult, not the good of the country alone, but to -ascertain, in the first instance, what the President will approve, and -then regulate their conduct according to his predetermined will. - -This argument presupposes the existence of two facts, which must be -established before it can have the least force. First, that the -President would depart from his proper sphere, and attempt to influence -the initiatory legislation of Congress: and, second, that Congress would -be so subservient as to originate and pass laws, not according to the -dictates of their own judgment, but in obedience to his expressed -wishes. Now, sir, does not the Senator perceive that his argument proves -too much? Would not the President have precisely the same influence over -Congress, so far as his patronage extends, as if the veto had never -existed at all? He would then resemble the King of England, whose veto -power has been almost abandoned for the last hundred and fifty years. If -the President’s power and patronage were coextensive with that of the -king, he could exercise an influence over Congress similar to that which -is now exerted over the British Parliament, and might control -legislation in the same manner. - -Thus, sir, you perceive that to deprive the President of the veto power, -would afford no remedy against executive influence in Congress, if the -President were disposed to exert it. Nay, more—it would encourage him to -interfere secretly with our legislative functions, because, deprived of -the veto power, his only resource would be to intrigue with members of -Congress for the purpose of preventing the passage of measures which he -might disapprove. At present this power enables him to act openly and -boldly, and to state his reasons to the country for refusing his assent -to any act passed by Congress. - -Again: does not the Senator perceive that this argument is a direct -attack upon the character of Congress? Does he not feel that the whole -weight of his argument in favor of abolishing the veto power, rests upon -the wisdom, integrity, and independence of that body? And yet we are -told that in order to prevent the application of the veto, we shall -become so subservient to the Executive, that in the passage of laws we -will consult his wishes rather than our own independent judgment. The -venality and baseness of Congress are the only foundations on which such -an argument can rest; and yet it is the presumption of their integrity -and wisdom on which the Senator relies for the purpose of proving that -the veto power is wholly unnecessary, and ought to be abolished. - -In regard to this thing of executive influence over Congress, I have a -few words to say. Sir, I have been an attentive observer of -Congressional proceedings for the last twenty years, and have watched -its operations with an observing eye. I shall not pretend to say that it -does not exist to some extent; but its power has been greatly overrated. -It can never become dangerous to liberty, unless the patronage of the -Government should be enormously increased by the passage of such -unconstitutional and encroaching laws as have hitherto fallen under the -blow of the veto power. - -The Executive, indeed, will always have personal friends, as well as -ardent political supporters of his administration in Congress, who will -strongly incline to view his measures with a favorable eye. He will also -have, both in and out of Congress, expectants who look to him for a -share of the patronage at his disposal. But, after all, to what does -this amount? - -Whilst the canvass is proceeding previous to his election, the -expectations of candidates for office will array around him a host of -ardent and active friends. But what is his condition after the election -has passed, and the patronage has been distributed? Let me appeal to the -scene which we all witnessed in this city, at and after the inauguration -of the late lamented President. It is almost impossible that one office -seeker in fifty could have been gratified. What is the natural and -necessary result of such numerous disappointments? It is to irritate the -feelings and sour the minds of the unsuccessful applicants. They make -comparisons between themselves and those who have been successful, and -self-love always exaggerates their own merits and depreciates those of -their successful rivals, to such an extent, that they believe themselves -to have been injured. The President thus often makes one inactive -friend, because he feels himself secure in office, and twenty secret -enemies awaiting the opportunity to give him a stab whenever a favorable -occasion may offer. The Senator greatly overrates the power of executive -influence either among the people or in Congress. By the time the -offices have been all distributed, which is usually done between the -inauguration and the first regular meeting of Congress thereafter, the -President has but few boons to offer. - -Again: it is always an odious exercise of executive power to confer -offices on members of Congress, unless under peculiar circumstances, -where the office seeks the man rather than the man the office. In point -of fact, but few members can receive appointments; and those soliciting -them are always detected by their conduct. They are immediately noted -for their subserviency; and from that moment, their influence with their -fellow members is gone. - -By far the greatest influence which a President can acquire over -Congress, is a reflected influence from the people upon their -representatives. This is dependent upon the personal popularity of the -President, and can never be powerful, unless, from the force of his -character, and the value of his past services, he has inspired the -people with an enthusiastic attachment. A remarkable example of this -reflected influence was presented in the case of General Jackson; and -yet it is a high compliment to the independence, if not to the wisdom of -Congress, that even he could rarely command a majority in both its -branches. Still it is certain, notwithstanding, that he presented a most -striking example of a powerful executive; and this chiefly because he -was deservedly strong in the affections of the people. - -In the vicissitude of human events, we shall sometimes have Presidents -who can, if they please, exercise too much, and those who possess too -little, influence over Congress. If we witnessed the one extreme during -General Jackson’s administration, we now have the other before our eyes. -For the sake of the contrast, and without the slightest disrespect -towards the worthy and amiable individual who now occupies the -Presidential chair, I would say that if General Jackson presented an -example of the strength, the present President presents an equally -striking example of the feebleness, of executive influence. I ask what -has all the patronage of his high office done for him? How many friends -has it secured? I most sincerely wish, for the good of the country, and -for the success of his administration, that he had a much greater degree -of influence in Congress than he possesses. It is for this reason that I -was glad to observe, a few days ago, some symptoms of returning favor on -this (the Whig) side of the house towards John Tyler. It is better, much -better, even thus late, that they should come forward and extend to him -a helping hand, than, wishing to do so, still keep at a distance merely -to preserve an appearance of consistency. I am sorry to see that from -this mere affectation, they should appear so coy, and leave the country -to suffer all the embarrassments which result from a weak -administration. [Here several of the Whig Senators asked jocosely why -the Democrats did not volunteer their services to strengthen the -Government.] Oh! said Mr. B., _we_ cannot do that. What is merely an -apparent inconsistency in the Whigs, would be a real inconsistency in -us. We cannot go for the Whig measures which were approved by President -Tyler at the extra session. We cannot support the great Government -Exchequer Bank of discount and exchange, with its three for one paper -currency. I think, however, with all deference, that my Whig friends on -this side of the House ought not to be squeamish on that subject. I -think my friend from Georgia (Mr. Berrien) ought to go heart and hand -for the Exchequer Bank. It is in substance his own scheme of a “Fiscal -Corporation,” transferred into the Treasury of the United States, and -divested of private stockholders. Let me assure gentlemen that their -character for consistency will not suffer by supporting this measure. - -And yet, with the example of this administration before their eyes, the -Whigs dread executive influence so much that they wish to abolish the -veto power, lest the President may be able to draw within its vortex all -the legislative powers of Congress! What a world we live in! - -This authentic history is the best answer to another position of the -Senator. Whilst he believes that there have been no encroachments of the -General Government on the rights of the States, but on the contrary that -it is fast sinking into the weakness and imbecility of the -Confederation, he complains of the encroachments which he alleges to -have been made by the President on the legitimate powers of Congress. I -differ from him entirely in both these propositions, and am only sorry -that the subject of the veto power is one so vast that time will not -permit me to discuss them at present. This I shall, however, say, that -the strong tendency of the Federal Government has, in my opinion, ever -been to encroach upon the rights of the States and their people; and I -might appeal to its history to establish the position. Every violent -struggle, threatening the existence of the Union, which has existed in -this country from the beginning, has arisen from the exercise of -constructive and doubtful powers, not by the President, but by Congress. -But enough of this for the present. - -The Senator from Kentucky contends that, whether the executive be strong -or weak, Congress must conform its action to his wishes, and if they -cannot obtain what they desire, they must take what they can get. Such a -principle of action is always wrong in itself, and must always lead to -the destruction of the party which adopts it. This was the fatal error -of the Senator and his friends at the extra session. He has informed us -that neither “the Fiscal Bank” nor “the Fiscal Corporation” of that -never to be forgotten session would have received twenty votes in either -House, had the minds of members been left uninfluenced by the expected -action of the Executive. - -This was the most severe censure which he could have passed on his party -in Congress. It is now admitted that the Whig party earnestly advocated -and adopted two most important measures, not because they approved them -in the form in which they were presented, but for the sake of -conciliating Mr. Tyler. Never was there a more striking example of -retributive justice than the veto of both these measures. Whether it be -the fact, as the Senator alleges, that the Whigs in Congress took the -Fiscal Corporation bill, letter for letter, as it came from the -President to them, I shall not pretend to decide. It is not for me to -compose such strifes. I leave this to their own file leaders. Without -entering upon this question, I shall never fail, when a fit opportunity -offers, to express the gratitude which I feel, in common with the whole -country, to the President for having vetoed those bills, which it now -appears never received the approbation of any person. It does astonish -me, however, that this proceeding between the President and his party in -Congress should ever have been made an argument in favor of abolishing -the veto power. - -This argument, if it prove anything at all, sets the seal of -condemnation to the measures of the late extra session, and to the extra -session itself. It is a demonstration of the hasty, inconsiderate, and -immature legislation of that session. In the flush of party triumph, the -Whigs rushed it, before passion had time to cool down into that calm -deliberation, so essential to the wise and harmonious co-operation of -the different branches of the Government. They took so little time to -consult and to deliberate, to reconcile their conflicting opinions and -interests, and above all to ascertain and fix their real political -principles which they had so sedulously concealed from the public eye -throughout the contest, that none but those who were heated and excited -beyond the bounds of reason ever anticipated any result but division, -disaster, and defeat, from the extra session. The party first pursued a -course which must have inevitably led to the defeat which they have -experienced; and would then revenge themselves for their own misdeeds by -assailing the veto power. - -The lesson which we have received will teach Congress hereafter not to -sacrifice its independence by consulting the executive will. Let them -honestly and firmly pass such acts as they believe the public good -requires. They will then have done their duty. Afterwards let the -Executive exercise the same honesty and firmness in approving these -acts. If he vetoes any one of them, he is responsible to the people, and -there he ought to be left. - -Had this course been pursued at the extra session, Congress would have -passed an act to establish an old-fashioned Bank of the United States, -which would have been vetoed by the President. A fair issue would thus -have been made for the decision of their common constituents. There -would then have been no necessity for my friends on this side of the -house to submit to the humiliation of justifying themselves before the -people, on the principle that they were willing to accept something -which they knew to be very bad, because they could not obtain that which -they thought the public good demanded. - -This whole proceeding, sir, presents no argument against the veto power; -although it does present, in a striking light, the subserviency of the -Whig party in Congress to executive dictation. We may, indeed, if -insensible to our own rights and independence, give an undue influence -to the veto power; but we shall never produce this effect if we confine -ourselves to our own appropriate duties, and leave the Executive to -perform his. This example will never, I think, be imitated by any party -in the country, and we shall then never again be tempted to make war on -the veto power. - -To show that this power ought to be abolished, the Senator has referred -to intimations given on this floor, during the administration of General -Jackson, that such and such acts then pending would be vetoed, if -passed. Such intimations may have been in bad taste; but what do they -prove? The Senator does not and cannot say that they ever changed a -single vote. In the instances to which he refers, they were the -declaration of a fact which was known, or might have been known, to the -whole world. A President can only be elected by a majority of the people -of the several States. Throughout the canvass, his opinions and -sentiments on every leading measure of public policy, are known and -discussed. The last election was an exception to this rule; but another -like it will never again occur in our day. If, under such circumstances, -an act should pass Congress, notoriously in violation of some principle -of vital importance, which was decided by the people at his election, -the President would be faithless to the duty which he owed both to them -and himself, if he did not disapprove the measure. Any person might then -declare, in advance, that the President would veto such a bill. Let me -imagine one or two cases which may readily occur. Is it not known from -one end of the Union to the other, and even in every log cabin -throughout its extent, that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Benton] has -an unconquerable antipathy to a paper currency, and an equally -unconquerable predilection for hard money? Now, if he should be a -candidate for the Presidency,—and much more unlikely events have -happened than that he should be a successful candidate—would not his -election be conclusive evidence that the people were in favor of gold -and silver, and against paper? Under such circumstances, what else could -Congress anticipate whilst concocting an old-fashioned Bank of the -United States, but that he would instantly veto the bill on the day it -was presented to him, without even taking time to sit down in his -Presidential chair? (Great laughter, in which Mr. Benton and Mr. Clay -both joined heartily.) Let me present a reverse case. Suppose the -distinguished Senator from Kentucky should be elected President, would -he hesitate, or, with his opinions, ought he to hesitate, a moment in -vetoing an Independent Treasury bill, should Congress present him such a -measure? And if I, as a member of the Senate, were to assert, in the -first case which I have supposed, whilst the bank bill was pending, that -it would most certainly be vetoed, to what would this amount? Would it -be an attempt to bring executive influence to bear on Congress? -Certainly not. It would only be the mere assertion of a well known fact. -Would it prove anything against the veto power? Certainly not; but -directly the reverse. It would prove that it ought to be exercised—that -the people had willed, by the Presidential election, that it should be -exercised—and that it was one of the very cases which demanded its -exercise. - -An anticipation of the exercise of the veto power, in cases which had -already been decided by the people, ought to exercise a restraining -influence over Congress. It should admonish them that they ought not to -place themselves in hostile array against the Executive, and thus -embarrass the administration of the Government by the adoption of a -measure which had been previously condemned by the people. If the -measure be right in itself, the people will, at the subsequent -elections, reverse their own decision, and then, and not till then, -ought Congress to act. No, sir; when we elect a President, we do it in -view of his future course of action, inferred from his known opinions; -and we calculate, with great accuracy, what he will and what he will not -do. The people have never yet been deceived in relation to this matter, -as has been abundantly shown by their approbation of every important -veto since the origin of the Government. - -This veto power was conferred upon the President to arrest -unconstitutional, improvident, and hasty legislation. Its intention (if -I may use a word not much according to my taste) was purely -conservative. To adopt the language of the Federalist, “it establishes a -salutary check upon the legislative body, calculated to guard the -community against the effects of faction, precipitancy, or of any -impulse unfriendly to the public good, which may happen to influence a -majority of that body” (Congress). Throughout the whole book, whenever -the occasion offers, a feeling of dread is expressed, lest the -legislative power might transcend the limits prescribed to it by the -Constitution, and ultimately absorb the other powers of the Government. -From first to last, this fear is manifested. We ought never to forget -that the representatives of the people are not the people themselves. -The practical neglect of this distinction has often led to the overthrow -of republican institutions. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; -and the people should regard with a jealous eye, not only their -Executive, but their legislative servants. The representative body, -proceeding from the people, and clothed with their confidence, naturally -lulls suspicion to sleep; and, when disposed to betray its trust, can -execute its purpose almost before their constituents take the alarm. - -It must have been well founded apprehensions of such a result which -induced Mirabeau to declare, that, without a veto power in the king, who -was no more, under the first constitution of France, than the hereditary -chief executive magistrate of a republic, he would rather live in -Constantinople than in Paris. The catastrophe proved his wisdom; but it -also proved that the veto was no barrier against the encroachment of the -Legislative Assembly; nor would it have saved his own head from the -block, had he not died at the most propitious moment for his fame. - -I might appeal to many passages in the history of the world to prove -that the natural tendency of legislative power has always been to -increase itself; and the accumulation of this power has, in many -instances, overthrown republican institutions. - -Our system of representative Democracy, Heaven’s last and best political -gift to man, when perverted from its destined purpose, has become the -instrument of the most cruel tyranny which the world has ever witnessed. -Thus it is that the best things, when perverted, become the worst. -Witness the scenes of anarchy, confusion, and blood, from which humanity -and reason equally revolt, which attended the French Revolution, during -the period of the Legislative Assembly and National Convention. So -dreadful were these scenes, all enacted in the name of the people, and -by the people’s own representatives, that they stand out in bold relief, -from all the records of time, and are, by the universal consent of -mankind, denominated “the reign of terror.” Under the government of the -Committee of Public Safety—a committee of the National Convention—more -blood was shed and more atrocities committed, than mankind had ever -beheld within the same space of time. And yet all this was done in the -name of liberty and equality. And what was the result? All this only -paved the way for the usurpation of Napoleon Bonaparte; and the people -sought protection in the arms of despotism from the tyranny and -corruption of their own representatives. This has ever been the course -in which republics have degenerated into military despotisms. Let these -sacred truths be ever kept in mind: that sovereignty belongs to the -people alone, and that all their servants should be watched with the -eyes of sleepless jealousy. The Legislative Assembly and the National -Convention of France had usurped all the powers of the government. They -each, in their turn, constituted the sole representative body of the -nation, and no wise checks and barriers were interposed to moderate and -restrain their action. The example which they presented has convinced -all mankind of the necessity of a senate in a republic; and similar -reasons ought to convince them of the necessity of such a qualified veto -as exists under our Constitution. The people cannot interpose too many -barriers against unwise and wicked legislation, provided they do not -thereby impair the necessary powers of the Government. I know full well -that such scenes as I have just described cannot occur in America; but -still we may learn lessons of wisdom from them to guide our own conduct. - -Legislative bodies of any considerable number are more liable to sudden -and violent excitements than individuals. This we have all often -witnessed; and it results from a well known principle of human nature. -In the midst of such excitements, nothing is more natural than hasty, -rash, and dangerous legislation. Individual responsibility is, also, -diminished, in proportion to the increase of the number. Each person, -constituting but a small fractional part of the whole mass, thinks he -can escape responsibility in the midst of the crowd. The restraint of -the popular will upon his conduct is thus greatly diminished, and as one -of a number he is ready to perform acts which he would not attempt upon -his own individual responsibility. In order to check such excesses, the -Federalist tells us that this veto power, or reference of the subject to -the people, was granted. - -Again, sir, highly excited political parties may exist in legislative -assemblies, so intent upon grasping or retaining power, that in the -struggle they will forget the wishes and the interests of the people. I -might cite several examples of this kind in the history of our own -legislation; but I merely refer to the odious and unconstitutional alien -and sedition laws. Led on by ambitious and eloquent men who have become -highly excited in the contest, the triumph of party may become paramount -to the good of the country, and unconstitutional and dangerous laws may -be the consequence. The veto power is necessary to arrest such -encroachments on the rights of the States and of the people. - -But worst of all is the system of “_log-rolling_,” so prevalent in -Congress and the State legislatures, which the authors of the Federalist -do not seem to have foreseen. This is not a name, to be sure, for ears -polite; yet, though homely, it is so significant of the thing, that I -shall be pardoned for its use. Now, sir, this very system of log-rolling -in legislative bodies is that which has involved several of the States -in debts for internal improvements, which I fear some of them may never -be able to pay. In order to carry improvements which were useful and -might have been productive, it was necessary to attach to them works of -an opposite character. To obtain money to meet these extravagant -expenditures, indulgence was granted to the banks at the expense of the -people. Indeed, it has been a fruitful source of that whole system of -ruinous and disastrous measures against which the Democracy have been -warring for years. It has produced more distress in the country than can -be repaired by industry and economy for many days to come. And yet how -rarely has any Executive had the courage to apply the remedy which the -veto power presents? - -Let us, for a moment, examine the workings of this system. It is the -more dangerous, because it presents itself to individual members under -the garb of devotion to their constituents. One has a measure of mere -local advantage to carry, which ought, if at all, to be accomplished by -individual enterprise, and which could not pass if it stood alone. He -finds that he cannot accomplish his object, if he relies only upon its -merits. He finds that other members have other local objects at heart, -none of which would receive the support of a majority if separately -considered. These members, then, form a combination sufficiently -powerful to carry the whole; and thus twenty measures may be adopted, -not one of which separately could have obtained a respectable vote. -Thanks to the wisdom and energy of General Jackson, this system of local -internal improvements which threatened to extend itself into every -neighborhood of the nation, and overspread the land, was arrested by the -veto power. Had not this been done, the General Government might, at the -present day, have been in the same wretched condition with the most -indebted States. - -But this system of “log-rolling” has not been confined to mere local -affairs, as the history of the extra session will testify. It was then -adopted in regard to important party objects, and was called the “great -system of measures of the Whig party.” It was openly avowed that the -majority must take the system in mass, although it is well known that -several of the measures, had they stood alone, would have been rejected -in detail. We are all perfectly aware that this was the vital principle -of the extra session. By means of “log-rolling” the system was adopted. -That the passage of the Distribution bill was the price paid for the -Bankrupt bill, was openly avowed on this floor. By what mutual -compensations the other measures were carried we are left to infer, and -therefore I shall not hazard the expression of any opinion in this place -on the subject. The ingredient, which one member could not swallow -alone, went down easily as a component part of the healing dose. And -what has been the consequence? The extravagant appropriations and -enormous expenses of the extra session have beggared the Treasury. - -It is to check this system, that the veto power can be most usefully and -properly applied. The President of the United States stands “solitary -and alone,” in his responsibility to the people. In the exercise of this -power, he is emphatically the representative of the whole people. He has -the same feeling of responsibility towards the people at large, which -actuates us towards our immediate constituents. To him the mass of the -people must look as their especial agent; and human ingenuity cannot -devise a better mode of giving them the necessary control than by -enabling him to appeal to themselves in such cases, by means of the veto -power, for the purpose of ascertaining whether they will sanction the -acts of their representatives. He can bring each of those measures -distinctly before the people for their separate consideration, which may -have been adopted by log-rolling as parts of a great system. - -The veto power has long been in existence in Pennsylvania, and has been -often exercised, and yet, to my knowledge, it has never been exerted in -any important case, except in obedience to the public will, or in -promotion of the interests of the people. Simon Snyder, whose far-seeing -sagacity detected the evils of our present banking system, whilst they -were yet comparatively in embryo, has rendered himself immortal by his -veto of the forty banks. The system, however, was only arrested, not -destroyed, and we are now suffering the evils. The present governor has -had the wisdom and courage repeatedly to exercise the veto power, and -always, I believe, with public approbation. In a late signal instance, -his veto was overruled, and the law passed by a majority of two-thirds -in both Houses, although I am convinced that at least three-fourths of -the people of the State are opposed to the measure. - -In the State of Pennsylvania, we regard the veto power with peculiar -favor. In the convention of 1837, which was held for the purpose of -proposing amendments to our Constitution, the identical proposition now -made by the Senator from Kentucky was brought forward, and was -repudiated by a vote of 103 to 14. This convention was composed of the -ablest and most practical men in the State, and was almost divided -between the two great rival parties of the country; and yet, in that -body, but fourteen individuals could be found who were willing to change -the Constitution in this particular. - -Whilst the framers of the Constitution thought, and thought wisely, that -in order to give this power the practical effect they designed, it was -necessary that any bill which was vetoed should be arrested, -notwithstanding a majority of Congress might afterwards approve the -measure; on the other hand, they restrained the power, by conferring on -two-thirds of each House the authority to enact the bill into a law, -notwithstanding the veto of the President. Thus the existence, the -exercise, and the restraint of the power are all harmoniously blended, -and afford a striking example of all the mutual checks and balances of -the Constitution, so admirably adapted to preserve the rights of the -States and of the people. - -The last reason to which I shall advert why the veto power was adopted, -and ought to be preserved, I shall state in the language of the -seventy-third number of the Federalist: - -“This propensity (says the author) of the legislative department to -intrude upon the rights, and to absorb the powers of the other -departments, has been more than once suggested. The insufficiency of a -mere parchment delineation of the boundaries of each, has also been -remarked upon, and the necessity of furnishing each with constitutional -arms for its own defence, has been inferred and proved. From these clear -and indubitable principles results the propriety of a negative, either -absolute or qualified, in the Executive, upon the acts of the -legislative branches.” - -The Executive, which is the weaker branch, in the opinion of the -Federalist, ought not be left at the mercy of Congress, “but ought to -possess a constitutional and effectual power of self-defence.” It ought -to be able to resist encroachments on its constitutional rights. - -I admit that no necessity has ever existed to use the veto power for the -protection of the Executive, unless it may possibly have been in a -single instance; and in it there was evidently no intention to invade -his rightful powers. I refer to the “Act to appoint a day for the annual -meeting of Congress.” This act had passed the Senate by a majority of 34 -to 8; but when it was returned to this body by General Jackson with his -objections, the majority was reversed, and the vote stood but 16 in -favor to 23 against its passage. - -The knowledge of the existence of this veto power, as the framers of the -Constitution foresaw, has doubtless exerted a restraining influence on -Congress. That body have never attempted to invade any of the high -Executive powers. Whilst such attempts have been made by them to violate -the rights of the States and of the people, and have been vetoed, a -sense of justice, as well as the silent restraining influence which -proceeds from a knowledge that the President possesses the means of -self-protection, has relieved him from the necessity of using the veto -for this purpose. - -Mr. President, I did not think, at the time of its delivery, that the -speech of the distinguished Senator from Kentucky was one of great -power; though we all know that nothing he can utter is devoid of -eloquence and interest. I mean only to say that I did not then believe -his speech was characterized by his usual ability; and I was disposed to -attribute this to the feeble state of his health and consequent want of -his usual buoyancy of spirit. Since I have seen it in print, I have -changed my opinion; and for the first time in my life I have believed -that a speech of his could appear better and more effective in the -reading than in the delivery. I do not mean to insinuate that anything -was added in the report of it; for I believe it contains all the -arguments used by the Senator and no more; but I was astonished to find, -upon a careful examination, that every possible argument had been urged -which could be used in a cause so hopeless. This is my apology for -having detained the Senate so long in attempting to answer it. - -[Mr. Clay observed that he never saw the speech, as written out by the -reporter, till he read it in print the next morning; and, although he -found some errors and misconceptions, yet, on the whole, it was very -correct, and, as well as he could recollect, contained all the arguments -he did make use of, and no more.] - -Mr. Buchanan. I did not intend, as must have been evident to the -Senator, to produce the impression that anything had been added. My only -purpose was to say that it was a better speech than I had supposed, and -thus to apologize to the Senate for the time I had consumed in answering -it. - -I shall briefly refer to two other arguments urged by the Senator, and -shall then take my seat. Why, says he, should the President possess the -veto power for his protection, whilst it is not accorded to the -judiciary? The answer is very easy. It is true that this power has not -been granted to the judiciary in form; but they possess it in fact to a -much greater extent than the President. The Chief Justice of the United -States and his associates, sitting in the gloomy chamber beneath, -exercise the tremendous and irresponsible power of saying to all the -departments of the Government, “hitherto shalt thou go, and no further.” -They exercise the prerogative of annulling laws passed by Congress, and -approved by the President, whenever in their opinion, the legislative -authority has transcended its constitutional limits. Is not this a -self-protecting power, much more formidable than the veto of the -President? Two-thirds of Congress may overrule the Executive veto; but -the whole of Congress and the President united, cannot overrule the -decisions of the Supreme Court. Theirs is a veto on the action of the -whole Government. I do not say that this power, formidable as it may be, -ought not to exist: on the contrary, I consider it to be one of the wise -checks which the framers of the Constitution have provided against hasty -and unconstitutional legislation, and is a part of the great system of -mutual restraints which the people have imposed on their servants for -their own protection. This, however, I will say, and that with the most -sincere respect for the individual judges; that in my own opinion, the -whole train of their decisions from the beginning favors the power of -the General Government at the expense of State rights and State -sovereignty. Where, I ask, is the case to be found upon their records, -in which they have ever decided that any act of Congress, from the alien -and sedition laws until the present day, was unconstitutional, provided -it extended the powers of the Federal Government? Truly they are -abundantly able to protect their own rights and jurisdiction against -either Congress or the Executive, or both united. - -Again: the Senator asks, why has not the veto been given to the -President on the acts of conventions held for the purpose of amending -our Constitutions? If it be necessary to restrain Congress, it is -equally necessary, says he, to restrain conventions. The answer to this -argument is equally easy. It would be absurd to grant an appeal, through -the intervention of a veto, to the people themselves, against their own -acts. They create conventions by virtue of their own undelegated and -inalienable sovereignty; and when they speak, their servants, whether -legislative, executive, or judicial, must be silent. Besides, when they -proceed to exercise their sovereign power in changing the forms of their -Government, they are peculiarly careful in the selection of their -delegates—they watch over the proceedings with vigilant care, and the -Constitution proposed, by such a convention, is never adopted until -after it has been submitted to the vote of the people. It is a mere -proposition to the people themselves, and leaves no room for the action -of the veto power. - -[Here Mr. Clay observed, that Constitutions, thus formed, were not -afterwards submitted to the people.] - -Mr. Buchanan. For many years past, I believe that this has always been -done, as it always ought to be done, in the States: and the Federal -Constitution was not adopted until after it had been submitted to a -convention of the people of every State in the Union. - -So much in regard to the States. The Senator’s argument has no -application whatever to the Federal Constitution, which has provided the -mode of its own amendment. It requires two-thirds of both Houses, the -very majority required to overrule a Presidential veto, even to propose -any amendment; and before such an amendment can be adopted, it must be -ratified by the legislatures, or by conventions, in three-fourths of the -several States. To state this proposition, is to manifest the absurdity, -nay, the impossibility of applying the veto power of the President to -amendments, which have thus been previously ratified by such an -overwhelming expression of the public will. This Constitution of ours, -with all its checks and balances, is a wonderful invention of human -wisdom. Founded upon the most just philosophical principles, and the -deepest knowledge of the nature of man, it produces harmony, happiness, -and order, from elements which, to the superficial observer, might -appear to be discordant. - -On the whole, I trust not only that this veto power may not be -destroyed, but that the vote on the Senator’s amendment may be of such a -character as to settle the question, at least during the present -generation. Sir, of all the executive powers, it is the one least to be -dreaded. It cannot create; it can originate no measure; it can change no -existing law; it can destroy no existing institution. It is a mere power -to arrest hasty and inconsiderate changes, until the voice of the -people, who are alike the masters of Senators, Representatives and -President, shall be heard. When it speaks, we must all bow with -deference to the decree. Public opinion is irresistible in this country. -It will accomplish its purpose by the removal of Senators, -Representatives, or President, who may stand in its way. The President -might as well attempt to stay the tides of the ocean by erecting mounds -of sand, as to think of controlling the will of the people by the veto -power. The mounting waves of popular opinion would soon prostrate such a -feeble barrier. The veto power is everything when sustained by public -opinion; but nothing without it. - -What is this Constitution under which we live, and what are we? Are we -not the most prosperous, the most free, and amongst the most powerful -nations on the face of the earth? Have we not attained this -pre-eminence, in a period brief beyond any example recorded in history, -under the benign influence of this Constitution, and the laws which have -been passed under its authority? Why, then, should we, with rude hands, -tear away one of the cords from this wisely balanced instrument, and -thus incur the danger of impairing or destroying the harmony and -vigorous action of the whole? The Senator from Kentucky has not, in my -opinion, furnished us with any sufficient reasons. - -And after all, what harm can this veto power ever do? It can never delay -the passage of a great public measure, demanded by the people, more than -two, or at the most, four years. Is it not better, then, to submit to -this possible inconvenience, (for it has never yet occurred,) than to -destroy the power altogether? It is not probable that it ever will -occur; because if the President should disregard the will of the people -on any important constitutional measure which they desired, he would -sign his own political death warrant. No President will ever knowingly -attempt to do it; and his means of knowledge, from the ordeal through -which he must have passed previous to his election, are superior to -those of any other individual. He will never, unless in cases scarcely -to be imagined, resist the public will when fairly expressed. It is -beyond the nature of things to believe otherwise. The veto power is that -feature of our Constitution which is most conservative of the rights of -the States and the rights of the people. May it be perpetual! - -It was during the summer of 1842 that the treaty negotiated at -Washington, between Mr. Webster and Lord Ashburton, settled various long -standing and somewhat perilous controversies between the United States -and England, for which Mr. Webster had remained in office under -President Tyler. Mr. Buchanan was one of those who opposed the -ratification of this treaty when it came before the Senate, in August, -1842. His speech in the secret session was very elaborate in its -criticisms upon the whole negotiation, but it does not need to be -reproduced now. - -The debates on the treaty were not published until the following session -of Congress, which began in December, 1842. In February, 1843, Mr. -Buchanan received the following letter from Mr. Jared Sparks, the -distinguished historian:[72] - - [JARED SPARKS TO MR. BUCHANAN.] - - CAMBRIDGE, Feb. 11th, 1843. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I have received the copy of your speech, which you were so kind as to -send me, and for which I beg you will accept my thanks. I have read it -with much interest, for although I am, on the whole, a treaty man, yet -there are two sides, and you have presented one of them in a striking -and forcible light. I am not well satisfied with the way in which the -Caroline affair is allowed to subside. It was a gross outrage, in spite -of all the soft words about it, and it demanded a round apology. I could -wish also that there had been some express declaration of the sense of -the Government against the pretended right of search. It is idle to -dally on such a subject. There is no such right, there never was and -there never ought to be; and I should be glad to have the point settled, -in regard to the United States, by a positive declaration, in a formal -manner, that it can in no case be admitted. - -I observe that you deal out heavy blows upon my poor Paris map. I can -assure you that it has not been by my knowledge or good will that it has -fallen into the hands of the Senate. The information came accidentally -into my possession, and, after much reflection, I thought it a duty to -communicate it to the Department of State; but I never anticipated for a -moment that I was thus running the hazard of having my name bandied -about in the Senate; nor did it occur to me that any public use could be -made of it. I do not complain of the result, but I consider it -unfortunate to me personally, and I wish it could have been avoided. - -You have made a slight mistake in regard to the character of this map. -You represent it as an old map, with old boundary lines marked upon it. -This is not a true description. It is a map of “North America,” with no -boundary line marked upon it between Canada and the English colonies. -The _red mark_ is drawn by _hand_,—manuscript mark,—not following any -engraved line. It is drawn with remarkable precision and distinctness, -around the _United States_, even running out to sea and following the -windings of the coast from the St. Mary’s to the St. Croix. There are no -other colored lines on the map. It carries with it the evidence of -having been drawn with great care; and from the head of the St. Croix to -the mountains north of the sources of the Penobscot it winds along with -an evident caution to separate the head waters of the streams which flow -into the St. John’s from those which run to the south. I am here only -stating facts, having no theory on the subject, nor, least of all, any -desire to weaken our claim, which, till lately, has seemed to me -unassailable. This map answers fully to that described in Franklin’s -letter; and if he actually drew the line, it does seem to settle the -question, for he could not be mistaken, at that time, as to the meaning -of the commissioners. - -The copy of Mitchell’s map, obtained from Baron Steuben’s library, has a -manuscript boundary line drawn in exact accordance with this supposed -line of Franklin. But I do not see any allusion to this map in the -debates. There is a tradition that it once belonged to Mr. Jay, but I -believe no evidence of this fact has been adduced. - -But, after all, the thing which has weighed the most heavily on my mind -as adverse to our claim, is the perfect silence of Mr. Jay and Mr. John -Adams on the subject. Both these commissioners lived many years after -the treaty of Ghent. Why should they not have declared, by some formal -and public instrument, the facts of the case, and confirmed our claim, -if they knew it to be just? Such a declaration would have been -conclusive, even with an arbiter; and it would almost seem to have been -a duty to their country to make it, of their own accord, when they saw -such vast interests at stake. But no record of their opinion has ever -been brought to light. - -Mr. Woodbury has fallen into the same mistake as yourself, in regard to -my unfortunate Paris map. Will you have the goodness to show him this -letter; and believe me, with sincere respect and regard, - - Your friend and most obedient servant, - - JARED SPARKS. - -On the 7th of April, 1842, Mr. Buchanan addressed the Senate in -opposition to a measure advocated by the Whigs, which proposed to pledge -and appropriate the proceeds of the public lands to the payment of the -interest and principal of the public debt. It must be remembered that -this speech was made under very peculiar circumstances, and it is not -necessary to reproduce it. - -In the spring of the year 1844, it seemed that the old story of “bargain -and corruption” in the election of John Quincy Adams in 1825 was about -to be revived. General Jackson had again become excited on this subject -by persons who wished at once to injure Mr. Clay and Mr. Buchanan. The -following letter from Governor Letcher of Kentucky, an ardent admirer of -Mr. Clay, informed Mr. Buchanan of what was impending: - - [GOVERNOR LETCHER TO MR. BUCHANAN.] - - (Private.) FRANKFORT, June - 20, 1844. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -Mr. Clay is very much provoked with General Jackson and other malicious -persons for attempting to revive against him that old vile, miserable -calumny of “bargain and sale.” It is, I must confess, as you and I both -know, a most villanous outrage, and well calculated to excite the ire of -any man upon earth. I am not at all surprised that he should feel -indignant upon the occasion. - -I am told he is resolved upon “carrying the war into Africa.” Indeed I -saw him for a few minutes shortly after he returned from Washington, -when he alluded in some such terms to the subject. He was quite unwell -at the time, and the conversation was very brief. It seems now (I was so -informed an evening or two ago) he threatens to make a publication in -vindication of his own character. What else he may do or say, I do not -know. This much I learn, he will call upon me to give a statement of the -conversation which took place between you and himself in my room in -reference to the contest then pending between Adams and Jackson. - -I shall regret exceedingly if any such call is made upon me. Many years -ago, as you remember, a similar call was made, and on my part refused. I -do not at present perceive any good reason why I should change my -opinion. The truth is, if my recollection serves me, after several -interviews with you in regard to the matter, I told you explicitly I did -not feel at liberty to give the conversation alluded to, and would not -do so under any circumstances, without your express permission. Am I not -right in my recollection? - -I do not think I shall or can be convinced that my decision as -heretofore made is not perfectly correct. - - With great regard, - - R. P. LETCHER. - -How Mr. Clay proposed “to carry the war into Africa,” is to be explained -by an occurrence which took place in January, 1825, at the lodgings of -Mr. Letcher in Washington, he being then a member of Congress from -Kentucky. The persons present were Mr. Clay, Mr. Letcher, Mr. Buchanan, -and Mr. Sloan of Ohio. The subject of the election of a President by the -House of Representatives was talked of jocosely; but in the course of -the conversation Mr. Buchanan expressed his conviction that General -Jackson would be chosen, adding, that “he would form the most splendid -cabinet the country has ever had.” Mr. Letcher asked: “How could he have -one more distinguished than that of Mr. Jefferson, in which were both -Madison and Gallatin? Where would he be able to find equally eminent -men?” Buchanan replied, looking at Mr. Clay, “I would not go out of this -room for a Secretary of State.” Clay playfully retorted that he “thought -there was not timber there fit for a Cabinet office, unless it were Mr. -Buchanan himself.”[73] This familiar, private conversation, held in the -unrestrained intercourse of a casual meeting, could have been of no use -to Mr. Clay, even if divulged, in “carrying the war into Africa,” unless -he should treat it as an occurrence having some connection with the -conversation between Mr. Buchanan and General Jackson, which is referred -to in a previous chapter. The result would be that Mr. Buchanan would -stand charged by Mr. Clay on the one hand, as an emissary of General -Jackson to open a negotiation for Mr. Clay’s vote in the House, as he -had some years before been charged with being an emissary of Mr. Clay to -approach General Jackson with a proposal to sell his vote for the office -of Secretary of State. The truth manifestly is, that Buchanan would have -been very glad to have had Mr. Clay appointed Secretary of State under -General Jackson, not only because he had great admiration for Mr. Clay’s -splendid abilities, but for public and patriotic reasons; and there were -no such strict party relations at that time as would have rendered a -union between Jackson and Clay in any degree objectionable. But neither -in the conversation between General Jackson and Mr. Buchanan, in -December, 1824, nor in the conversation between Mr. Clay and Mr. -Buchanan, at the lodgings of Mr. Letcher, in January, 1825, could either -Jackson on the one hand, or Clay on the other, have had the slightest -reason for claiming that on the former occasion Buchanan was acting as -an agent of Clay, or that on the latter occasion he was acting as an -agent of Jackson. In that scene of excitement, there were persons in -Washington who stood in much closer relations with Jackson than Buchanan -did at that time, in whose efforts to secure the votes of different -delegations there were conversations which, construed in one way, -approached pretty nearly to a tender of office to Mr. Clay. But they -were the unauthorized, irresponsible and voluntary expressions by -partisans of what they believed might take place, in case Jackson should -become President; and if they were ever understood in any other sense by -those to whom they were addressed, it is apparent that they were -misunderstood. - -Governor Letcher, as soon as he learned that Mr. Clay threatened to make -use of the conversation at his lodgings, resolutely refused to be a -party to the disclosure. Mr. Buchanan’s answer to his letter of the 20th -of June, and the further correspondence between them, are all that it is -needful to add: - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO GOV. LETCHER.] - - (Private.) LANCASTER, June 27, 1844. - -MR DEAR SIR:— - -I have this moment received your very kind letter, and hasten to give it -an answer. I cannot perceive what good purpose it would subserve Mr. -Clay to publish the private and unreserved conversation to which you -refer. I was then his ardent friend and admirer; and much of this -ancient feeling still survives, notwithstanding our political -differences since. I did him ample justice, but no more than justice, -both in my speech on Chilton’s resolutions and in my letter in answer to -General Jackson. - -I have not myself any very distinct recollection of what transpired in -your room nearly twenty years ago, but doubtless I expressed a strong -wish to himself, as I had done a hundred times to others, that he might -vote for General Jackson, and if he desired, become his Secretary of -State. Had he voted for the General, in case of his election I should -most certainly have exercised any influence which I might have possessed -to accomplish this result; and this I should have done from the most -disinterested, friendly and patriotic motives. This conversation of -mine, whatever it may have been, can never be brought home to General -Jackson. I never had but one conversation with him on the subject of the -then pending election, and that upon the street, and the whole of it, -verbatim et literatim, when comparatively fresh upon my memory, was -given to the public in my letter of August, 1827. - -The publication then of this private conversation could serve no other -purpose than to embarrass me, and bring me prominently into the pending -contest,—which I desire to avoid. - -You are certainly correct in your recollection. You told me explicitly -that you did not feel at liberty to give the conversation alluded to, -and would not do so, under any circumstances, without my express -permission. In this you acted, as you have ever done, like a man of -honor and principle. - -With every sentiment of regard, I remain sincerely, - - Your friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - -[GOV. LETCHER TO MR. BUCHANAN.] - - (Private.) FRANKFORT, July 7, 1844. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I have received your answer to my letters. I am glad your recollection -of what took place between us corresponds so exactly with mine. - -I will not in any event violate _my promise_, and _shall_, indeed _did_, -say as much to my distinguished friend. My resolution upon this point is -firm and decided; and I do not think it can be changed. - -_Polk!_ Great God, what a nomination! I do really think the Democratic -Convention ought to be damned to all eternity for this villanous -business. Has Polk any chance to carry Pennsylvania? - -I write you very hastily to get my letter in to-day’s mail. More -hereafter. - - Your sincere friend, - - R. P. LETCHER. - - [GOV. LETCHER TO MR. BUCHANAN.] - - (Private.) FRANKFORT, July 19th, 1844. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I have not seen Mr. Clay since I wrote you, nor have I heard a single -word more about that threatened publication. I hope he has thought -better of it. I told him when I did see him, not to expect from me any -statement of what took place in my room between you and him, and that I -had made up my mind upon that subject years ago, and did not now see any -good reason for changing it. - -I hardly think he will make a publication without submitting it to me; -indeed, I believe he said so expressly. As I can perceive no earthly -good growing out of such a movement, of course I shall continue to -oppose it in every possible manner. He has a great many facts now in his -possession, and some much stronger than I had supposed to exist, and, no -doubt, could put forth a powerful document, but he shall not do it with -my consent. - -I had a short _chat_ with Colonel Benton a few days ago. If you -remember, he was always a good friend of mine, and having the fullest -confidence in my discretion, he talked very freely. It was “Multum in -parvo” literally. Well, the truth is, your party, speaking classically, -have come to a poor pass. _Polk_ for your leader! and then to think of -such villanous intrigues to get him on the track, and such old warriors -as _Van Buren_, _Buchanan_, both the very fellows who were so rascally -cheated, being compelled to support the “cretur.” Why, I had rather die. - -The fact is, both Benton and yourself are hunted down daily by your own -dogs. No two men are more constantly the subjects of vituperation by -your own party, and I would see them at the devil before I would act a -part in such a miserable play as they are now getting up. Besides, you -owe it to your own true principles, to your State, to your country, to -your own character, not to engage in the dirty job of trying to elect -such an —— as Polk to the greatest office in the world. - -Our Whig candidate for Governor is a death slow nag, as they tell me; -still he is a very worthy gentleman, and, I presume, will be elected -very easily, though he is twelve or fifteen thousand votes weaker than -Clay. I go to no public gatherings, but shall soon be let loose, thank -God. - - R. P. LETCHER. - - [BUCHANAN TO LETCHER.] - - LANCASTER, July 27th, 1844. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I have received your kind favors of the 7th and 19th instant, and am -rejoiced to learn that your distinguished friend has probably thought -better of the publication. You have ever been a sagacious man, and -doubtless think that James K. Polk is not quite as strong an antagonist -as Andrew Jackson, and therefore that it would not be very wise to drop -the former and make up an issue with the latter. If this had been done, -it would not be difficult to predict the result, at least in -Pennsylvania. - -The whole affair has worried me much from first to last; and yet I have -been as innocent as a sucking dove of any improper intention. First to -have been called on by Jackson as his witness against Clay, and then to -be vouched as Clay’s witness against Jackson, when, before Heaven, I can -say nothing against either, is a little too much to bear patiently. I -have got myself into this scrape, from the desire which I often -expressed and never concealed, that Jackson, first of all things, might -be elected President by the House, and that Clay might next be his -Secretary of State. - -It was a most unfortunate day for the country, Mr. Clay, and all of us, -when he accepted the office of Secretary of State (under J. Q. Adams). -To be sure, there was nothing criminal in it, but it was worse, as -Talleyrand would have said, it was a great blunder. Had it not been for -this, he would, in all probability, now have been in retirement, after -having been President for eight years; and friends like you and myself, -who ought to have stood together through life, would not have been -separated. But, as the hymn says, I trust “there’s better days a -coming.” - -You ask:—Has Polk any chance to carry Pennsylvania? and I answer, I -think he has. Pennsylvania is a Democratic State by a majority of at -least 20,000; and there is no population more steady on the face of the -earth. Under all the excitement of 1840, and Mr. Van Buren’s want of -popularity, we were beaten but 343; and ever since we have carried our -State elections by large majorities. Besides, Muhlenburg, our candidate -for Governor, is a fast horse, and will certainly be elected; and the -Governor’s election will exercise much influence on the Presidential. -But your people, notwithstanding, are in high hopes; and, after my -mistake in 1840, I shall not prophesy positively. - -I was ignorant of the fact that any portion of the Democratic party were -playing the part of Acteon’s dogs towards me. I stood in no man’s way. -After my withdrawal, I never thought of the Presidency, and the few -scattering votes which I received at Baltimore were given to me against -my express instructions, at least so far as the Pennsylvania delegation -were concerned. The very last thing I desired was to be the candidate. -If they desire to hunt me down for anything, it must be because I have -refused to join in the hue and cry against Colonel Benton, who has been -for many years the sword and shield of Democracy. Although I differed -from him on the Texas question, I believe him to be a much better man -than most of his assailants. I sincerely hope that they may not be able -to defeat his re-election to the Senate. I have delayed the publication -of my Texas speech to prevent its use against him in the approaching -Missouri elections. - -It is neither according to my taste, nor sense of propriety as a Senator -of the United States, to take the stump, and I have yet resisted all -importunities for that purpose. Whether I shall be able to hold out to -the end, I do not know. It is sincerely my desire, and I owe Muhlenburg -much kindness, and if he should request it, I could not well refuse. -Should I enter the lists, I shall never say, as I never have said, -anything which could give the most fastidious friend of Mr. Clay just -cause of offence. I shall go to the Bedford Springs on Monday, where I -expect to remain for a fortnight. - -As I grow older, I look back with a mournful pleasure to the days of -“auld lang syne.” There was far more heart and soul and fun in our -social intercourse than exists “in these degenerate days.” But, perhaps, -to think so is an evidence of approaching old age. Poor Governor Kent! I -was forcibly reminded of him a few days ago, when, at the funeral of a -friend, I examined his son’s gravestone, who was a student of mine. To -keep it in repair has been for me a matter of pious duty. I loved his -father to the last...... - -I wish I could have you with me for a few days. I have better wine than -any man between this and Frankfort, and no man in the world would hail -you with a heartier welcome. When shall we meet again? - - Ever your sincere friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - [LETCHER TO BUCHANAN.] - - FRANKFORT, August 3d, 1844. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -Your very interesting favor of the 27th ultimo has reached me and I have -just read it with a great deal of pleasure. - -I have not seen Mr. Clay since I wrote you, nor have I heard one single -word further in regard to the threatened publication. When I saw him, as -I believe I told you, he had the full benefit of my opinion upon the -subject, expressed in terms by no means equivocal. - -You know my warm, and strong, and long attachment to the man. A better -and a greater man, take him altogether, in my view, has never lived in -any age or country. He is a little excitable, and under that state of -feeling seems _to raise the imperial colors_, but it’s mere manner, -growing out of his peculiar organization. He is not a malice bearing -man, and never was. He never disliked you in his life, though I think -you had always perhaps an impression to the contrary. But with all my -regard for the man personally, and unbounded confidence in his political -worth, I cannot be prevailed upon to advise him to make a publication, -however strongly his feelings may be interested in the matter, of the -character of the one alluded to, nor am I at all willing to be referred -to as a witness to anything that occurred under the sanctity of my -hospitality. Unless my mind undergoes a most radical change, I never -will _consent_. And although I flatter myself I am an exceedingly -amiable man, yet I am as firm, and as decided, and as unyielding in -matters of judgment as any man living. - -Our election comes off Monday next. The Whig candidate for governor is -not considered by any means a popular man. He will not carry the entire -Whig vote, according to the estimate of the knowing ones, by 10,000 -votes. On the other side they are running a very popular man, and a “war -horse at that.” The party lines will be better drawn between the -candidates for lieutenant-governor, as I am told. My position places it -very much out of my power to see exactly the progress of the campaign. - -One word as to yourself. Were I in your place, I would not take the -_stump_, _mark that_. “I know a thing or two,” and if I know anything, -it is judging accurately “men and things.” My opinion upon this point is -correct. Polk has no more chance to be elected than if he were now -_dead_, and _buried_, and _damned_, as he will be in due time. The idea -of his being a tariff man is very provoking. - -I would pay Muhlenberg at a more convenient season. He is at best, a -tricky old fellow; I know him “like a book.” We shall probably meet -during the next spring, if we live. I may possibly make a visit to -Washington after Clay gets under way. As this is rather an interesting -topic (and as you pay no postage), I will explain myself to you more -fully. - -Mr. Clay’s attachment to me, I have no doubt about. I am fully aware -that he has the most entire confidence in my integrity and (to the full -extent of my merits) every reasonable confidence in my judgment. When he -comes into power, he will be surrounded by a set of flatterers, artful, -designing, and cunning. Of course a man in that condition, will at once, -or in due time, form a new set of feelings and a new set of friends. It -is the true course of human nature, and all history proves it. He may -offer me something, but that may not be at all agreeable to my feelings. -On this subject I have never had the first word with him or anybody -else, and I don’t intend to have. My impression has been all along, he -would take Crittenden into the cabinet, should he be inclined to take a -place. Oh no, when my friends are in trouble, I am a first rate doctor, -but when restored, I doubt whether there will be use for me. The -impression prevails in this country, that I can get any place that I -select. Not so. I tell you this confidentially, that in case we live, we -may see how accurately we understand the business. But in fact there is -no place I have set my heart upon in the slightest degree, and I do -assure you now that I am not expecting, and hope that I shall never -apply for any directly or indirectly. Upon a moment’s reflection I doubt -whether I shall go East in the spring, lest it might be supposed I was -seeking place. My time is almost out as governor, and how to dispose of -myself, I confess I know not, but I would rather fly to a _saltpetre -cave_, and work for a living, than to solicit office from friends to -whom I have adhered for upwards of a quarter of a century. True, my -services were rendered without the hopes of personal reward. They were -given purely for what I deemed the good of the country. This is a -strange world, I can tell you. I often hear of its being said, if -Letcher was out of the way, Mr. Adams, Mr. Buchanan, and Mr. Clay could -be provided for, but Letcher will have a controlling influence, etc., -etc. What miserable stuff. The truth is I shall not try to have a -controlling influence, and do not wish it, and will not have it if I -could get it. But I could not have it if I wanted it. Now give me just -as long a love-letter as this. Don’t drink up all that good wine, but -wait till I come. - - Ever yours, - - R. P. LETCHER. - -The whole substance of what Mr. Clay meant about “carrying the war into -Africa” was probably this: that the familiar conversation at Mr. -Letcher’s room in January, 1825, was as good evidence of Jackson’s -effort to corrupt _him_ as the conversation between Jackson and Buchanan -in the previous December was, of a purpose on his (Clay’s) part, to -induce Jackson to buy his vote in the House of Representatives by -promising to make him (Clay) Secretary of State.[74] - ------ - -Footnote 64: - - April 4th, 1841. - -Footnote 65: - - The members of the Harrison cabinet were Daniel Webster, Secretary of - State; Thomas Ewing, Secretary of the Treasury; John Bell, Secretary - of War; George E. Badger, Secretary of the Navy; John J. Crittenden, - Attorney General; Francis Granger, Postmaster General. - -Footnote 66: - - For the reasons which led Mr. Webster to remain in office, see his - Life, by the present writer, vol. II., pp. 69 _et seq._ See farther, - note on page 625 _post_. - -Footnote 67: - - Speech delivered in the Senate July 7th, 1841. Compare President - Tyler’s veto message. - -Footnote 68: - - See the speech of Sept. 2, 1841. - -Footnote 69: - - Speech of December 29, 1841. - -Footnote 70: - - Compare what Mr. Webster has said on the veto power. - -Footnote 71: - - Mr. Buchanan cannot discover, after careful examination, that any - Catholic Emancipation bill was vetoed by George the Third in 1806, - according to the statement of Mr. Grant. That gentleman, most - probably, intended to refer to the bill for this purpose which was - introduced by the Grenville ministry, in March, 1807, under the - impression that they had obtained for it the approbation of His - Majesty. Upon its second reading, notice was given of his displeasure. - The ministry then agreed to drop the bill altogether; but, - notwithstanding this concession, they were changed, because they would - not give a written pledge to the king, that they should propose no - farther concessions to the Catholics thereafter. This was an exertion - of the royal prerogative beyond the veto power. (Note by Mr. - Buchanan.) - -Footnote 72: - - The history of this treaty and of the controversy relating to the maps - is given in the author’s _Life of Mr. Webster_, vol. II, chap. 28. - -Footnote 73: - - This account of the conversation is taken from a memorandum in the - handwriting of Mr. Sloan. - -Footnote 74: - - General Samuel Houston, an intimate friend of General Jackson, held - conversations in the winter of 1824–5 with the members of the Ohio - delegation, in which he took it upon him, in his efforts to persuade - them to vote for Jackson, to say, that in the event of his election, - “your man” (Clay) “can have anything he pleases.” All this, and a - great deal more of the same kind, meant only an expectation and belief - on the part of some of Jackson’s friends, that a political union - between him and Mr. Clay would be for the good of the country, and it - was their earnest wish to see it take place. Some of the friends of - Mr. Clay supposed that these were advances made to him with General - Jackson’s knowledge and consent, and that, as they were not met by - Clay, the indifference with which they were treated caused General - Jackson’s subsequent charge of “bargain and corruption” between Mr. - Clay and Mr. Adams. This and many similar mistakes were the natural - fruits of the excitement which prevailed in Washington during the - winter of 1824–5. - ------ - - - - - CHAPTER XVII. - 1843–1844. - -BUCHANAN ELECTED TO THE SENATE FOR A THIRD TERM—EFFORTS OF - HIS PENNSYLVANIA FRIENDS TO HAVE HIM NOMINATED FOR THE - PRESIDENCY—MOTIVES OF HIS WITHDRAWAL FROM THE CANVASS—THE BALTIMORE - DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION OF 1844 NOMINATES MR. POLK—THE OLD STORY OF - “BARGAIN AND CORRUPTION”—PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE. - - -It was a natural consequence of so much distinction in public life, not -only that Mr. Buchanan should be a third time elected to the Senate, but -that his political and personal friends in Pennsylvania should be -anxious to have him made the Democratic candidate for the Presidency by -the next national convention of that party. In that organization there -was no man whose party and public services and personal qualifications -could give him greater claims than Buchanan’s to the consideration of -his political associates. It does not appear to me, judging from his -private correspondence at this period, which lies before me in great -masses, and which I have carefully examined, that he was specially -anxious at this period of his life to become President of the United -States. His ambition, if it led him to aim at that position, was -regulated by great prudence, and it is quite apparent that he was just -and considerate towards others whose names were in men’s mouths or -thoughts as well as his own. There can be no doubt of the entire -sincerity with which he addressed the following letter to the Democratic -members of the legislature, who, in communicating to him his re-election -to the Senate, also expressed their desire to present his name to the -nominating convention of their party as the favorite candidate of -Pennsylvania for the Presidency. - - [TO B. CRISPEN, AND H. B. WRIGHT, ESQUIRES, AND OTHER MEMBERS OF - THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN THE LEGISLATURE OF PENNSYLVANIA.] - - WASHINGTON, February 2d, 1843. - -GENTLEMEN:— - -Your letter of congratulation on my recent re-election to the Senate of -the United States has inspired me with feelings of profound gratitude. -To have been thrice elected to this eminent station by the Democratic -senators and representatives of my native State is an honor which ought -to satisfy the ambition of any man: and its value is greatly enhanced by -your assurance that in selecting me for another term, you but acted in -accordance with the united voice of the Democratic party of -Pennsylvania. So highly do I prize their good opinion that I can declare -with heart-felt sincerity I would not forfeit this for all the political -honors which my country could bestow. Their unsolicited and continued -support have conferred upon me whatever of distinction in public life I -may enjoy; and if it were possible for me now to desert their -principles, I should feel that I deserved a traitor’s doom. Instead of -being elated, I am humbled by the consciousness of how little I have -ever done to merit all their unexampled kindness. - -Of all the political parties which have ever existed, the Democratic -party are the most indulgent and confiding masters. All they demand of -any public servant is honestly and faithfully to represent their -principles in the station where they have placed him; and this I feel -proudly conscious that I have done in the Senate of the United States, -according to my best ability. I can, therefore, offer you no pledge for -my future conduct except the guarantee of the past. - -You have been further pleased to say that as Pennsylvanians you desire -to see me “elevated to the highest office in the gift of the people,” -and you tender me “to the Union as Pennsylvania’s favorite candidate for -the next Presidency.” I can solemnly declare that I was wholly -unprepared for such an enunciation from the Democratic members of the -legislature, having never received the slightest intimation of their -intention until after their letter had been actually signed. - -Both principle and a becoming sense of the merit of others have hitherto -prevented me from taking any, even the least part in promoting my own -elevation to the Presidency. I have no ambitious longings to gratify, -conscious as I am that I have already received more of the offices and -honors of my country than I have ever deserved. If I know my own heart, -I should most freely resign any pretensions which the partiality of -friends has set up for me, if by this I could purchase harmony and -unanimity in the selection of a Democratic candidate. Besides, however -proper it may be that candidates for inferior offices should make -personal efforts to secure success, I am deeply convinced that the -highest office under heaven ought to be the voluntary gift of the only -free people upon earth. It ought to be their own spontaneous gift to the -most worthy; and this alone can render it the crowning glory of a well -spent public life. This alone can prevent the danger to our institutions -which must result from the violent struggles of personal and interested -partisans. The principles of the man, whom the people may thus delight -to honor, ought to have borne the test of long and severe service, and -ought to stand out in such bold relief before his country as to place -all doubt in regard to them at defiance. In my opinion, the candidate -who would either intrigue or personally electioneer for the Presidency -raises a strong presumption that he is unworthy of it. Whether it be -probable that a man resolved, under the blessing of Providence, to act -upon these principles, will ever reach the Presidency, you can judge -better than myself. I ought however in justice to myself to observe, -that whilst this is my fixed purpose, I do not feel the less grateful to -those kind and partial friends who have deemed me worthy of the highest -office, because I have never attempted to enlist them in my support. - -With these views plainly presented before the Democracy of Pennsylvania, -if they should resolve to offer my name to the National Convention as a -candidate for the Presidency with that degree of unanimity which can -alone give moral force to their recommendation, I feel that I ought not -to counteract their wishes. Should they determine differently, this will -not be to me a cause of the slightest mortification. - -One remark I am impelled to make before closing this letter. The -principles and the success of the party so immeasurably transcend in -importance the elevation of any individual that they ought not to be -jeopardized in the slightest degree by personal partiality for either of -the candidates. Every candidate who has been named, and hundreds of -individuals whose names have never been mentioned, would ably and -faithfully administer the Government according to these principles. No -good Democrat, therefore, ought to suffer his feelings to become so -enlisted in favor of any one candidate, that he could not yield his -cheerful and cordial support to any other who may be nominated by the -National Convention. - -With sentiments of grateful regard, I remain yours sincerely, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - -It soon became apparent to Mr. Buchanan that if he permitted his -Pennsylvania friends to make him a candidate for the nomination, he -would encounter the pretensions of Mr. Van Buren, of Colonel Benton, and -of other prominent men in the party. By the species of management common -on such occasions, many of the delegates to the national Democratic -convention, which was to assemble at Baltimore, on the 27th of May -(1844), were instructed or pledged to support Mr. Van Buren. Mr. -Buchanan promptly withdrew his name from the canvass, in a public -letter. His private feelings on the whole matter of this nomination were -expressed freely in the following letter to one of his lady friends, who -had just gone to Europe: - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO MRS. ROOSEVELT.[75]] - - WASHINGTON, May 13th, 1844. - -MY DEAR MADAM:— - -I shall make Colonel King the bearer of this despatch. He and Doctor -Martin will be able to give you all the news from your native land. I -fear that his appointment to the French mission may induce you to remain -longer abroad than you would otherwise have done, or than your friends -would willingly tolerate. Whilst I was delighted to learn the attentions -which you had received, and which you can everywhere attract, I was -sorry to entertain the apprehension that your affections might be -alienated from your own country and fixed upon the aristocratic society -of Europe. Do not suffer such a feeling to gain possession of your -heart. It will banish content from your bosom and render you unhappy in -the land where Providence has cast your lot. - -I can give you but little news of the gay world of Washington. I have -been incessantly occupied during the session, and have gone very little -into society. How changed for me the gay world has been since you left -us; and I might add that Mr. Ingersoll is nearly as great an admirer as -myself. I have not seen your neighbor, the divine Julia, for many weeks, -nor attended any of her soirées except one. With all her follies and -foibles, she is a lady, and this implies much. When we meet she always -talks about you, and no subject could be more agreeable to me. - -As you doubtless receive all the gossip of this city from your lady -correspondents, and as Colonel King and Doctor Martin will be able to -supply any deficiencies, I shall communicate the political intelligence. - -The Whigs have held their national convention at Baltimore, and consider -Mr. Clay as good as elected. They are high in hope and burning with -enthusiasm. Nevertheless, they may yet have cause to realize the truth -of the saying in Scripture, “Let not him that putteth on his armor boast -as he who taketh it off.” It cannot be denied, however, that the -Democratic party are at present in a sad condition. Our national -convention will meet at Baltimore on this day two weeks, and a large -majority of the delegates have been instructed or pledged to vote for -Mr. Van Buren; whilst many and perhaps most of the delegates believe -that if nominated he will be defeated. His letter against the immediate -annexation of Texas to the Union has mainly produced this effect, though -he was not popular before. Had he seized the occasion which was -presented to him, and followed in the footsteps of his illustrious -predecessor, by coming out boldly for Texas, he might, and most probably -would, have been elected President; but his chances of ever again -reaching this elevated station are now gone forever. I know you will not -break your heart on that account, and, personally, I should not; but, -politically, I prefer him to Mr. Clay, as much as I prefer political -good to political evil, though I like the Kentuckian. - -If Mr. Van Buren should withdraw, and the Democratic party could unite -on any man, (and I think they could) we might yet elect our candidate. I -fear, however, that he will not pursue this course; and should another -be nominated in opposition to him, this will only make confusion worse -confounded, for such a nomination would involve the violation of -instructions,—a doctrine always odious to the Democracy. It is true that -the new question of Texas has arisen since the instructions were voted, -and this would be the pretext or the apology for his abandonment; but -many would not consider this a sufficient cause. Colonel Benton, Mr. -Wright, Mr. Allen, Mr. Tappan, Mr. Atherton, and probably Mr. Fairfield, -agree with Mr. Van Buren on the Texas question. The remainder of the -Democratic Senators will go with “Old Hickory” for immediate annexation. - -You regret my withdrawal, and to me it is a source of sincere pleasure -to believe that you feel an interest in my fate; but I confess I am yet -fully convinced that I pursued the wise and proper course. I withdrew -because a large majority of the delegates had been instructed to support -Mr. Van Buren, and I wished to banish discord and promote harmony in our -ranks. Should he now withdraw, I might, with honor, resume my old -position; but, should he persist, if nominated, I should be defeated. A -very strong party in the South would now favor my nomination, because -the Texas question has absorbed the anti-tariff feeling there, and in -all other respects I should be acceptable to that portion of the Union; -but, I confess that if I should ever run for the Presidency, I would -like to have an open field and a fair start. The battle has already been -more than half fought between Clay and Van Buren; and it would be -difficult for any new man to recall the forces which have already gone -over to the enemy. I thus manifest the unbounded confidence which I have -in your discretion and friendship, by writing to you opinions which I -have never mentioned freely in conversation to any other person. Should -little Van be again nominated, he shall receive my active support. - -I envy Colonel King the pleasure of meeting you, and would give anything -in reason to be of the party for a single week. I am now “solitary and -alone,” having no companion in the house with me. I have gone a wooing -to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any one of them. I -feel that it is not good for man to be alone; and should not be -astonished to find myself married to some old maid who can nurse me when -I am sick, provide good dinners for me when I am well, and not expect -from me any very ardent or romantic affection. - -Colonel King takes out with him Mrs. Ellis, his niece. I was acquainted -with her some years ago, and liked her very much. I hope you will be of -the same opinion. - -Please to remember me in the kindest terms to Mr. Roosevelt and to -Jemmy, who will remember me as long as he shall remember hickory oil. - -Believe me that wherever you roam my kindest regards will follow you, -and no friend on earth will greet your arrival in your native land with -more joy than myself. - -Ever your friend, most sincerely and respectfully, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - -On the eve of the assembling of the Baltimore Convention, Mr. Buchanan -addressed the following letter to two of the Pennsylvania delegates: - - [TO MESSRS. FOSTER AND BREWSTER.] - - WASHINGTON, May 25th, 1844. - -GENTLEMEN:— - -I feel no hesitation in giving your questions a frank and explicit -answer. - -And first. Against Mr. Van Buren, I cannot be a candidate before the -National Convention. After a large majority of the delegates to that -convention had either been instructed or pledged to support him, I -voluntarily withdrew my name as a candidate for the purpose of -concentrating the strength, and thus securing the triumph of the party. -In consequence of this act of mine, the delegates from my own State have -been instructed to support him, and I am thus placed in such a position -that I feel myself bound both in honor and principle not to become his -competitor. - -Second. Should Mr. Van Buren, after a fair trial, either be withdrawn by -his friends, or should they be satisfied that he cannot obtain the -nomination, and the delegates from Pennsylvania be thus left at liberty -to make a second choice, in that event I should feel myself restored to -my original position, and they would then have my consent to present my -name, if they thought proper, as a candidate to the convention. - - From your friend, very respectfully, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - -The Baltimore Convention nominated James K. Polk of Tennessee as the -Democratic candidate for the Presidency. The Whig candidate was Mr. -Clay. At the election, which took place in the autumn of 1844, Mr. Polk -received 170 electoral votes, while Mr. Clay obtained but 105. No one of -the leading Democratic statesmen in the country was more conspicuous, or -exerted greater influence in bringing about this result, than Mr. -Buchanan. - -The following selections from his private correspondence at this -exciting period, before and during the election of Mr. Polk, are all -that can find space in this chapter: - - [TO THE REV. EDWARD Y. BUCHANAN.] - - WASHINGTON, February 29, 1844. - -DEAR EDWARD:— - -I have received your very acceptable letter, and rejoice to learn that -you and the family have enjoyed uninterrupted health since we parted. I -now begin to entertain strong hopes that Charlotte may outgrow her -disease. - -This city is now covered with mourning. Ere this can reach you, you will -doubtless have heard of the dreadful accident which occurred on board -the Princeton yesterday. Among the killed was Governor Gilmer, the -recently appointed Secretary of the Navy. He and I were bound together -by strong ties of friendship. He was an able, honest, clear-headed, -shrewd and patriotic man, who, had he lived, would, at no distant day, -have become still more distinguished. He accepted the office in which he -died from the purest and most disinterested motives, and the country has -lost much by his death. His wife was on board the Princeton, and—how -mysterious are the ways of Providence!—urged her husband to have the -fatal cannon fired once more. She is almost frantic. She is an excellent -woman, and is now left with nine children, and in no affluent -circumstances. Colonel Benton was at the breech of the gun and looking -along the barrel, so that he might observe the course of the shot when -the explosion took place, and received no bodily injury, except from the -concussion. - -I was not on board myself, and am disposed to consider it almost -providential. I received no invitation, although I have been on terms of -intimate friendship with Capt. Stockton and all his family for more than -a quarter of a century. If invited, the invitation never reached me: if -not, it is perhaps still more remarkable. Had I been on board, the -probability is I should have been with those who were around the gun at -the time of the explosion. - -Although with a straitened income, yet you must be a happy man, if you -sincerely believe the doctrines which you preach and honestly practise -them: and I have no reason to doubt either. If the fleeting life of man -be but a state of trial for another world, he surely acts most wisely -who spends his time in securing the things which pertain to his -everlasting peace. I am a believer; but not with that degree of firmness -of faith calculated to exercise a controlling influence over my conduct. -I ought constantly to pray “help thou my unbelief.” I think often and I -think seriously of my latter end; but when I pray (and I have preserved, -and with the blessing of God shall preserve, this good habit from my -parents), I can rarely keep my mind from wandering. I trust that the -Almighty Father, through the merits and atonement of his Son, will yet -vouchsafe to me a clearer and stronger faith than I possess. In the mean -time, I shall endeavor to do my duty in all the relations of life. This -was to have been a week of great gayety here. There was to have been a -party and ball at the President’s on Friday evening, a grand dinner at -Mr. Blair’s on Saturday, a grand diplomatic dinner at the French -minister’s on Sunday, another at Mr. Upshur’s on Tuesday, and a grand -ball by Mr. Wilkins on Thursday. I was invited to them all; but promptly -declined the invitation for Sunday, having too much regard for the -Sabbath to partake of such a festivity on that day. Still I did not -assign this as my reason, because my life would not justify me in taking -such ground. God willing, I expect to visit Lancaster about the 1st of -April, and pass a few days there. I then hope to enjoy the pleasure of -seeing you all in good health. Give my love to Ann Eliza and the family; -and remember me kindly to Dr. Sample, Joel Leighton, W. Conyngham and -Mr. Mussleman, and believe me ever to be your affectionate brother, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - [FROM THE HON. SILAS WRIGHT.] - - CANTON, September 23, 1844. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -...... I see you are in the field, and take it for granted that you can -have no more peace nor rest until after your State election, if until -after the Presidential election. You will have noticed that I have been -forcibly taken from the stump for promotion. Never has any incident in -the course of my public life been so much against my interests, and -feelings, and judgment as this proposed change, but it is too late now -to complain of it; the people may release me from any other evil to -result than a defeat at the election, which personally would cause the -least apprehension or anxiety, but politically is most dreaded. I do not -think, however, we shall be beaten in this State though I very -confidently apprehend that success will most effectually beat me. - -It is not my purpose, however, to trouble you with my griefs, but to -tell you that all the information I receive, and my correspondents are -very numerous, induces the very confident belief that we shall give Polk -and Dallas the thirty-six electoral votes of this State. Never have I -witnessed an equal degree of enthusiasm among our Democracy, not even in -the days of General Jackson, nor have I, at any time, known greater -harmony, activity or confidence. - -I rejoice to say that your State seems to be surrendered by the Whigs -themselves, and to be considered perfectly safe by our friends in all -quarters of the Union. - -Mrs. Wright joins me in kindest regards and bids me tell you she -sincerely hopes the Whig governor of this State will be elected. - - In much haste, I am respectfully and truly yours, - - SILAS WRIGHT. - - [FROM THE HON. JAMES K. POLK.] - - (Private.) COLUMBIA, TENN., August 3, 1844. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I thank you for the information which you give me in your esteemed favor -of the 23d ultimo. The account which you give of the political prospect -in Pennsylvania, accords with all the information which I have received -from other sources. The great “Key Stone State” will, I have no doubt, -continue to be, as she has ever been, Democratic to the core. I was glad -to hear your opinion of the probable result in New York as well as in -Pennsylvania, because I have great confidence in your sober judgment, -and know the caution with which you would express an opinion. I received -a letter from Governor Lumpkin, of Georgia, yesterday, giving me strong -assurances that that State is safe. We may not carry a majority of the -members of Congress at the election which takes place next week, because -of the peculiar arrangements of the districts, which were laid off by a -Whig legislature, but that we will have a decided majority of the -popular vote he has no doubt. In this State our whole Democracy were -never more confident of success. It is true we have a most exciting and -violent contest, but I think there is no reason to doubt that the State -will be Democratic in November. A few weeks, however, will put an end to -all speculation in the State, and in the Union. - -The State elections in Pennsylvania and New Jersey will be over before -this letter can reach you. Will you do me the favor to give me your -opinion whether the vote in these elections may be regarded as a fair -and full test of the strength of parties in November? - -Thanking you for your very acceptable letter, I am, very sincerely, - - Your friend, - - JAMES K. POLK. - - [TO THE HON. JAMES K. POLK.] - - LANCASTER, September 23, 1844. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I have delayed to write to you on purpose until I could express a -decided opinion in regard to the vote of Pennsylvania. I was so much -deceived in the result of our State election in 1840, that this has made -me cautious. We have had much to contend against, especially the strong -general feeling in favor of the tariff of 1842, but notwithstanding all, -I am now firmly convinced that you will carry the Keystone by a fair -majority. Your discreet and well advised letter to Mr. Kane on the -subject of the tariff has been used by us with great effect. - -There may, I fear, be some falling off in the city and county of -Philadelphia, both on account of the Native American feelings and for -some other causes. We have been much at a loss for an able and -influential Democratic paper there, devoted to the cause rather than to -men. The _Pennsylvania_ is owned by a clique of the exclusive friends -and officeholders of Mr. Van Buren, most of whom are obnoxious to the -mass of the Democrats. It now does pretty well; but it harped too long -on the two-thirds rule. - -I have had several times to assure influential individuals in that city, -without pretensions, however, to know your sentiments, that as you were -a new man yourself, and would be anxious to illustrate your -administration by popular favor as well as sound principle, you would -not select old party hacks for office, merely because they had already -held office under Mr. Van Buren. By the by, this gentleman’s conduct -since your nomination deserves all commendation. - -In my late political tour through the northern counties of Pennsylvania, -I met many New Yorkers at Towanda. Among the rest were some of the -members of the late Syracuse convention. They assured me, that after -canvassing the information brought by the delegates from all parts of -the State, they had arrived at the confident conclusion it would vote -for Polk and Dallas. I have this moment received a letter from the Hon. -Mr. Hubbard of Bath, in that State, a member of the present Congress, -which assures me that we shall carry it by a majority of from 15,000 to -20,000, and so mote it be! - -Please to remember me in the very kindest and most respectful terms to -Mrs. Polk. Tell her that although I have nothing to ask from the -President, I shall expect much from the President’s lady. During her -administration, I intend to make one more attempt to change my wretched -condition, and should I fail under her auspices, I shall then surrender -in despair. - -With sentiments of the highest regard, I remain your friend sincerely, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - [TO THE HON. JNO. B. STERIGERE.] - - LANCASTER, July 17, 1844. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -It was both pleasant and refreshing to receive a letter under your well -known hand. It is so long since I have enjoyed such a treat, that I -consider it a “bonne bouche.” I hope it may never again be such a -rarity. - -Nearly half my time is now occupied in writing answers to mass, county, -township and association meetings; and many of them are not satisfied -with a single answer. I scarcely know what to do. If I once begin, to -which I am very reluctant, I must continue. A public man cannot make -selections. Besides, I have not been well since the adjournment of -Congress, and must go to Bedford or have a bilious fever. I have never -been in the Northern counties of the State; and if I make a start at -all, I shall visit there in September. Should I commence earlier, I -would be broken down long before the election. I would thank you, -therefore, not to have me invited to address your meeting. Indeed, it is -very uncertain whether I can attend. - -When you and I served with Mr. Polk in Congress, neither of us probably -supposed that he would ever be President. He has since greatly improved. -The last time he was in Washington he dined and passed the afternoon -with me; and the change forcibly impressed itself on me. Under all the -circumstances, I believe no better selection could have been made. I -think there is but little doubt that he will carry Pennsylvania and be -elected, even without New York or Ohio, unless we have been greatly -deceived by our Democratic friends in the strength of the Texas question -in the South. The returns from Louisiana do not please me. - -I am much urged to attend the Nashville meeting on the 15th August; but -the thing is impossible. I fear that the “hot bloods” of the South may -say or do something there to injure us in the North. They are becoming -rabid again on the subject of the tariff. I have written to Donelson -this day, strongly urging caution and discretion in their proceedings. - -Please to remember me very kindly to my friend Slemmer, and believe me -ever to be, sincerely and respectfully, - - Your friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - [TO THE HON. JAMES K. POLK.] - - LANCASTER, November 4, 1844. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I think I may now congratulate both yourself and the country on your -election to the highest and most responsible office in the world. After -our glorious victory on Friday last, I can entertain no doubt of the -final result. I feel confident that New York will follow in our -footsteps, notwithstanding their majority may be greatly reduced, as -ours has been, by an unholy union of the Native Americans with the -Whigs. - -Never have there been such exertions made by any party in any State as -the Whigs have made since our Governor’s election to carry the Keystone. -They have poured out their money like water; but our Democracy has stood -firm everywhere, except the comparatively few who have been seduced on -the tariff question, and those whom the Native American humbug has led -away. Immediately after the first election, we requested our honest and -excellent Governor elect to come East of the mountains and take the -stump in your favor; and this was no sooner said than done. He produced -a powerful impression wherever he went. I attended two mass meetings -with him, and he made speeches at several other places. In “Old Bucks,” -he gave it to them both in Dutch and English much to their satisfaction. - -Whoever has observed with a reflecting eye the progress of parties in -this country, must have arrived at the conclusion that there is but one -mode of reuniting and invigorating the Democratic party of the Union and -securing its future triumph, and that is, whilst adhering strictly to -the ancient landmarks of principle, to rely chiefly on the young and -efficient Democrats who have fought the present battle. These ought not -to be forgotten in the distribution of offices. The old officeholders -generally have had their day, and ought to be content. Had Mr. Van Buren -been our candidate, worthy as he is, this feeling, which everywhere -pervades the Democratic ranks, would have made his defeat as signal as -it was in 1840. Clay would most certainly have carried this State -against him by thousands; and I firmly believe the result would have -been similar, even in New York. The Native American party in -Philadelphia never could have become so strong had it not been for the -impression which, to some extent, prevailed there, that your patronage -would be distributed in that city amongst those called the Old Hunkers -by the Democratic masses. - -Yours is a grand mission; and I most devoutly trust and believe that you -will fulfil it with glory to yourself and permanent advantage to the -country. Democrats have been dropping off from their party from year to -year on questions not essentially of a party character. It will be your -destiny to call home the wanderers and marshal them again under the -ample folds of the Democratic flag. It is thus that the dangerous Whig -party will be forever prostrated, and we shall commence a new career of -glory, guided under the old banner of our principles. - -From the violence of the Southern papers and some of the Southern -statesmen, I apprehend that your chief difficulty will be on the -question of the tariff. They seem to cling with great tenacity to the -horizontal ad valorem duty of the compromise act, which would in -practice prostrate the Democracy of the Middle and Northern States in a -single year, because it would destroy all our mechanics who work up -foreign materials. If the duty on cloth and ready-made clothing were -both 20 per cent. ad valorem, we should soon have no use for tailors in -our large towns and cities. So of shoemakers, hatters, etc. Foreigners -would perform the mechanical labor. - -The tariff ought to have been permanently settled in 1842. That was the -propitious moment. With much difficulty I have prevented myself from -being instructed that I might be free to act according to my own -discretion. I then proposed to our Southern friends to adopt the -compromise act as it stood in 1839. The Treasury required fully that -amount of duties; whilst such a measure would have saved their -constituency. For some time I thought they would have gladly embraced -this proposition which was presented by Mr. Ingersoll in the House; but -at a great caucus of the party several of the ultras opposed the -measure, and the consequence has been the extravagant tariff of 1842. -Had my proposition been adopted the country would have been just as -prosperous as it is at present, and this would have been attributed in -the North to that measure, as it now is to the tariff of 1842; you would -then have received a majority of 25,000 in Pennsylvania. - -With sentiments of the highest respect, I remain - - Sincerely your friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - [TO GOVERNOR SHUNK.] - - WASHINGTON, December 18, 1844. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I do most heartily rejoice that those who communicated to me expressions -used by our friend Magraw must have been mistaken in the inferences -which they deduced from his language. He was much in the company of my -deadly enemy —— who is ——’s most unscrupulous tool, and of ——. That he -did use some unguarded language is beyond a doubt; but all this shall be -as if it never had been. I venerated his deceased father, and have -always been so much attached to him, that it almost unmanned me, when I -learned that he had spoken unkindly of myself. Please to say nothing to -him of what my former letter contained. - -The income tax of England has never been resorted to except in cases of -extreme necessity. That tax at present in existence imposes seven pence -per pound upon the annual rent of land and houses, upon the income from -titles, railways and canals, mines and iron-works; also upon the income -of tenants or renters of land, upon public lands and securities, -dividends on bank stock, Indian stock, and foreign stock payable in -England, upon the profits of trades and professions, upon the income of -public officers, salaries, etc. _All incomes under £150 sterling per -annum are exempt from this tax._ Under the British government, they have -adopted the means necessary to secure a just return of all incomes; -under ours, this, in many cases, would prove almost impossible, without -resorting to an inquisition unknown to our form of government. Indeed, -as far as I know, our present taxes on income are eluded to a most -shameful extent. The income tax has always been odious in England; and -it would prove to be so, if carried to anything like the same extent, in -this country. The more I reflect upon the subject the more I am -convinced that your “inaugural” should not specifically recommend any -new mode of taxation. I know that, in common with myself, you entertain -a horror of repudiation, either express or implied, and this might be -expressed in the strongest terms, together with a willingness on your -part to concur with the legislature in adopting any measures necessary -to prevent so disgraceful a catastrophe; leaving to your administration, -after it shall get fairly under way, to adopt the necessary measures to -redeem the faith of the State. - -In regard to your selection for secretary of state, I entertain the same -opinion, more strongly now than ever, which I have held from the -beginning. Your attorney-general ought to be a Muhlenberg man, and such -an one as will be satisfactory to that branch of the party. After his -appointment, I hope to hear no more of these distractions; and I trust -that then we shall all be united under the broad banner of Democracy in -support of your administration. - -I know John M. Read well; and I also know, that he enjoyed and deserved -the confidence of Mr. Muhlenberg and his friends in an eminent degree. -After his death, Mr. Read’s conduct towards you was worthy of all -praise. There are few lawyers, if any, in Philadelphia, his superiors; -and he is a man of such firmness, energy, and industry, that he will -always be found an efficient supporter in the hour of need. He holds a -ready and powerful political pen, and is a gentleman of the strictest -honor and integrity. I know you would be safe with him. Of both Mr. -Brewster and Mr. Barr, I also entertain a high opinion; and I think the -appointment of either would give satisfaction to the friends of -Muhlenberg. I confess I do not like Mr. Kane’s political associations; -but he is a gentleman and a man of honor. - -There is one subject to which I desire to direct your attention. I know, -from various quarters, that Porter is making a desperate effort to be -elected United States Senator. He calculates upon seducing a sufficient -number of Democrats from their allegiance to the party, which, when -united with the Whigs, would constitute a majority. —— and —— have both -been here, and, on several occasions, expressed their confident belief -in his success. From the conversation of the Whigs here and elsewhere, I -think they will be mistaken as to the votes of their members; but this I -know, that it is of the last importance to you to maintain the caucus -system. Should it be broken down at the commencement of your -administration, it is easy to predict the consequences which may follow. -I would, therefore, most respectfully advise that you should be at -Harrisburg at the commencement of the session, not to take any part in -favor of any candidate for the Senate, but to express your opinion -strongly and decidedly in favor of an adherence to caucus nominations. - -We have no authentic news here from President Polk; all is as yet -conjecture. His path will be beset by many difficulties. The first which -will present itself, is Mr. Calhoun. To remove him will give great -offence to many of the Southern gentlemen, who were mainly influential -in procuring the nomination of Mr. Polk; to retain him, will exasperate -Colonel Benton and that wing of the party.[76] It is hoped that he may -retire, or consent to accept the mission to England. Then there are the -Texas and tariff questions, which it will be difficult to settle to the -satisfaction of the party. Colonel Polk has a cool and discreet head -himself, and he will be surrounded by cool and discreet friends. - -Philadelphia is now in a state of office-hunting excitement, never known -before. The office-hunters have taken it into their heads that Mr. -Dallas, because he has been elected Vice President, can procure them all -offices, and they are turning his head with their incense. _I venture to -predict that they will prove to be greatly mistaken._ The moment they -discover this, their plans will be directed to some other divinity. - -You ask my advice in regard to recommendations from you to President -Polk. I think you ought to be cautious in giving them, if you desire -that they shall produce the effect your recommendations well deserve. I -hope, however, to meet you at the inauguration. - -I have sat up until a late hour to write you this long letter. I receive -at the rate of about thirty letters a day; and between important private -calls and public business, I have found time to answer very few of them. - -Please remember me most kindly and respectfully to Mrs. Shunk and the -young ladies, and believe me to be sincerely and devotedly - - Your friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - -Before the following letters were written, Mr. Polk’s nomination to the -Presidency had occurred. - - [FROM MRS. CATRON.[77]] - - NASHVILLE, July 4, 1844. - -DEAR SIR:— - -I have received your kind letter of the 23d of June, and I feel a just -appreciation of the compliment, in being selected from the number of -your many fair and accomplished friends, as the companion of your -solitude. I know “it is not good for man to be alone,” and if you could -but take time to remember the sage advice I have often given you to the -contrary of such an unchristian and vain attempt, you would now be -basking in the charms of some blooming widow, and not be driven to the -humble necessity of seeking stray rays of comfort from the “old head on -young shoulders” of other men’s wives. As, however, you are brought to -the sad predicament—and strange to say, I am but little better off -during the court,—and as nothing I just now think of affords me more -pleasure than to add a crumb of support to your forlorn condition by -boarding with you next session of Congress, and as Mr. Catron is the -most generous of husbands to risk such dangerous associations, he will -write to Mr. Carroll to engage us a house. - -N. B.—The court and Congress now meet at the same time, and Polk runs -for President only once—positively only once—and all anti-annexation men -are dead and buried. So _I_ think, and that you know is law to you, as -in Miss Gardiner’s case, of whose ambitious aspirations I don’t believe -one word. In conclusion, permit me to say that on this occasion I have -availed myself of your once offered kindness of the liberty of speech. - - Most truly your friend, - - M. CATRON. - -The Hon. JAMES BUCHANAN. - - [TO MRS. CATRON.] - -MY DEAR MADAM:— - -I sincerely thank you for having taken compassion on my forlorn and -destitute condition. I can assure you that I greatly prefer the stray -rays of comfort from yourself to “basking in the charms of any blooming -widow” in the land. I do not like everlasting sunshine, or too much of a -good thing:—and as to widows, “I’ll none of them. Comparisons are -odoriferous,” as Dogberry says. - -Ere this you have learned that with all your shrewdness you were -mistaken. The President is the most lucky man that ever lived. Both a -belle and a fortune to crown and to close his Presidential career.[78] - -I hope you will be able to give Polk Tennessee. All appearances indicate -his signal triumph in the Keystone State. His tariff letter to Kane was -a good thing for us. Under the circumstances, I do not think a better -nomination could have been made; and as I had the honor of being Mrs. -Polk’s candidate I feel myself bound both in gallantry and in gratitude -to do my best for the election of her husband. - -When she becomes the lady of the White House, as I believe she will be, -I shall both expect and desire to be a favorite. As to yourself you -stand fair under all administrations. - -Remember me most kindly to the judge, and believe me ever to be -sincerely and respectfully - - Your friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - ------ - -Footnote 75: - - Wife of the Hon. James J. Roosevelt of New York. - -Footnote 76: - - Mr. Calhoun was Secretary of State under President Tyler. - -Footnote 77: - - Wife of Mr. Justice Catron of the Supreme Court of the United States. - -Footnote 78: - - President Tyler’s marriage to Miss Gardiner is the event here alluded - to. The letter is without date. - ------ - - - - - CHAPTER XVIII. - 1842–1849. - - HARRIET LANE. - - -From all “the heady currents of a fight” of politics, from the toils of -statesmanship and the objects of ambition, the reader can now turn to -the sweet charities of domestic and social life; for these, -notwithstanding his bachelor state, were not wanting to the public man -whose life is traced in these volumes. A biography of Mr. Buchanan would -be exceedingly imperfect without mention of that member of his family -who, for the last twenty-five years of his life, stood in a very -intimate domestic relation with him. It is a delicate matter to write of -a living lady; but the name of Harriet Lane will recall to many readers -one who occupied with singular grace positions in her uncle’s household -that were almost public, and whose domestic connection with him formed a -most important element in his private happiness. Mr. Buchanan discharged -with great fidelity all his duties to the various members of his family -who could be said to have any claims upon him. Of that family he was -always regarded as the head; and when, in consequence of the death of -one of his sisters and her husband, the care of four orphans devolved -upon him, the youngest was at such an age that he could form her as he -wished, and his wish was guided by the nicest sense of what belongs to -the highest female excellence. - -His sister, Mrs. Lane, wife of Elliott T. Lane, died at Mercersburg, in -the year 1839. Her husband survived her for only two years. They left -four children: James Buchanan, Elliott Eskridge, Mary Elizabeth Speer, -and Harriet Rebecca.[79] They each inherited from their parents a -moderate property. After the death of her father, Harriet, the youngest -of the four orphans, was brought to Lancaster, and resided in her -uncle’s house, when he was at home in that city. During his absences in -Washington, she occasionally lived with two ladies in Lancaster, friends -of her uncle,—the Misses Crawford. For a few years she attended a school -in Lancaster, and also had private teachers. She and her sister Mary -were then placed at a boarding-school in Charlestown, Virginia, in the -neighborhood of some of their father’s relatives. Harriet’s education -was finished at the well-known Roman Catholic convent at Georgetown, in -the District of Columbia. The present superintendent of that institution -was one of her school-mates. - -To direct the education of this young girl, to form her religious and -moral principles, to guard her against the temptations that beset an -impulsive temperament, and to develop her into the character of a true -woman, became one of the chief objects of Mr. Buchanan’s busy life. At -first there was danger that the hoyden might become a “fast” and dashing -young lady. There was an exuberance of animal spirits, the accompaniment -of a fine physical organization and a healthy youth. There was an -abundance of the generous, frank and joyous qualities of the female -heart, along with its delicacy and purity. Such a nature required much -discipline and a careful training; and it might, perhaps, be thought -that an old-bachelor uncle, absorbed in public life, was not exactly the -person to undertake this duty; that, after spoiling the child as a pet, -he would leave her to take her chances as a woman. But Mr. Buchanan was -a man in whom authority and affection could be most happily blended. He -knew just how to exercise the one and to bestow the other. He knew the -girl whom he had to influence, and he had a perfectly true sense of what -a woman and a lady should be. - -It is not my purpose, or according to my taste, to enlarge on my own -estimate of the results which he produced. The methods by which they -were attained will sufficiently exhibit themselves in what I am to give -to the reader; and what is widely known of the lady who is unavoidably -the subject of these observations, attests that a beautiful woman, whom -flattery and adulation could not injure, and who became alike an -ornament to society and a model of the domestic virtues, was formed by -one of the busiest statesmen of our time, without a mother’s aid and a -mother’s love. There is rarely to be met, in any literature of real life -with which I am acquainted, a more interesting and instructive picture -of a wise man’s care for a woman’s education, manners, deportment, and -inner character, than is to be traced in Mr. Buchanan’s charming letters -to his niece. They began when she was a school-girl, were continued when -she became the companion of his age and the friend of his declining -years; and they did not cease when he gave her to the husband of her -choice. They are so numerous that it is difficult to make the selections -to which my space confines me. After Miss Lane had grown up, whenever -she was absent from her uncle, he wrote to her almost daily. But his -affection for her was unselfish. He never failed to let her know how -welcome would be her return, but he never exacted from her an abridgment -of her pleasures, unless it was for her good that they should be -interrupted. He could guide her, when she was away from him, by a dozen -written words, just as infallibly as if she were under his eye and -within the sound of his voice. One of her letters to him, which has come -into my hands among the great mass of his papers, shall be given in its -proper place, as an artless proof that he had his reward, and knew that -he had it. I shall make many extracts from this correspondence, because -nothing that has come within my reach can so well reveal a beautiful -side of Mr. Buchanan’s character, of which the world, as yet, knows very -little. One is reminded by these letters of many well-known instances of -such a tender care for a young relative, evinced by a series of letters. -Lord Eldon’s letters to his grandson and heir will occur to the reader; -but the chancellor was always a stiff and formal writer, although his -letters to his young kinsman are admirably wise. Lord Chatham’s letters -to his son William afford delightful reading; but even in his -expressions of affection, the “Great Commoner” could not be otherwise -than stately, classical, and a little dramatic. Lord Chesterfield’s -letters to his son, although written, like everything that came from his -pen, with the utmost correctness of a marvellous grace, lack, of course, -the religious and moral basis of all sound philosophy of life. Madame De -Sévigné’s lively letters to her adored daughter, Burke’s to the son whom -he strangely over-estimated, are among the treasures that the world -would not willingly lose. But I should omit a very interesting part of -my duty in this work, if I did not place before the reader as many of -the letters of President Buchanan to his niece as I can find room for; -and although they are not to be ranked in all respects side by side with -the most renowned specimens of the class to which they belong, they seem -to me to exhibit a happy union of the tenderest affection, deep -religious principle, sound inculcation, minute direction of conduct, -playfulness, vivacity, and an abounding confidence in the person to whom -they were written. They are unique also in this—that they were written -to a female relative, whom Providence had cast upon the care of an -unmarried uncle, intensely occupied with the pursuits and interests of a -statesman. - -But by way of preface to such of these letters as can be quoted, it will -be well to inform the reader that until the year 1848, Mr. Buchanan, -when at home in Lancaster, resided in a bachelor establishment, at the -head of which, as housekeeper, was a lady who was always called “Miss -Hetty.” I am indebted to his nephew, Mr. James Buchanan Henry, for the -following description of their domestic circle: - -In consequence of the death, in 1840, of my surviving parent, the -youngest sister of Mr. Buchanan, I became a member of his immediate -family. He was executor of my mother’s will, and by it he was appointed -my guardian. I was then seven years old. Mr. Buchanan at that time lived -in a spacious brick house in the quiet inland city of Lancaster, on the -principal street, called East King Street. This ancient town—one of the -oldest in Pennsylvania, still retained the loyal names of colonial -times, its best streets being named King, Queen, Duke, Orange, etc. At -that date, Mr. Buchanan was in the Senate, and of course much of his -time was passed in Washington; but during the recess of Congress he -resided in Lancaster, where he was much honored and beloved by its -citizens; and this personal attachment continued in a marked degree -until his death. At the time of which I speak, his family consisted of a -housekeeper, Miss Parker, always called “Miss Hetty,” myself and his -servants. At a little later period, my cousin, Harriet Lane, after the -death of her parents, also became a member of our uncle’s household. -This little family circle continued unbroken, excepting during the -temporary absences of my uncle in Washington, or on other public duty, -or when my cousin and I were at boarding school or college, until my -marriage in 1860, and until my cousin’s departure for her new home in -Baltimore, after her marriage. No father could have bestowed a more -faithful and judicious care upon his own children, than this somewhat -stern but devoted bachelor uncle of ours bestowed upon us. While I was -at school, in the little Moravian town of Litiz near by, when I was -eleven years old, he required me to write to him once every month with -great exactitude, and to each boyish letter he would write a prompt -reply, carefully but kindly criticizing every part of it; and if I had -been careless in either penmanship or spelling, he would give me sharp -reproof, which, coming from the hero of my youthful worship, made an -impression which I remember to this day. - -Miss Hetty Parker, now a venerable lady of seventy-eight, residing in -Lancaster in a comfortable house provided for her by my uncle’s will, -belonged to a respectable and quite “well-to-do” family in Philadelphia. -She became his housekeeper, I think, in 1834, or soon after, and was, by -him and all of us, treated as a valued member of the family, and as a -friend. She was always present at the table, and dispensed the -hospitalities of my uncle’s house until my cousin had grown to -womanhood, and assumed a part of such duties. “Miss Hetty” continued to -be one of the family circle, and to perform her duties most acceptably -to Mr. Buchanan through the remainder of his life. I do not hesitate to -say that, it was largely owing to her vigilant care of his interests, -and her wise economy, that his moderate private fortune, mainly earned -by him in the practice of the law, and before he entered public life, -not only proved sufficient for his wants, but slowly increased, -amounting, at his death, to about $300,000.[80] Miss Hetty was for -nearly forty years his faithful attendant in health and nurse in -sickness; and he was so much attached to her, that I have often heard -him say that nothing should ever part her from him while he lived. He -would let her do what she pleased, and say to him what she pleased, and -even scold him, without rebuke;—a privilege I never knew him to accord -to any one else. No biography of Mr. Buchanan would be complete that did -not mention this humble, unselfish and most faithful companion, who was -so well known to the frequenters of Wheatland, and to the whole circle -of Mr. Buchanan’s friends. - -Although the dates of the following letters run somewhat beyond the -period at which the last chapter terminated, they embrace the six years -of Miss Lane’s school-girl life and her entrance into society, and I -therefore do not separate them. The foot-notes explain the public -positions held by Mr. Buchanan at the respective dates, and some of the -allusions to persons. - - [LETTERS TO MISS LANE.] - - WASHINGTON, February 16th, 1842. - -MY DEAR HARRIET:— - -Your letter afforded me very great pleasure. There is no wish nearer my -heart than that you should become an amiable and intelligent woman: and -I am rejoiced to learn that you still continue at the head of your -class. You can render yourself very dear to me by your conduct; and I -anticipate with pleasure the months which, I trust in Heaven, we may -pass together after the adjournment of Congress. I expect to be in -Lancaster for a week or ten days about the 1st of April, when I hope to -see you in good health, and receive the most favorable reports of your -behavior. - -Buck Yates is now a midshipman in the navy.[81] He is now at Boston, on -board of the John Adams, and will sail in a few days for the Brazilian -station. He may probably be absent for two or three years. He is much -pleased with his situation, and I trust that his conduct may do both -himself and his friends honor. When he left Meadville they were all -well, except your aunt Maria, who still complains of a cough. Elizabeth -is better than she has been for years. - -I send you $——, the remains of poor Buck’s money when he arrived here. -It was of no use to him and would be of no use to me here. Please to -hand it to your brother James, and tell him to place it to my credit for -what it is worth. - -When you write to your sister Mary, give her my kindest and best love. - -Remember me affectionately to your brother James, Miss Hetty and the -Miss Crawfords, and believe me to be ever your affectionate uncle. May -Heaven bless you. - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - Lancaster, March 20, 1843. - -MY DEAR HARRIET:— - -It affords me sincere pleasure to receive your letter. It is one of the -first desires of my heart that you should become an amiable and a good -girl. Education and accomplishments are very important; but they sink -into insignificance when compared with the proper government of the -heart and temper. How all your relatives and friends would love you,—how -proud and happy I should be to acknowledge and cherish you as an object -of deep affection, could I say, she is kind in heart, amiable in temper, -and behaves in such a manner as to secure the affection and esteem of -all around her! I now cherish the hope that ere long this may be the -case. Endeavor to realize this ardent hope. - -What a long list of studies you are engaged upon! The number would be -too great for any common intellect; but it would seem that you manage -them all without difficulty. As mythology and history seem to be your -favorites, I shall expect, when we meet, that you will have all the gods -and heroes of Greece and Rome at your fingers’ ends. At a dinner table -at Washington, during the last session, a wager was made that no person -at the table could name all the Muses; and the wager was won. Had you -been one of the company, the result would doubtless have been different. -I presume that the Muses and Graces are great favorites with you. Attend -diligently to your studies; but above all, govern your heart and your -conduct. - -Your friends, the Miss Crawfords, are about to move to a much more -comfortable house; so that should you return to school in Lancaster, you -may be better accommodated. I presume your partiality still continues -for these good ladies; but to be serious, you must acknowledge that you -did not treat them as they deserve. - -Our recent news from poor Elizabeth is very discouraging. Dr. Yates, who -has been to see her, considers her case hopeless. Poor thing! She seems -destined to tread the path that so many of our family have already -trodden. Her husband is kind, affectionate and attentive, and she is -surrounded by every comfort. She is in full communion with the Episcopal -church. - -I know of no news here which would interest you. Lancaster has been very -dull; and is likely so to continue. Your music mistress, Miss Bryan, was -married a few evenings since to a Mr. Sterrett of Pittsburg. Annie -Reigart and Kate Reynolds will take their degrees in a fortnight, and -enter the world as young ladies. Judge Hayes has removed into town. - -Miss Hetty says that both Mary and yourself promised to write to her, -but that neither of you has written. She desires me to give her love to -you both. Your brother James is well. - -Had Mary written to me that you were a good girl, and had behaved -yourself entirely well, I should have visited you during the Christmas -holidays. Tell her, I shall expect her to write soon; and as I rely -confidently that she will not deceive me, I shall most heartily rejoice -should her account of you be favorable. In that event, God willing, I -intend to pay you a visit. - -Remember me most kindly to Mrs. Kennedy, whom I remember with much of -“auld lang syne;” also to Miss Annie. - -Give my kindest love to Mary, and believe me to be yours, - - Most affectionately, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - -P. S.—Your uncle Edward and the family are well except your aunt. She -has been in delicate health all winter, but is now much better. Jessie -Magaw is in Baltimore, but will return home to Meadville soon. Your -letter is without date, and does not purport to come from any particular -place. - - LANCASTER, July 25th, 1843. - -MY DEAR HARRIET:— - -I enclose you a letter which I have received from Buck Yates, as your -name is honorably mentioned in it. I wrote to him that it was ungallant -for a young naval officer to inform a “lady faire” that he would answer -her letters should she write, and that he should himself commence the -correspondence. - -I intend to leave for Bedford Springs in a day or two, and it is my -purpose to return by Charleston, after two or three weeks, and pass a -day with Mary and yourself. Give my kindest love to Mary, and believe me -to be - - Yours affectionately, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - WASHINGTON, July 17th, 1845.[82] - -MY DEAR HARRIET:— - -Although I should most gladly have you with me, yet I can not ask you to -come here in this excessive heat. I have never felt the heat so -oppressive as it has been for some time past; and I should fear you -might become sick were you to visit Washington. Besides, you could not -have any enjoyment. - -I entertain a hope that I may be able to visit Bedford about the first -of August. In that event, I should be willing to take you along with me. -But whether it will be in my power to leave this city is still -uncertain. Please to write to me how you intend to spend your vacation, -and where a letter would reach you. Should the heat moderate, I still -hope to see you in Washington. - - Yours affectionately, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - WASHINGTON, July 27th, 1845. - -MY DEAR HARRIET:— - -I believe, although I am not yet quite certain, that I shall be able to -leave here for the Bedford Springs on Thursday next. I shall be glad if -you will accompany me. Unless you hear from me in the meantime, you may -be at Harper’s Ferry on Thursday, before the cars pass from Baltimore to -Cumberland. If I should not be able to go on that day, _you may still be -there_. Mrs. Pleasonton,[83] Miss Pleasonton and Mrs. Bancroft will take -charge of you to Bedford; and there you will find Mr. and Mrs. Plitt, -under whose care I will place you until I can reach the Springs myself. -Still, I hope to be able to go on Thursday. Of course you will get some -one of your friends to accompany you from Charleston to Harper’s Ferry. -Please to write to me immediately on the receipt of this. - - Yours affectionately, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - WASHINGTON, July 6th, 1846. - -MY DEAR HARRIET:— - -Your welcome letter has been received, and I rejoice to learn...... I -trust you will soon be well enough...... I think of all places for you -the nunnery at Georgetown would be the best. Your religious principles -are doubtless so well settled that you will not become a nun. - -My labors are great; but they do not “_way_” me down, as you write the -word. Now I would say “_weigh_;” but doctors may differ on this point. - -I hope Mary has recovered ere this from her bruises. Give my love to -her, and tell her to have her saddle girthed tighter the next time she -rides. - -It will be easy for you to find Dr. Jackson’s remedy in any hay-field -near Lancaster at this season. It would be quite romantic and -interesting to witness your exploits on such a theatre. - -Your friends, Mrs. Bancroft and the Pleasontons, often inquire for you -with kindness. They have given you somewhat of a name here; and Mrs. -Polk and Miss Rucker, her niece, have several times urged me to permit -you to come and pass some time with them. I have been as deaf as the -adder to their request, knowing, to use a word of your grandmother, that -you are too “outsetting” already. There is a time for all things under -the sun, as the wise man says, and your time will yet come. - -I intend to go to the Bedford Springs this summer, if possible; but as -Congress may not adjourn until the 10th August, the fashionable season -will then be over. I had thought of giving Mary and yourself a polite -invitation to accompany me there; but I fear it will be too late in the -season for Mary to enact the character of a belle, and you are quite too -young to make the attempt. - -Miss Hetty requests me to send her love to you, and to say that she -would be very glad to see you in Washington...... I fear she might be -twice glad, once on your arrival, and still more so on your departure. -She will be in Lancaster in September. - -James Henry is here.[84] I intend to commence with him to-morrow and -make him eat vegetables, or he shall have no meat. I have not yet -determined upon a school for him. - -I wish you to embrace the first opportunity to remember me very kindly -to Mrs. Franklin. I never lived beside a better or more agreeable -neighbor. Give my love to Mary, though I perceive this is the second -time, and Patt, and believe me ever to be - - Yours affectionately, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - WASHINGTON, July 19, 1847. - -MY DEAR HARRIET:— - -The Secretary of the Treasury,[85] with his mother-in-law, Mrs. Bache, -and Miss Bache, will leave here for Rockaway, to enjoy the benefit of -sea-bathing, on Thursday morning next. I know of no other opportunity of -sending you, and this will be an excellent one. It is impossible for me -to accompany you myself. I hope that the good sister Cecilia may permit -you to leave with them. You will lose but a few days by this -arrangement. Your clothes, if they should not be ready, can be placed in -order at Rockaway under the direction of Mrs. Bache. Besides, it is -uncertain how long our friends, the Pleasontons, may remain at Oyster -Bay, and whether they will like it. Mr. Walker has hired a cottage at -Rockaway, and you may remain with his family as long as you please. - -I am extremely anxious that this arrangement should be made, because I -know of no other means by which you can reach the sea-shore. If -possible, please to send me an answer by the bearer. - - Yours affectionately, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - WASHINGTON, July 8, 1848. - -MY DEAR HARRIET:— - -I suppose you will now, within a week or ten days, return to the -exhibition, and we shall all be happy to see you. If you should not have -good company all the way through, I could meet you in Baltimore without -inconvenience almost any evening, leaving here in the cars at 5 o’clock -P. M. You would arrive in Baltimore, probably, a little before my -arrival; but whoever might accompany you to Baltimore could take you to -Barnum’s until my arrival. If you should adopt this course, inform me -certainly of the day you will leave Lancaster, so that there may be no -mistake. - -We have no news here which would interest you. Everything has been quiet -since you left. The Pleasontons and others often inquire of your health. - -I am glad to learn that Mary has turned out to be “a grand housekeeper.” -You could not have given me any more agreeable information. If she had -proved to be idle and extravagant in youth, the promise of her age would -have been poverty and dependence. There is no spectacle more agreeable -to me than that of a young married woman properly sensible of the -important duties of her station, and acting upon those high principles -which add lustre to the female character. Give her my kindest love, with -my best respect to Mr. Baker. - -Remember me affectionately to James, and the family, and believe me to -be - - Yours, as ever, - - James Buchanan. - - WASHINGTON, August 2, 1848. - -MY DEAR HARRIET:— - -I have this moment received your letter of the 30th ultimo, and hasten -to give it an answer. I regret very much that you are not pleased with -Rockaway. You went there for the benefit of your health, under the -advice of physicians, and I should be very sorry you should leave it -without giving sea-bathing a fair trial. - -It is certainly out of the question for me to accompany you on a tour to -West Point, Niagara, Boston, etc. If I should be able to leave -Washington at all, I cannot go to any place from which I could not -immediately return in case of necessity. I require rest and quiet. -Besides, _under existing circumstances_, which I need not explain, I -could not visit the States of New York and Massachusetts, unless it -might be to pass through them quietly and rapidly. It is possible, if -the weather should be suitable towards the close of August, that I may -go to Saratoga for a few days; but my movements are altogether -uncertain. - -I am much gratified that you have acquitted yourself so handsomely as to -obtain medals and premiums; and under other circumstances, I should -cheerfully accompany you on your travels. It is possible that I may take -you to West Point. - -Miss Hetty is gradually, but slowly, recovering. Please to remember me -very kindly to Mrs. Bache, Mrs. Walker, and the ladies, and believe me -to be - - Yours affectionately, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - WASHINGTON, August 22, 1848. - -MY DEAR HARRIET:— - -I have this moment received your letter of the 20th instant. I answered -your former letter very soon after it was received, and am sorry that my -answer miscarried. - -I expect sister Maria here to-day or to-morrow, and of course ——.[86] At -this moment I was interrupted by the agreeable information that she had -arrived, and I have just seen her. It is now four years since I enjoyed -that pleasure. How long she will remain I do not know; but it will be -impossible to leave before her departure. She will remain until -James[87] shall receive his appointment in the revenue cutter service, -which was kindly promised him by Mr. Walker, but which cannot be -conferred until after the President’s return, who is not expected until -this day week, the 29th instant. From present appearances I shall not be -able to leave Washington before the first of September. I cannot, -therefore, promise positively to visit Rockaway. - -I hope you are enjoying yourself, and may be benefited in your health by -the sea-bathing. - -Should I go to New York, I may take you as far as West Point. I presume -the season will be too late for the Saratoga Springs. - -Give my kindest regards to Mrs. Bache and the ladies, and believe me to -be - - Yours affectionately, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - WASHINGTON, January 8, 1849. - -MY DEAR HARRIET:— - -You have acted wisely in controlling your inclinations and remaining at -home. This act of self-restraint has raised you in my estimation. Let -nothing divert you from your purpose. - -Washington now begins to be gay. Mrs. Walker is at home to-night,—the -first assembly will be held to-morrow evening. Mrs. Polk gives a -drawing-room on Wednesday evening; and on Thursday evening Miss Harris -will be married, and there will be a party at Captain McCauley’s at the -Navy Yard. I now give dinners myself once a week. I rarely go out to -evening parties. I have had my day of such amusement, and have enjoyed -it. Yours is just commencing, and I hope it may be a happy one. I dare -say Mr. Sullivan[88] will be inconsolable when he learns that you will -not be here during the present winter. - -I wish now to give you a caution. Never allow your affections to become -interested or engage yourself to any person without my previous advice. -You ought never to marry any man to whom you are not attached; but you -ought never to marry any person who is not able to afford you a decent -and immediate support. In my experience, I have witnessed the long years -of patient misery and dependence which fine women have endured from -rushing precipitately into matrimonial connections without sufficient -reflection. Look ahead, and consider the future, and act wisely in this -particular. - -Mrs. Pleasonton of Philadelphia left here on Saturday morning last. I -saw her and her two daughters on Friday evening. They all inquired for -you very affectionately; and the Pleasontons of this city are, I -believe, sincerely anxious that you should pass some time with them. At -a proper period you may enjoy this pleasure. - -It may be that I shall not reach Lancaster until the first of April, as -I have some business to attend to here which may require a fortnight or -three weeks after I shall be relieved from office. When I reach there, I -shall be happy to have you with me. - - Yours affectionately, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - -P. S.—Give my love to Mary and all the rest. - ------ - -Footnote 79: - - Mary married George W. Baker, and died in San Francisco in 1855, while - Mr. Buchanan was Minister to England. Eskridge died in 1857; James in - 1862. Harriet dropped the name of Rebecca after she had grown up, and - was always known as Miss Lane, or Miss Harriet Lane. - -Footnote 80: - - In these days of millions, such a fortune, accumulated by a man who - had been in public life for about forty years, seems moderate indeed. - It will appear, as we draw near the end of Mr. Buchanan’s life, that - he did not enrich himself out of the public, and that such fortune as - he did accumulate must have been, as Mr. Henry says, the slow increase - of means honorably acquired and carefully husbanded. Yet he was not a - parsimonious, but, on the contrary, he was a generous man. - -Footnote 81: - - James Buchanan Yates, son of Mr. Buchanan’s sister Maria, who married - Dr. Yates, a physician in Meadville, Pennsylvania. - -Footnote 82: - - Mr. Buchanan became Secretary of State under President Polk in March - of this year. - -Footnote 83: - - Wife of the Hon. Stephen Pleasonton, for very many years Fifth - Auditor of the Treasury Department. He possessed the entire confidence - of all administrations. - -Footnote 84: - - James Buchanan Henry: very averse as a boy to a vegetable diet. - -Footnote 85: - - The Hon. Robert J. Walker of Mississippi, Secretary of the Treasury - under President Polk, appointed March 6, 1845. - -Footnote 86: - - Mrs. Yates. - -Footnote 87: - - James Buchanan Yates. - -Footnote 88: - - John Sullivan, Esq., an Irish gentleman of advanced years, long a - resident of Washington, famous for his good dinners. - ------ - - - - - CHAPTER XIX. - 1844–1845. - -ANNEXATION OF TEXAS—ELECTION OF PRESIDENT POLK—THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE - ACCEPTED BY MR. BUCHANAN. - - -In the Presidential election of 1844, there was a third party in the -field. By this time, the anti-slavery sentiment in some of the Northern -States had taken the form of a political organization, which called -itself the “Liberty” party, and was called by the others the party of -the “Abolitionists.” Their candidate for the Presidency was Mr. James G. -Birney, of Ohio, a gentleman who had taken a leading part in organizing -“The American Anti-Slavery Society,” and was at this time its secretary. -He had never held a public office. Texas, which had in 1836 made itself -independent of Mexico, had been for more than nine years a slaveholding -country, with a republican form of government. Between that government -and the United States a secret treaty was negotiated, after Mr. Tyler -became President, for the annexation of Texas to this Union. It had been -submitted to the Senate, and had been rejected, chiefly because Texas -claimed to carry her western boundary to the Rio Grande; and to -incorporate her with the United States and to adopt that claim would, it -was supposed, give Mexico a just cause for war. After the sudden death -of Mr. Upshur,[89] who became Secretary of State when Mr. Webster -retired from President Tyler’s cabinet, Mr. Calhoun, who succeeded him, -took up and carried out a new negotiation, which Mr. Upshur had begun, -for making Texas a part of the United States by the action of Congress. -This project was pending, and more or less suspected, or believed not to -have been relinquished, when the three parties made their nominations -for the Presidency. The Democratic party, by the nomination of Mr. Polk, -and by their avowed declarations, made the annexation of Texas -distinctly one of their party measures. The Whigs, in nominating Mr. -Clay, selected a candidate who was understood to oppose the annexation, -not because Texas was a slaveholding country, but because it might lead -to a war with Mexico. They did not proclaim it as a part of the policy -of their party to prevent the annexation of any more slave territory. -This was one of the principal reasons why Mr. Birney drew many votes -away from Mr. Clay. As Mr. Polk obtained a majority of sixty-five -electoral votes over Mr. Clay, and as six of the States which voted for -him were Northern and non-slaveholding States, including both -Pennsylvania and New York, the Democratic party claimed a right to say -that the country had pronounced for the annexation of Texas, its slavery -notwithstanding. The correspondence between the Government of the United -States and Texas was submitted to Congress by President Tyler, in -December, 1844. Joint resolutions for the annexation of Texas were -finally adopted by Congress on the 1st of March, 1845. They admitted -Texas into the Union, as a State whose constitution recognized slavery, -and they also pledged the faith of the United States to allow of the -future formation of four more States out of Texas, and to admit them -into the Union, either with or without slavery, as their constitutions -might require, if formed below the Missouri compromise line of 36° 30′, -but if formed above that line, slavery was to be excluded. In the -Senate, there were twenty-seven votes for the admission of Texas on -these conditions, and twenty-five votes against it; of the affirmative -votes, thirteen were from free States, and four of these were from New -England. The Missouri compromise line was extended through Texas; the -“Wilmot Proviso,” which aimed to exclude slavery from the whole of this -newly acquired region, came up a year later. - -Mr. Buchanan’s course as a Senator, on these resolutions, can easily be -inferred from what has already appeared in regard to his sentiments on -the whole subject of Texan independence, and the relations of that -country to the United States. But the official record shows, with entire -distinctness, that against the constitutional objection which maintained -that new States could not be admitted into the Union unless they had -lawfully arisen within the United States, he held with those who -rejected this restriction, and who maintained that a foreign State could -be made a member of the Union. After the joint resolutions had come -before the Senate from the House of Representatives, the Senate -Committee on Foreign Relations, by a majority report, recommended their -rejection. Mr. Buchanan, who was a member of that committee, did not -make a minority report, but on the 27th of February (1845), he said: - -He did not rise to debate the question. He had heard some of his -respected friends on this side of the Senate, in whose sincerity he had -the most entire confidence, observe that if these resolutions should -pass the Senate, the Constitution would receive a mortal stab. If Mr. B. -thought so, great as was the acquisition we were about to make, he -should be the last man in existence to acquire the richest benefit the -world could hold out to our grasp at such a price. - -Mr. B. said he might have assumed the privilege of reply which belonged -to him from the position he occupied on the Committee on Foreign -Relations; but he waived it. Not because the arguments on the other side -had not been exceedingly ingenious and plausible, and urged with great -ability; but because all the reasoning in the world could not abolish -the plain language of the Constitution, which declared that “new States -might be admitted by Congress into the Union.” But what new States? The -convention had answered that question in letters of light, by rejecting -the proposed limitation of this grant, which would have confined it to -States lawfully arising within the United States. The clause was -introduced with this limitation, and, after full discussion, it ended in -the shape it now held, without limitation or restriction of any kind. -This was a historical fact. It could not be denied. Planting himself -upon that fact, and having heard no argument which shook the -position—believing, as he most conscientiously did believe, that the -Constitution would not be violated in the least by the adoption of the -pending resolutions, he here entered his solemn protest against the -solemn protests which had been made on the other side, and which went -almost the length of implying that he, and the advocates of these -resolutions, were knowingly and of design violating the Constitution and -their oaths, to secure a favorite political measure. This was the -greatest public act in which Mr. Buchanan had ever had the honor of -taking an humble part; he should do it cheerfully, gladly, gloriously, -because he believed that his vote would confer blessings innumerable -upon his fellow-men. now, henceforward, and forever. - -Mr. Berrien said he would not consent that this debate should close with -the declaration of the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Buchanan), that -the convention had not determined the sense of the term “new States.” - -Mr. Buchanan rose to explain. What the Senator from Pennsylvania did say -was, that at first the clause granting power to Congress to admit new -States into the Union had been confined to States arising within the -United States; but that after debate and a full discussion, the -Constitution was adopted with the clause in its present clear -unrestricted form, written as in letters of light. - -After some further remarks from other Senators, and some attempts to -amend the resolutions, they were passed and engrossed on the same day. -President Tyler, on the 3d of March, announced by special message to the -Senate, that he had approved and signed them.[90] - -The electoral college of Pennsylvania, when the votes of that State were -given to Mr. Polk, united in a strong recommendation to him to make Mr. -Buchanan Secretary of State. Mr. Buchanan took no steps to influence the -newly-elected President in regard to this or any other cabinet -appointment. He maintained a dignified reserve in his personal relations -to Mr. Polk, both during and after the election. Certainly there were -very strong reasons of fitness, which should have led Mr. Polk to desire -that Mr. Buchanan would accept the Department of State. His -qualifications for it were far greater than those of any other public -man in the Democratic party; and, if such a consideration could have any -weight, he personally deserved at the hands of Mr. Polk all that a -President could bestow of opportunity to render further service to the -country. In looking back over Mr. Buchanan’s public life, now covering a -period of nearly twenty-five years, one can perceive the intellectual -growth of an American statesman, who had not been taken suddenly from -private pursuits to fill an important public position, but who had been -trained by the regular gradations of office for the affairs of -government. To have a constituency who can appreciate the value of such -a training, and can support a public servant in the devotion of his time -and abilities to the public service, is a great advantage. This -advantage Mr. Buchanan had enjoyed for twenty-five years, and he had -well repaid the devotion of his friends. The people of Pennsylvania had -but once in twenty years swerved from the party in which Mr. Buchanan -was a distinguished leader, and they had now returned to it. His -experience, his aptitude for public life, his solid, though not -brilliant abilities, and the weight of the great State which had kept -him in the Senate, marked him as the fittest person to be at the head of -Mr. Polk’s cabinet. Mr. Polk, however, while conscious of the propriety -of offering this position to Mr. Buchanan, and while he felt the need of -his services, seems to have had a fear lest his administration might be -disturbed by Mr. Buchanan’s ambition to become his successor. He took -the somewhat singular step of asking from Mr. Buchanan a promise that he -would retire from the cabinet, if he should be a candidate for the -Presidency in 1848. There is no good reason for attributing this to -personal jealousy of Buchanan, for Mr. Polk did not expect to become a -candidate for re-election. He was a sagacious man, who took a just view -of his own situation, he knew quite well that he had become President -because the conflicting claims of others had rendered it necessary to -compromise upon an unexpected and far from conspicuous candidate. But he -desired, and wisely desired, to avoid all internal difficulties, by -freeing his administration from complications about the succession. -Every one will commend the spirit of the following letter, and every -one, it should seem, will commend the manner in which it was met by Mr. -Buchanan, who could hardly be expected to say that he would renounce all -idea of becoming a candidate for the Presidency in 1848, since he could -not tell what his public duty might require of him. - - [MR. POLK TO MR. BUCHANAN.] - - WASHINGTON CITY, February 17, 1845. - -SIR:— - -The principles and policy which will be observed and maintained during -my administration are embodied in the resolutions adopted by the -Democratic National Convention of delegates, assembled at Baltimore in -Maryland, and in the inaugural address which I propose to deliver to my -fellow-citizens on assuming the duties of President of the United -States, and which is herewith handed to you for your perusal. - -In making up my cabinet, I desire to select gentlemen who will agree -with me in opinion, and who will cordially co-operate with me in -carrying out these principles and policy. - -In my official action I will take no part between gentlemen of the -Democratic party who may become aspirants or candidates to succeed me in -the Presidential office, and desire that no member of my cabinet shall -do so. Individual preferences it is not expected or desired to limit or -restrain. It is official interference by the dispensation of public -patronage or otherwise that I desire to guard against. Should any member -of my cabinet become a candidate for the Presidency or Vice Presidency -of the United States, it will be expected upon the happening of such an -event, that he will retire from the cabinet. - -I disapprove the practice which has sometimes prevailed, of cabinet -officers absenting themselves for long periods of time from the seat of -Government and leaving the management of their department to chief -clerks; or other less responsible persons than themselves. I expect -myself to remain constantly at Washington, unless it may be that no -public duty requires my presence, when I may be occasionally absent, but -then only for a short time. It is by conforming to this rule that the -President and his cabinet can have any assurance that absences will be -prevented, and that the subordinate executive officers connected with -them respectively will faithfully perform their duty. - -If sir, you concur with me in these opinions and views, I shall be -pleased to have your assistance in my administration, as a member of my -cabinet, and now tender to you the office of Secretary of State, and -invite you to take charge of that department. - - I am, with great respect, your obedient servant, - - JAMES K. POLK. - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO MR. POLK.] - - WASHINGTON, February 18, 1845. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I feel greatly honored by your kind invitation to accept the station of -Secretary of State in your cabinet; and I cheerfully and cordially -approve the terms on which this offer has been made, as they have been -presented in your note of yesterday. To prevent, however, any possible -misunderstanding between us hereafter, I desire to make an explanation -in regard to that portion of your letter which requires that any member -of your cabinet shall retire upon becoming a candidate for the -Presidency. - -Before I had anticipated that you would do me the honor of inviting me -to a seat in your cabinet, I had publicly presented my views on the -subject of agitating the question of the next Presidency in the -strongest colors. Both patriotism and policy, the success of the party -as well as that of your administration, require that we should have -repose from the strife of making Presidents. I am, therefore, utterly -opposed to the agitation of this question in any shape or form, and -shall exercise any influence which I may possess to prevent it, both in -regard to myself and others. Nay, more, I think the welfare of your -administration requires that in every prudent and appropriate manner -this principle should be maintained by it; and the patronage of the -Government ought to be dispensed, not to favor any individual aspirant, -but solely for the good of the country and the Democratic party. - -I do not know that I shall ever desire to be a candidate for the -Presidency. Most certainly I never yet strongly felt such an -inclination; and I have been willing, and should at this moment be -willing, to accept a station which would, in my estimation of what is -proper, deprive me of any prospect of reaching that office. Still, I -could not, and would not, accept the high and honorable office to which -you have called me, at the expense of self-ostracism. My friends would -unanimously condemn me were I to pursue this course. I cannot proclaim -to the world that in no contingency shall I be a candidate for the -Presidency in 1848; nor in the meantime can I be held responsible for -the action of occasional county meetings, in my own or other States, -preceding general elections, which, without my previous knowledge or -consent, might present my name in connection with this office. I can -answer for myself that as I have never yet raised a finger or stirred a -step, towards the attainment of this station; so I never shall make any -personal exertions for that purpose without your express permission, so -long as I remain a member of your cabinet. If, however, unexpectedly to -myself, the people should by a State or national convention present me -as their candidate, I cannot declare in advance that I would not accede -to their wishes; but in that event I would retire from your cabinet, -unless you should desire me to remain. - -I do not deny that I would be as much pleased to accept the station of -Secretary of State from yourself as from any man living. I entertain a -strong conviction that under the controlling direction of your wisdom, -prudence and firmness, I might be useful to you in conducting the -Department of State, and I know from your established character, so far -as it is given to mortals to know anything, that our social and personal -intercourse would be of the most friendly and agreeable character. - -If under these explanations, you are willing to confer upon me the -office of Secretary of State, I shall accept it with gratitude, and -exert my best efforts to do my duty to the country and to yourself. - -With sentiments of the highest and most sincere respect, I remain. - - Your friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - ---------------------------- - -In 1858, there again came about rumors of General Jackson’s hostility to -Mr. Buchanan. The following letter written by a citizen of Nashville to -a friend, gives decisive evidence on General Jackson’s feelings towards -Mr. Buchanan, at the time when the latter became Secretary of State. - - [MR. JOHNSON TO GENERAL ANDERSON.] - - NASHVILLE, Oct. 6th, 1858. - -DEAR SIR:— - -I received your letter of the 5th inst., making inquiries of my -recollection as to the feelings entertained by General Jackson towards -Mr. Buchanan at the time of the nomination of Mr. Polk and the -appointment of Mr. Buchanan as Secretary. I do not remember to have met -General Jackson after the election of Mr. Polk, but was upon the most -intimate terms with President Polk, both before and after his election. -General Jackson was the avowed and open friend of Mr. Van Buren, and -when it was ascertained that Mr. Van Buren could not get the nomination, -he expressed himself to many friends favorable to the nomination of Mr. -Buchanan, as the true and proper course of the Democratic party, before -Mr. Polk’s name was known to be before the convention for the -Presidency. This I have heard from so many sources as to entertain no -doubt of the fact. Mr. Polk, it is well known, consulted with him freely -as to the individuals who should compose his cabinet, and the -appointment of Mr. Buchanan as Secretary of State met his decided -approbation, as did all the other individuals composing the cabinet, -excepting the Secretary of the Treasury. He had some misgivings and -apprehensions as to the propriety of the selection, as did many others -of the friends of President Polk. - -These are my recollections from the most free and unreserved intercourse -with President Polk, and my recollection now is that I have seen letters -from General Jackson to President Polk confirming substantially the -above statement. - -General Jackson was known to have strong feelings—warm towards his -friends, bitter towards his enemies—and in the exciting canvasses for -the Presidency may have used, and even written, harsh expressions about -many prominent friends of his own, founded upon _perversions_ and -_misrepresentations_ of their conduct by those toadies with whom he was -beset, and often deceived by them as to the conduct and expressions of -leading and prominent men in the Democratic party, and by none of them -so often as by —— and ——, who never deserved his confidence or merited -the favors bestowed on them. - -The General, however, never hesitated to do justice to any man when the -truth was ascertained as to his conduct. - -From the whole of my intercourse with General Jackson and Mr. Polk, -after the second election of General Jackson, I never had reason to -suppose that he ever had any unkind feelings toward Mr. Buchanan. On the -contrary, Mr. Buchanan was considered in the Senate one among his most -active and confidential friends, as President Polk was in the House of -Representatives. - -Mr. Polk, or Buchanan, could neither be used nor controlled by such men -as —— and ——, and hence their hostility to them after the second -election of General Jackson, which was manifested in various ways which -I could specify. - - I am, very respectfully, your friend, - - E. JOHNSON. - ------ - -Footnote 89: - - Mr. Upshur was killed by the explosion on board the Princeton, in - February, 1844. See _ante_, p. 521. - -Footnote 90: - - Congressional Globe, Vol. 14, pp. 240, 271, 362. The resolutions may - be found at page 332. - ------ - - - - - CHAPTER XX. - 1845–1846. - -THE OREGON CONTROVERSY—DANGER OF A WAR WITH ENGLAND—NEGOTIATION FOR A - SETTLEMENT OF THE BOUNDARY—PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE. - - -Among the subjects involved in the foreign relations of the country, -when Mr. Buchanan became Secretary of State, and which demanded his -immediate attention, one of the most important and critical was the -title to the territory of Oregon, that had long been in dispute between -Great Britain and the United States. The northern boundary of this -region of country, which should have separated British America west of -the Rocky Mountains from the dominion of the United States, had not been -settled by the treaty negotiated at Washington between the two powers in -1842, because Lord Ashburton had no instructions to deal with it. As far -back as the administration of President Monroe, an extension of the 49th -parallel of latitude to the Pacific, as the boundary, was offered by the -United States to England, but it was declined. The British claim was -founded on the assertion that the title of the United States, which was -derived through the Louisiana and Florida treaties, was not exclusive as -to any part of the territory; and since it was for the interest of the -Hudson Bay Company to follow the Columbia River to the ocean, and since -the English asserted an actual and previous occupation as well as the -Americans, it became desirable for England to have a right of joint -occupation established, until the boundary between the two national -possessions should be finally settled. A convention was entered into in -1827, establishing such a joint occupation until notice of its -termination should be given by either of the two powers. This concession -on the part of the United States, made in the interest of peace, left an -open question between the two governments, both claiming the whole -territory. But what was “the whole” of Oregon? On the American side of -the controversy, the region claimed extended to a line that would be -marked by the parallel of 54° 40′ north latitude. This would have -carried the American title on the Pacific coast far above the Strait of -Fuca and Vancouver’s Island, and would have made an irregular boundary, -not coinciding in latitude with the northern boundary of the United -States east of the Rocky Mountains. On the other hand, the claim of -England brought her down to the mouth of the Columbia River, which has -its source nearly at the 50th parallel, and flows in a circuitous course -of about eight hundred miles, first to the south, and then to the west, -until it reaches the Pacific. The joint occupation agreed upon in 1827, -had become inconvenient, and indeed dangerous for both nations. A very -uneasy feeling sprang up in our Western States and among the settlers -who were pushing into this territory, and who looked to the United -States for titles to the land, and for the protection due from the -sovereign power. Popular opinion about our right was not likely to be -founded in intelligent investigation, but it was sure to find its way -into the political action of the Democratic party. The political body -which nominated Mr. Polk as its candidate for the Presidency, proclaimed -our title to be “clear and unquestionable.” Mr. Polk considered himself -as elected under an imperative popular instruction to assert this claim, -and in his inaugural address he put it forth in very strong terms as -extending to the parallel of 54° 40′. This was the attitude of the -matter when Mr. Buchanan became Secretary of State. - -Notwithstanding the strong personal convictions of the President and the -Secretary of State of the validity of this claim as it was asserted in -Mr. Polk’s inaugural address, deference for the action of former -administrations and a desire to avoid a rupture with England, led the -President to authorize Mr. Buchanan to offer the 49th parallel as the -boundary. This offer was made to Mr. Pakenham, the British Minister at -Washington, on the 10th of July, 1845. Without referring this offer to -his own government and awaiting instructions, Mr. Pakenham replied on -the 30th of July, that “after this exposition of the views entertained -by the British government respecting the relative value and importance -of the British and American claims, the American Plenipotentiary will -not be surprised to hear that the undersigned does not feel at liberty -to accept the proposal offered by the American Plenipotentiary for the -settlement of the question.” He closed his note by expressing his “trust -that the American Plenipotentiary will be prepared to offer some further -proposal for the settlement of the Oregon question, more consistent with -fairness and equity, and with the reasonable expectations of the British -government.” These were very unfortunate expressions, since they -implied, under the circumstances, that the American Government had begun -the negotiation by asserting a claim that was untenable, and had -followed its assertion with an unfair and inequitable offer. Had this -language of the British plenipotentiary become public at that moment, -the consequences would have been an uncontrollable excitement throughout -this country. Careful, however, to keep open the door for mutual -concessions, Mr. Buchanan, before he answered Mr. Pakenham’s note, wrote -to Mr. McLane, who had succeeded Mr. Everett as United States Minister -in London, an elaborate despatch, tracing the diplomatic history of the -Oregon question, and suggesting, with much skill, the modes in which an -unfortunate result might be avoided. Indefatigably industrious, and -employing no pen but his own, he gave to his official papers a polish, -the marks of which remain on the original drafts, attesting the extreme -care that he bestowed upon them. Mr. McLane was instructed to make known -the contents of this despatch to the British ministry, in case they made -inquiries of him. - -The offer of the 49th parallel having been withdrawn, Mr. Buchanan, on -the 30th of August, addressed a note to Mr. Pakenham, in which he -reasserted the American claim to what he regarded as “the whole of -Oregon,” and made an elaborate and exhaustive exposition of its grounds. -There are few papers on the diplomatic records of our Government more -able and searching than this exposition of the American claim to the -territory of Oregon. Thoroughly master of his subject, and fully -convinced of the validity of the claim which he was asserting, Mr. -Buchanan wrote this paper with a dignified force that was not unlikely -to command the assent of impartial persons, when the document should -become public. Writing to Mr. McLane afterwards, he said: “this note of -Mr. Pakenham (July 30th) became the subject of grave deliberation by the -President. Upon a full consideration of the whole question, and after -waiting a month, he deemed it to be a duty which he owed to his country -to withdraw his proposition (of the 49th parallel), which he had -submitted, and to maintain the right of the United States to the whole -of Oregon. This was done by my note to Mr. Pakenham of the 30th of -August last.” - -But the note of August 30th could not become public while the -negotiation was pending, or before the meeting of Congress in December. -In the mean time, Mr. Pakenham endeavored to have the American offer of -the 49th parallel restored. “Judging from late conversations with Mr. -Pakenham,” Mr. Buchanan again writes to Mr. McLane, “he is now anxious -that this withdrawal should be withdrawn, and that the negotiation might -proceed as if our offer were still in force. But the President will not -consent to change his position and to recall what has already been done. -He will not renew his former offer, nor submit any new proposition; and -it must remain for the British government to decide what other or -further steps, if any, they may think proper to take in the negotiation. -The President has adopted this determination after two cabinet councils, -and he deems it necessary that this should be communicated to you, in -order that you may clearly understand his purpose.” - -The correspondence was submitted by the President to Congress, in -December (1845), and its publication was immediately followed in this -country by a considerable change of feeling in those quarters where the -course of the administration was watched with most jealousy, and where -war was most dreaded. In the House of Representatives, where the war -feeling of the Northwest found expression, some violent speeches were -made. In the Senate there was a moderate tone, but steps were taken -looking to the termination of the joint occupation, and to an inquiry -into the state of the national defences. These movements had an ominous -appearance. In the diplomatic department, however, the negotiation went -on quietly. - -On the 23d of December, Mr. Buchanan made the following brief minute of -a cabinet consultation held on that day, at which the President said: - -If Mr. Pakenham inquires if a new proposition made by them would be -respectfully considered, I would refer him to the correspondence—your -last note of the 30th August, and say it has been at your option, with a -perfect liberty to propose any proposition you thought proper, and you -had no reason to conclude from what had occurred here that the -Government would not have treated such a proposition with respectful -consideration when made. You have made no new proposition, and the -question, therefore, stands on its present attitude. - -December 23, 1845.—I took down the foregoing from the lips of the -President, in the presence of the cabinet. - -Four days afterward an interview took place at the State Department, of -which I find the following account in Mr. Buchanan’s hand-writing: - -On Saturday afternoon, 27th of December, 1845, Mr. Pakenham called at -the Department of State. After some brief preliminary conversation on -other topics, he informed me that he had received instructions from his -government relative to the Oregon question; without at the time -informing me what they were. He then proceeded to express his desire -that I should recall the withdrawal of our offer to settle the Oregon -question by the 49th parallel of latitude, and suffer the negotiation to -proceed on that basis, expressing the belief that it might then result -in a satisfactory manner. I informed him that he had made one -proposition to Mr. Calhoun, which had been rejected; that I had made a -proposition which had been rejected by him and then withdrawn; that the -whole negotiation had been submitted to Congress with the President’s -message; and after all this, it was too late to expect that the -President would now retrace his steps. That what had been done must be -considered as done. - -He then said that if he were now to make a new proposition, he had no -means of knowing whether it would be accepted: if he made a proposition -it might be rejected. - -I replied that the whole field was open to him, as it had been in the -beginning; that it was as free to him as it had been to him at first, or -was to me afterwards, to make any proposition he thought proper; that -all I could say was that any proposition he might make would be -respectfully considered by the President; but I said no more. - -He then observed that as I was not willing to go further (as I -understood him), he would, under his instructions, present me the offer -of the British government to arbitrate the question. He said it was -drawn up chiefly in the very language of Lord Aberdeen. - -I then received the communication from him, and read it over carefully. -As soon as I had completed its perusal, he urged its acceptance -strongly; expressed his great desire for the preservation of peace -between the two countries, and said that it was impossible that war -should grow out of such a question between two great nations. He said he -was not worth much in the world; but would give half what he was worth -to see the question honorably and amicably adjusted between the two -nations. - -I stated the strong desire, both on the part of the President and -myself, that the question might be amicably and honorably adjusted. That -we had every disposition that this result might be attained. I observed, -however, that if ever this was accomplished, I thought it must be by -negotiation, and not by arbitration; and especially such an arbitration -as he proposed. That both the President and myself were firmly convinced -of the validity of our title up to 54° 40´; and yet his proposition to -arbitrate assumed the right to a portion of the territory on the part of -Great Britain, and left it to the arbitrator alone to decide in what -manner the territory should be divided between the parties. That this -alone, I thought, would be a sufficient reason for the rejection of his -proposition, even if others did not exist, of which he must be aware -from our previous conversations on the subject; but I would consult the -President, and give him an answer with as little delay as possible. He -intimated rather than expressed a wish that his answer might be -communicated to him in time for the packet (Monday). I told him that a -proper respect for the British government required that the answer -should be well considered; that the cabinet would not meet again before -Tuesday, and I could not encourage him to expect the answer before -Saturday next. He said he had no doubt my answer would be well -considered. He hoped that in it I would not assert a claim to the whole -territory, and Saturday next would be in time. - -He then branched off, and said that the proposition was to refer the -question to a state as well as a sovereign; he said that this had been -done on purpose to get clear of the objection to crowned heads. I asked -him to whom he thought it might be referred if not to a sovereign. He -suggested the Republic of Switzerland, or the government of Hamburg or -Bremen. I told him that whilst my own inclinations were strongly against -arbitration; if I were compelled to select an arbitrator, it would be -the Pope. That both nations were heretics, and the Pope would be -impartial. This he appeared at first to take seriously,—he said the Pope -was a temporal sovereign; but I thought he was disinclined to select him -as an arbitrator. He perceived, however, that I was not in earnest, and -suggested that the reference might be made to commissioners from both -countries. I told him I thought it was vain to think of arbitration; -because, even if the President were agreed to it, which I felt pretty -certain he was not, no such treaty could pass the Senate. That the -pursuit of arbitration would only involve the question in new -difficulties. He then suggested the mediation of a third power in the -adjustment of the question. I told him that was an idea which he had -never suggested before, and on which I could say nothing. He observed -that this, together with his suggestion of commissioners, came from -himself and had not been embraced in his instructions. He said that a -mediator who would interfere might share the fate of the man who -interfered between two other men who were fighting, when both fell upon -him and gave him a sound drubbing. - -He remarked that the affair might remain just where it was, and the -British government would not disturb it. He did not entertain serious -apprehensions of war. - -He then told me that he had met Judge Douglas at Mr. Cox’s party the -other evening, and had a good deal of conversation with him about his -bill. - -He objected to a promise of a grant of lands to actual settlers in -Oregon, and to the erection of forts by the Government within it, as -violations of the treaty. I told him I had formed no decided opinion as -to the promise of grants of land; but as to the forts, it was very -clear, in my opinion, that we had a right to erect them. We did not -purpose to erect fortifications capable of enduring a siege in civilized -warfare; but merely stockade forts to protect our emigrants from the -savages. That the Hudson’s Bay Company had erected many such forts, and -we surely had the right under the treaty to do what they had done. He -observed that the settlers might do this themselves as the Company had -done. I replied that they were too poor; that this Company had the -entire government in its hands; and surely we might do what they had -done. I observed that this was ever the way with Great Britain, she was -always fettered by monopolies; and if it were not for the Company they -would at once give us our rights to the whole country up to 54° 40′. He -said that the Hudson’s Bay Company had rights in Oregon which must be -protected; but I understood him to admit that they did interpose an -obstacle in the way of the settlement of the question. He said the -British government would be glad to get clear of the question on almost -any terms; that they did not care if the arbitrator should award the -whole territory to us. They would yield it without a murmur. I said I -had no doubt of this. They never played the part of the fox: but always -of the lion. They would preserve their faith inviolate. He said they -wished for peace; but intimated that this was not our wish. I asked him -why we should desire war. Would not their superiority at sea give them -command of the coasts of Oregon. Yes, he said, that was true, but the -war would not be confined to that region. That he would willingly make a -bargain to fight it out with us there, if we would agree to that. - -On the 26th of February (1846), Mr. Buchanan addressed an elaborate -official despatch to Mr. McLane, explaining fully the reasons which had -led the President to decline to make the boundary of Oregon a subject of -arbitration, and suggesting what it would be practicable for the -President to agree upon, if proposed by the British government. Mr. -McLane was authorized to make known to Lord Aberdeen the contents of -this despatch; and between its date and the 1st of June, Sir Robert -Peel’s government determined to send to Washington the project of a -convention which is described in a despatch addressed to Mr. J. Randolph -Clay on the 13th of June, and which is given below. The despatch of -February 26th, to Mr. McLane, was accompanied by a private letter of the -same date. On the 6th of June, another private letter to Mr. McLane -informed him of the President’s purpose to submit Lord Aberdeen’s -project to the Senate, and the despatch of June 13th to Mr. Clay gives -the result. - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO HON. LOUIS McLANE.] - - WASHINGTON, Feb. 26, 1845. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -The brief space left to me before the departure of our messenger to -Boston shall be devoted to writing you a private letter...... By my -despatch you will be made distinctly acquainted with the ground which -the President has determined to maintain on the Oregon question; and I -do not perceive, after what has passed, how he could do more than submit -a British proposition, based on the parallel of 49°, to the Senate. From -all I can learn, there is not the least doubt but that either of the two -propositions specified in my despatch would receive the previous -sanction of a constitutional majority of that body. I say the previous -sanction, for reasons which I have not the time to give you. All that I -apprehend is, that the British government, in their offer, may insist on -the perpetual free navigation of the Columbia. This would indeed be -truly embarrassing; and all your diplomacy should be exerted to prevent -it. The President would not present such a proposition to the Senate, -unless he should greatly change his mind; and if he should, I do not -believe that two-thirds of that body would give it their sanction. - -I am convinced that the Oregon question is rapidly reaching that point -when it must, if ever, be peaceably settled. Although what I have said -to you of the present disposition of the Senate is strictly true, it is -uncertain how long this may continue. Public opinion on this subject is -far in advance of Congress. I am convinced that if the question should -remain open until the Congressional elections next fall, this would be -clearly evinced...... In Great Britain they form their judgment of -popular opinion from what they read in the newspapers, chiefly Whig, of -our large commercial cities. This you know to be a mistake. The -commercial interest which, in a great degree controls these papers, has -a direct interest in the preservation of peace, and especially with -Great Britain. The strong and irresistible public opinion throughout the -vast interior of our country, which controls the action of the -Government, is but little, if at all, affected by the considerations -which influence the mercantile community. General Cass and Mr. Allen, -who are both candidates for popular favor, the one immediately and the -other prospectively, will not consent to accept the parallel of 49°. The -two Senators from Indiana, the two from Illinois, and one from Missouri -(not Colonel Benton), occupy the same ground. - -Mr. Calhoun, from a variety of circumstances, came to the Senate with a -flush of popularity, which might have rendered him highly useful, both -to himself and to his country; but, already, it is nearly all gone. He -at once took open and bold ground against the notice, and propagated his -opinions with that degree of zeal which belongs to his character. He -succeeded in inducing a small number of Democrats in the House, chiefly -Virginians, to vote against the notice; and such is now the weight of -public opinion in its favor, that it is said he would vote for it -himself, but for the awkward dilemma in which this would place his -friends in the House. The truth is, that the discreet friends of peace -clearly perceive that the question must be settled peaceably within the -year, or war may be the consequence. In some form or other it will pass -the Senate by a large majority; and many anticipate an almost unanimous -vote. I do not believe this. I have always liked Mr. Calhoun very much, -and am truly sorry that he did not adopt a wiser course. He must have -been the great man of our party in the Senate. Colonel Benton’s conduct -and speech on the Oregon question are entitled to warm commendation. -Your son Robert is winning laurels for himself in the Maryland -legislature. He is indeed a fine fellow, and a worthy chip of the old -block. - -I have for years been anxious to obtain a seat on the bench of the -Supreme Court. This has been several times within my power; but -circumstances have always prevented me from accepting the offered boon. -I cannot desert the President, at the present moment, against his -protestations. If the Oregon question should not be speedily settled, -the vacancy must be filled; and then farewell to my wishes. - -...... Please to remember me in the kindest terms to Mrs. McLane, and -believe me, as ever, to be, sincerely and respectfully, - - Your friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - [BUCHANAN TO McLANE.] - - (Private and Confidential.) WASHINGTON, June 6, 1846. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I have but little time to scribble you a private letter before the -closing of the mail to go by the Great Britain. - -The President has determined to submit Lord Aberdeen’s project to the -Senate. He had no alternative, as you know, between this and its -absolute rejection. - -The proviso to the first article would seem to render it questionable -whether both parties would have the right to navigate the Strait of -Fuca, as an arm of the sea, north of the parallel of 49°; neither does -it provide that the line shall pass through the Canal de Arro, as stated -in your despatch. This would probably be the fair construction. - -The article relating to the possessions of British occupants south of -49° is vague and indefinite; and in order to prevent disputes between -the two governments hereafter, as to the extent of these possessions, it -would seem to be a prudent precaution to provide some means of -ascertaining the rights of these occupants respectively. There is no -reciprocal provision in the treaty for American settlers north of 49°. -There may be none there; but yet such a provision would give the -convention a fairer appearance. - -The right of the Hudson’s Bay Company to the navigation of the Columbia -presents the important difficulty. It is considered doubtful by the -President and several members of the cabinet whether under the terms of -the projet this right would not expire upon the termination of the -existing charter of that company in 1859. - -The President’s message will reiterate the opinions expressed in his -annual message in favor of our title to 54° 40´; but in consideration of -and in deference to the contrary opinions expressed by the Senate, his -constitutional advisers, he submits the projet to them for their -previous advice. He may probably suggest some modifications. - -What the Senate may do in the premises is uncertain. There undoubtedly -is in that body a constitutional majority in favor of settling the -question on the parallel of 49° to the Straits of Fuca. The question of -the perpetual navigation of the Columbia is and ought to be the point of -difficulty. Should the Senate modify this article so as to limit the -right to the termination of the existing charter of the Hudson’s Bay -Company, I can scarcely suppose that the modification would be rejected -by the British government. - -I sincerely hope that you may not think of leaving London until the -question shall be finally settled; and I am happy to learn from Robert -that your continuance in London will not be prejudicial to your private -interest at home. - -With my kindest respects to Mrs. McLane, I remain sincerely and -respectfully your friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO JOHN RANDOLPH CLAY, ESQ.] - - No. 2. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,} - WASHINGTON, } - -SIR:— - -The Oregon question may now be considered as settled. On the 6th instant -Mr. Pakenham presented to me the project of a convention for its -adjustment: and the President, after mature deliberation, determined, in -pursuance of several precedents adopted in the early history of our -Government, to submit it to the Senate for their previous advice. This -was done by a confidential message on the 10th instant, of which I -transmit you a copy. - -On the 12th instant the Senate adopted a resolution by a vote of 37 to -12, of which the following is a copy: - -“Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring) that the -President of the United States be, and he is hereby, advised to accept -the proposal of the British government accompanying his message to the -Senate, dated 10th June, 1846, for a convention to settle boundaries, -etc., between the United States and Great Britain, west of the Rocky or -Stony Mountains.” - -The convention will be signed by the plenipotentiaries on Monday next: -and in the course of the next week will doubtless be ratified by and -with the advice and consent of the Senate. - -The terms are, an extension of the 49th parallel of latitude to the -middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver’s -Island, thence along the middle of this channel and the Strait of Fuca, -so as to surrender the whole of that island to Great Britain. - -The navigation of the Columbia is conceded, not to British subjects -generally, but to the Hudson’s Bay Company and those trading with it. To -this concession there is no express limitation of time; but it was -believed by the Senate, that under the true construction of the projet -this grant will expire on the 30th May, 1859, the date of the -termination of the existing license to that Company, to trade with the -Indians, etc., on the North-west Coast of America. - -I need not enumerate the other less important particulars. - - I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - -While in December 1845 many political friends and opponents in all parts -of the country were reading with approbation the correspondence on the -Oregon question, so far as it had been published, an approbation which -appears from a great multitude of private letters addressed to Mr. -Buchanan, he thus wrote confidentially to Mr. McLane: - -“I should this day [December 13th] have been on the bench of the Supreme -Court, had it not been for the critical state of our foreign relations. -I very much desired the position, because it would have enabled me to -spend the remainder of my days in peace. I have now been on the stormy -deep nearly a quarter of a century. Besides, I sincerely wished, if -possible, to prevent my name being even mentioned in connection with the -next Presidency.” - -The vacancy on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States was -occasioned by the death of Mr. Justice Baldwin. According to an -invariable custom the appointment should be made from the Pennsylvania -circuit. There were persons who desired, not without a mixture of -motives, that Mr. Buchanan might receive it; for his transfer to the -bench would, it was assumed, bring into the Department of State a -gentleman whose friends were exceedingly anxious to have him in that -position. Others wished Buchanan to be out of the cabinet, without much -reference to the question of who was to be his successor. There came -about a kind of intrigue, to produce a public belief that he was to be -appointed a judge, in order that it might be considered as a foregone -conclusion and appear to be called for by the general voice. Some of Mr. -Buchanan’s friends, of both political parties, believing that he had -eminent qualifications for the judicial office, urged him to accept the -offer, if it should be made to him; others, who had just as strong -convictions that he would be a great acquisition to the bench, were not -willing to have him retire from political life, and were earnestly -opposed to his leaving the Department of State at that time. The great -body of the discreet friends of the administration took the same view. -The matter was kept open for a long time, and meanwhile Mr. Buchanan, -uncertain of his own future, had to go on and manage the foreign -relations of the country, in which, besides the Oregon question, the -state of things consequent upon the proposed annexation of Texas and the -other difficulties with Mexico, of which I shall treat hereafter, became -extremely perplexing. That he would have preferred the safe retirement -of the bench to anything that political office could give him, and that -he would have renounced all further connection with politics if he had -received this appointment, cannot be doubted. Having had occasion thus -far to estimate the qualities of his mind and character, I may here -express the opinion, that he would have been a highly useful and -distinguished judge. If this change in the course of his life had taken -place, he would never have become President of the United States, and -his biography, if written, would have been only that of a man who had -been very eminent in political life to the age of forty-six, and had -then passed the remainder of his days in the tranquillity of a judicial -career, giving more or less proof of the versatility of his powers. He -believed that it would be a gain of happiness to escape from the stormy -conflicts of the political sphere. But public men can rarely do more -than “rough-hew their ends;” to entirely “shape” them is not given to -mortals. The following interesting letters from his friend King give, by -reflex, all that can now be known concerning his feelings in regard to -this disappointment:[91] - - [HON. WM. R. KING TO MR. BUCHANAN.] - - PARIS, January 25, 1846. - -DEAR BUCHANAN:— - -Your friendly letter gave me both pleasure and pain. Pleasure, in the -renewed assurance of your friendship; and pain, to perceive that the -course of the President towards you has not been entirely characterized -by that delicacy and confidence which is certainly due to your position, -and to the important services you have rendered to him and the country. -Let me entreat you, however, to act with great deliberation and -prudence. Do not suffer yourself to be operated upon by professing, or -even by real friends, to act hastily. I am not of the opinion that any -slight was intended by the President. He no doubt gave the true reason -for having nominated Judge —— without consulting you, as he knew you -were opposed to his selection.[92] It is not, I think, of sufficient -importance to produce a quarrel; and the President must be too well -aware of the strength you give to his administration to desire your -withdrawal. Your doing so at this most important juncture would be to -give the staff into the hands of your enemies; who would desire nothing -better to prostrate you with. Your able correspondence with Pakenham has -justly turned the eyes of the country towards you as a talented and safe -helmsman to guide the ship of State. This your enemies know and feel. Do -not, I again entreat you, by your own act, aid them to defeat your -future prospects. Probably I have dwelt more on this matter than it -merits; if so, I feel assured you will attribute it to the true motive, -my anxiety to see you elevated to a station you are so well qualified to -fill, with honor to yourself and advantage to the country.... - - [KING TO BUCHANAN.] - - PARIS, February 28, 1846. - -MY DEAR FRIEND:— - -I read your kind letter attentively, and then committed it to the -flames, as you requested. The refusal of the President to place you on -the Bench of the Supreme Court, after you had manifested a willingness -to accept of the situation, surprises me greatly. I had supposed, -independent of a desire to gratify you, to whom he owes so much, he -would have seized with avidity on the opportunity thus afforded him to -get freed from the importunities of persons of doubtful qualification, -none of whom could venture to complain of your being preferred to him. I -have turned it over and over in my mind, to see if I could discover any -motive for his refusal other than that assigned by himself, viz., that -you were too important to his administration in the post you now occupy -to enable him to dispense with your services. If this was in truth his -sole reason, he should have frankly and unreservedly placed before you -the difficulties and embarrassments your abandonment of the State -Department would involve him in; how necessary you were to enable him to -carry on the Government successfully, and at the same time have -expressed his willingness to meet your wishes if persisted in. If such -had been his course, I know you too well to doubt for a moment but that -you would have relinquished the judgeship, and continued your invaluable -services as a member of the administration. This, however, you must -still do; you owe it to the country; you owe it to yourself. You can -form no idea of the reputation you have acquired, even in Europe, by the -able and masterly manner in which you have presented our claim to -Oregon, never before perfectly understood, either in Europe or America. -You certainly occupy at this moment, in public estimation, a more -enviable position than any other distinguished man of our country, and -your prospects for the future are brighter than those of any one I know. -Do not, I beg you, mar those prospects by abandoning your place at this -critical period of our foreign relations. Finish the work you have so -ably begun. Settle the Oregon question by an equitable compromise, and -whatever a few hot heads or selfish aspirants may say, your reputation -will rest upon a foundation broad and strong, the approval of a virtuous -and intelligent people at home, and the wise and good of every land. You -know I am no flatterer. I speak in all sincerity, and say nothing but -what is strictly true. - - [KING TO BUCHANAN.] - - PARIS, March 28th, 1846. - -DEAR BUCHANAN:— - -The last steamer brought me your very acceptable letter of the 26th -February. The publication of my correspondence with M. Guizot has been -well received by all parties in Paris, and has put at rest forever all -speculation as to the correctness of my despatch. Even M. Guizot himself -manifests a greater degree of cordiality than formerly, and made it a -point to attend a ball I gave on the 22d February, although he is not in -the habit of going to parties. I knew the course I pursued would, so far -from committing me with any one here, produce a salutary result; and it -was not taken in passion, or because I am “thin skinned.” My position -was never better than at this time with all in power here, from the king -down to the lowest official. Present me kindly to my friend, Mr. Trist, -and tender him my thanks for the interest he has manifested for me. The -postponement of the election of Senator for Alabama will, as you say, -enable me to enter the field with a fair prospect of success, and I am -free to declare that I should be truly gratified to be reinstated in the -Senate. It is possible, however, that the Governor may be operated upon -by those on the spot, who aspire to the situation, and dread my return, -to call the legislature together this spring, and before I can possibly -be present. This my friends Bagby and others should prevent. A called -session would involve unnecessary expense, without an adequate -advantage, or, in fact, any advantage whatever, so far as the public is -concerned. My arrangements are such that I cannot, with convenience, -return to the United States before the last of July. I am anxious, -however, to conform to the wishes of the President in the appointment of -my successor, and will either hasten or retard my surrender of my place, -as to him may seem best. Should he prefer to delay the appointment of my -successor until after the adjournment of Congress, I could return on -leave of absence, as he once kindly permitted me to do, and leave my -Secretary, Mr. Martin, as chargé des affaires. He is, as you know, well -qualified to discharge the duties, and on his account I should be -pleased to give to him the advantages of the position. You will confer -with the President and let me know what course will be most acceptable -to him, and I will then make my request accordingly. If a vacancy occurs -at Turin by the resignation of Wickliff, could you not lend a helping -hand to Dr. Martin? The place will not, I presume, be sought for by any -of the prominent politicians, and Martin’s information and experience -peculiarly fits him to be useful. He is, withal, very poor; and even if -my successor consented to retain him here, his condition would be -greatly altered for the worse, as with me he lives without expense. -Serve him if you can; at any rate, save us from that miserable toady ——. - -I altogether approve of the President’s refusal to submit the Oregon -question to arbitration, as proposed by the British government. The -objections enumerated by you are all sufficient, but, in addition, it -could not escape your observation that, by the terms of submission, -whether referred to a crowned head or to private individuals, the result -would, in all probability, have been to deprive us of all the country -north of the Columbia, simply upon the ground that actual possession -should not be disturbed. Information on which I can rely convinces me -that Lord Aberdeen, when he directed the offer to be made, did not -expect it to be accepted. His object was, first, to induce the European -governments to believe that they were anxious to settle the question -upon just terms, and, secondly, to gain time, as they calculated on Sir -Robert Peel’s measure inducing the American people to force their -Government to give way on the Oregon question that they may receive the -advantages it holds out to them.[93] I know the calculation is -altogether erroneous, and that, as you say, the people are ahead of the -Government on the question. Still, such is the impression made in -England by Pakenham’s despatches, the speeches of some of our prominent -men, and the tone of our opposition press generally. I have my doubts -whether Pakenham is as yet instructed to make a proposition for a -compromise, but it will be made; and will, I think, be such as we should -not hesitate to accept, unless the perpetual navigation of the Columbia -is insisted upon. This I would not grant without an equivalent in the -navigation of the St. Lawrence; but there seems to be a propriety in -allowing the use of the river for a term of years, not to exceed ten, to -enable the Northwest Fur Company gradually to withdraw an interest which -has grown up under the treaty of joint occupancy. The President will -certainly act with prudence by submitting the proposition, whatever it -may be (unless altogether inadmissible), to the Senate, for the advice -in advance of that body. Cass, Allen and Company will find that no -political capital can be made by arraying themselves against an -arrangement which makes the 49th parallel the boundary, but yielding the -whole of Vancouver’s Island, and the use for a few years of the Columbia -River. The good sense of the whole country will approve of such a -settlement. I am not at all surprised to hear that Calhoun is anxious to -free himself from the odium of voting against the notice, regardless of -the dilemma in which he has involved his devoted adherents in the House. -If the Senate amends the House resolutions, my life upon it, they will -receive Calhoun’s vote; and all chivalry will exclaim: Behold the great -statesman, whose wise and prudent course has alone saved the nation from -the horrors of war. The speech of Colonel Benton was excellent, and -proves him to be a statesman indeed. Still, I do not, I am sorry to say, -approve of his opposition to an increase of our navy. If we hope to -command the respect of the powers of Europe, we must put ourselves in a -position not only to repel all aggression, but, if needs be, to act on -the offensive. They are all jealous of our rapid growth and prosperity, -and would, if they dared, unite to retard or destroy it. We should -hasten to repair our forts, build some new ones, and add to our little -navy ten or twelve war steamers. - -Such preparation, although it involves expense, would in all probability -save us millions, as it would effectually put down all attempts to wrest -the Island of Cuba from Spain, or to establish a monarchy in Mexico. I -highly approve of the views taken by Bancroft; he promises to make an -able and efficient Secretary of the Navy, and I hope he will retain his -place and give up, if he has thought of it, all idea of a foreign -mission. —— —— is here on his return home; he is no doubt an amiable -man, but weak beyond description. Such a representative at such a court -was calculated to do us a positive injury; we require to have there one -of our ablest men. Berlin is of much less importance; in truth, to keep -a minister there is scarcely worth the expense. Donalson is a good -appointment; I wish it had been for St. Petersburg. I am fully aware -that diplomatic situations are in great demand, and that the President -is worried with applications from second and even third-rate men for the -most important stations. I trust, however, that no commonplace men may -be sent to London, Paris or St. Petersburg. My residence abroad has -convinced me that the respect in which our country is held very much -depends on the character and standing of its representative; and I -greatly doubt the policy of making removals when the incumbent possesses -talent and information, and from a long residence has acquired -facilities for obtaining useful information which a new man, whatever -his ability, it may be will require years to obtain. This I know runs -counter to your theory of rotation in office; which may be correct as -respects office at home, but should not, I think, apply to those held -abroad. I once gave you my opinion of Wheaton. I see no reason to change -that opinion. He is peculiarly well qualified to represent his country -with advantage. Could he not be sent to St. Petersburg? He has grown old -in diplomacy without growing rich, and at his period of life will find -it exceedingly difficult to engage in any pursuit, other than that he -has so long followed, with a prospect of securing to his family a decent -support. I should feel truly gratified if you would bring him to the -attention of the President. I am much gratified to learn that harmony -prevails in the Cabinet; a break up would do much mischief. Retain your -place regardless of all minor annoyances. The country requires your -services to bring to a successful termination the important and delicate -question of Oregon. You have the confidence of all parties; and I -heartily believe that in the present state of things the President could -not find a man capable of supplying your place. Stay where you are, -settle the Oregon question, and great shall be your reward. Tender my -respects to my friends Sturgeon and General Cameron, also to Walker, -Mason and Benton. - - Your friend sincerely, - - WILLIAM R. KING. - -P.S.—Present me most respectfully to the President and his accomplished -lady. - - W. R. K. - - [KING TO BUCHANAN.] - - PARIS, April 30, 1846. - -DEAR BUCHANAN:— - -I thank you for your long and friendly letter. Engrossed as your time -must be by cares of State, official duties and social intercourse, I -feel flattered in having engaged so much of your attention. On the 16th -of this month Paris was thrown into a state of great excitement by an -attempt made to assassinate the king at Fontainebleau, where he had been -spending a few days with his family. Two shots were actually fired into -the _char à banc_ (an open carriage), in which he was returning from a -hunting party, in company with the queen, Madame Adelaide, and several -other members of the royal family. Fortunately, no one received the -slightest injury. The ladies were terribly frightened, but the king -showed his usual coolness and disregard of danger. The wretched assassin -was instantly seized by the attendants. He turned out to be a former -employé of the government, who, having lost his place, had brooded over -the injustice he conceived had been done him until he determined to kill -the king to revenge himself. Lecomt, for that is the name of the -miserable man, has been subjected to several examinations, but nothing -has transpired to connect him in any manner with any of the political -parties of the country. Although the _Journal des Debats_, the -semi-official paper, whatever disclosures Mr. Guizot may make, has, and -as I think, most imprudently, contended that it was political. Be that -as it may, it has certainly called forth the better feelings of the -French generally in favor of their wise, prudent and pacific old -monarch, which will add strength to his government and give permanency -to his dynasty. I hastened on his return to Paris to tender him my -congratulations on his extraordinary and most providential escape; for -Lecomt is said to be one of the best shots in France. The old man bears -a charmed life. Would it not be well for the President to address him -with his own hand a letter of congratulation at his fortunate escape -from the hands of the base assassin? It would, I know, be well received, -and in the present state of our relations with England, we should treat -France with marked courtesy. Trifles in themselves are of great -importance here. I am somewhat surprised at Lord Aberdeen’s course on -the Oregon question, especially as he has openly expressed a desire to -settle it on amicable terms. That arbitration would be rejected, he must -have known when he instructed Pakenham to make the proposition; and it -strikes me that the motive for making it was to gain time, pass their -free trade measures, and avail themselves of the effects it would have -in the United States, to obtain more favorable terms than had been -offered by us—or should negotiation fail and war ensue, they would be -able to prejudice the European governments against us by showing that -they had tendered arbitration, which was rejected. I must think, -however, that as soon as the resolutions, to give the notice to put an -end to the existing treaty, shall have passed the Senate, a proposition -for a compromise will be made; but whether it will be such as ought to -be accepted by us, is more than doubtful. My information leads me to -believe it will not be. Still it will open the door for negotiation, and -however extravagant, should not be promptly rejected, but with proposed -modifications. If Pakenham has common sense, he must long before this -have well understood that a proposition to fix the line at 49° to the -Straits; the whole of Vancouver’s Island; part of Puget Sound; the -navigation of the Columbia; with indemnity to the North West Fur -Company, would never be acceded to by us, be the consequences what they -may. Should such an extravagant offer be made, be assured Mr. P. will -have a wide margin given him for modifications; and in the end he will -settle down on Vancouver’s Island and the navigation of the Columbia for -a term of years. You already know my opinions on this subject, and -further I would not go, war or no war. Be not surprised, if the -conducting of this negotiation falls into the hands of the Whigs, unless -speedily settled. I do not think many months will pass over before Lord -John Russell will be at the head of affairs in England, and Lord -Palmerston in the Foreign Office. Now, I am not of the number who -believe that the return of the Whigs to power will throw additional -obstacles in the way of the adjustment of our difficulties, and I trust, -should the change take place, we shall have no alarm speeches from those -Senators who recently expressed such heart-felt pleasure that Lord John -had failed to form a ministry. When shall we learn prudence in our -national councils? You are, I am sorry to see, dissatisfied with your -position; and I am no less wearied with mine. Most sincerely do I wish -that we had both remained in the Senate. You, however, have much to -reconcile you to the change; having acquired increased reputation by -your able correspondence with Pakenham; nor must you on any account -abandon your post, until that affair is finally settled. The war spirit -of Cass, Allen, etc., must not deter the President from making, if -practicable, a fair compromise. In such a course he will be sustained by -the good sense of the country. When I wrote you to consult the President -relative to my return home, it was simply because I was desirous to -subject him to no inconvenience in the selection of my successor. The -state of my private affairs renders it imperative that I should be at -home in September. I can remain here until the first of that month, but -not longer; and I wish you so to inform the President. Any mode he -chooses to adopt to enable me to execute my purposes, will be perfectly -satisfactory, and my object in writing thus early, is to know what -course will be adopted, that I may make my arrangements accordingly. I -shall not fail to procure a breast-pin, or ring, or something of the -kind, and present it Mrs. Walsh in your name. It should have been done -before this, but I have been suffering from lumbago, which has confined -me to the house. I am now, however, nearly well. Poor McLane has for -many weeks been suffering severely from some affection...... He is still -in the hands of his physician, but much better. He stands deservedly -high in England, with both Whig and Tory. Lord Landsdown, who will be -the president of the council, if the Whigs get into power, was in Paris -a few days past, and spoke to me of McLane in the most exalted terms. -Catlin has, I understand, applied to Congress, to purchase his Indian -gallery. It should not be lost to our country, as it will be if Congress -refuses the purchase, for he has offers from England, which he is only -prevented from accepting by his anxious desire that his own country -should possess it. It is richly worth what he asks for it, and you would -be doing a service to a most estimable man if you would take the trouble -to enlist some of your friends in favor of the purchase. As Grund gives -up the consulate at Antwerp, why not appoint Vesey? He is honest and -capable, and withal a good and true American in all his principles. Mrs. -Ellis thanks you for your kind remembrance of her. Present my kindest -regards to the Bentons, Bagbys, Pleasontons and Beans. - - Your friend sincerely, - - WILLIAM R. KING. - -P. S.—Say to my friend, Col. Benton, that exalted as was my opinion of -his statesmanlike qualities, his courage on the Oregon question has -raised him still higher in my estimation. Richly does he deserve his -well earned popularity. But for my stiff fingers, which almost disable -me from holding my pen, I would write to him and express more fully the -respect and regard I entertain for him. I wish you would call his -attention to Catlin’s proposition to dispose of his gallery of Indian -portraits and curiosities. I do not think it should be lost to our -country. - - W. R. K. - - [KING TO BUCHANAN.] - - PARIS, July 15th, 1845. - -DEAR BUCHANAN:— - -I have this moment received your letter of the 23d June, brought out by -the Great Western. I have at once availed myself of your suggestion, and -asked officially for my recall. I hope to embark for the United States -on the 15th of September, or, at farthest, by the first of October. I am -most anxious to see you, and, as far as I have any influence, to prevail -on you to abandon all idea of the judgeship, and to continue in your -present position, where you have rendered such important services to our -country, and justly elevated yourself in the estimation of all whose -good opinion is worth having. - -As for ——, envy and vanity are his controlling passions, his praise or -his censure are alike worthless, and you should treat them with -contempt. You speak of three sections of the Democratic party in the -Senate, headed by Cass, Benton and Calhoun. Cass may have a small party -composed almost exclusively of the old followers of Benton; but I am at -a loss to understand who they are who now constitute the late Colonel’s -party. It seems to me, able general as I admit he is, that all his men -have deserted, and unless he can enlist recruits from the Whig ranks, he -must be his own standard-bearer. Calhoun’s followers are beginning to -look over the left shoulder, and even his fidus Achates, D. H. Lewis, -will very soon turn his back on him. Calhoun is politically dead. The -Oregon question and the Mexican war have already proved fatal to many -distinguished leaders, Democrat and Whig, so that you will find the -field open for the Presidency, unless you place yourself on the shelf by -accepting of the judgeship. I am much pleased to learn that the best -possible relations exist between you and the President. Use your -influence to prevent him from selecting improper persons to fill the -missions to London, Paris and St. Petersburg. They are most important -positions, and should be filled by the first men of our country, and not -by mere seekers of office, or by those who erroneously suppose that they -can enrich themselves by the outfit and salary. I speak from my own -experience when I say that no American minister can live even -respectably in Paris for less than fifteen thousand dollars a year. -Congress should look to this, and give such compensation as will enable -the country to avail itself of the services of the best qualified, who -are but too often destitute of private fortune. Mrs. Ellis still -continues to be your warm advocate for the Presidency. She requests me -to present her best respects. Mr. Martin is much pleased with diplomacy, -but has great apprehension lest he should not find his position as -Secretary altogether as desirable with my successor; and he is looking -forward with hope to an appointment as chargé des affaires, either at -Turin, or some other place. Could you not aid him? He is, as you know, -exceedingly poor, and not very provident, and an increase of salary -would be important to him. Present my best respects to my friends, the -Pleasontons, Taylors, and old associates in the Senate. - - Faithfully your friend, - - WILLIAM R. KING. - - [KING TO BUCHANAN.] - - LIVERPOOL, Oct. 1, 1847. - -DEAR BUCHANAN:— - -On the 15th of September, I presented my letters of recall, and took -leave of his Majesty, the King of the French. He was pleased to express -great regret at parting with me, and a hope that nothing had occurred -during my residence at his court which had given me dissatisfaction. I -assured him such was not the case, and that I should ever cherish -towards him and his amiable family the kindest feelings for the uniform -courtesy and cordiality he and they had manifested towards me. He -abounded in professions of friendship for myself personally, and for my -country; but Louis Philippe is full of duplicity, and professions cost -him but little. I left Paris on the 16th, and hastened to Liverpool to -embark on board the splendid iron steamer, the Great Britain. On the 22d -we took our departure. The day was fine, the wind fair, and we proceeded -on our voyage at the rate of twelve miles an hour. The passengers, 180 -persons, were all in high spirits, and flattered themselves with a short -and agreeable voyage. Most lamentably were our hopes blasted. In an evil -hour the captain determined to take the dangerous northern passage. Why, -it would be difficult to tell, as the wind was equally fair for the -southern. Night came on dark and gloomy. The breeze freshened, almost -approaching to a gale; still he kept on his way at the same rapid rate, -although he now acknowledges that he had mistaken his reckoning and was, -in fact, ignorant of his situation. A little before eleven the ship -struck on the ledge of rocks which surround Dundee Bay, north of -Ireland. The shock was indeed terrific, and the ladies, many of whom had -retired for the night, rushed from their rooms, frantic with alarm. -Among them was Mrs. Ellis. Believing that the ship must go to pieces in -a few minutes, I frankly told her her danger. To my astonishment, she -became calm and composed, and during the whole trying scene displayed -extraordinary composure. To our extraordinary speed we probably, under -Providence, owe our escape from a watery grave. The good ship cleared -the reefs and imbedded herself in the sand, where as the tide was -receding, she sunk deeper and deeper, maintaining an upright position. -Our hope now was that her great strength would enable her to resist the -waves, which thundered against her side and dashed over her lofty decks, -until the dawn of day; for should she break up in the darkness of the -night, on a rocky shore, with a heavy sea, all were convinced that few, -if any, could be saved. Long indeed appeared that terrible night, but -day at length dawned, and the tide being out, we found we were but a -short distance from the dry land. The boats were lowered. I placed Mrs. -Ellis in the first that left the ship, and saw her make the shore in -safety. My nephew and myself followed as soon as all the ladies were -landed, and joined her in a miserable cabin where she had taken refuge -from the rain. No lives were lost. I procured a conveyance for Down -Patrick, where we rested for the night. The next day we arrived at -Belfast and took the steamer for Liverpool. Being unable to procure a -passage in any of the steamships which leave in this month, I shall sail -to-morrow in the packet ship New York, with the prospect of a passage of -at least thirty days, but I trust it will be a safe one. - - Your friend sincerely, - -WILLIAM R. KING. - - [HON. RICHARD RUSH TO MR. BUCHANAN.] - - SYDENHAM, NEAR PHILADELPHIA, December 16, 1845. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -...... I have this morning been turning once more to your note of the -30th of August on the Oregon question, in answer to the British -minister’s of the 29th of July. I had, to be sure, read it on its first -appearance with the greatest attention; and it would be unjust to -withhold longer from you my poor tribute to its value. Its demonstration -of our title is so full, as to leave nothing further to be said; so -clear that our whole country can now fortunately understand it; and it -is in a spirit so fair, and in a tone of patriotism so high and just, -that every American has solid ground to feel proud of it. I rejoice that -the country has found so powerful an exponent of her rights as is -recorded in this most able state paper; and, as one of her sons formerly -striving to defend those rights abroad, gladly award to you both my -tribute and my share of the public thanks, for this comprehensive, final -and triumphant vindication of them which your pen has accomplished. - -Perhaps, in propriety and prudence, I ought here to stop. I know how -rash it generally is, in those not behind the curtain, to be venturing -opinions before those who are; yet while writing I cannot avoid adding -my belief, founded upon as much only as is known to the public, that war -is at hand. I rest on the courageous spirit of Britain, which we must -not undervalue, as it is the root of our own: and from a belief in the -stability of her resources—more than is entertained by all of our -friends. These are no reasons why we should fear her, but only for being -on the look out; and we shall all, when the extremity comes, owe you, my -dear sir, a heavy debt for making our right so manifest in the eyes of -this great nation. But Britain, I believe, has a firm conviction (such -are the different eyes with which nations look) that she has rights in -that country; and, by my estimate, she will not, as things stand, yield -them north of the Columbia, but appeal to the sword, and very -soon—unless an arbitration, or a mediation should arrest the appeal. - -I pray you to excuse these presumptuous forebodings, in which I truly -hope I may be wrong, but in the faith of which I am at present deeply -imbued; and to believe me to be, with the most unfeigned and friendly -respect, - - Yours most faithfully, - - RICHARD RUSH. - - [RUSH TO BUCHANAN.] - - SYDENHAM, near PHILADELPHIA, August 26, 1846. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I hardly know how to thank you sufficiently for your obliging favor of -the 22d instant and the documents you have so kindly sent me respecting -the Oregon negotiation. All have arrived safely, as well those by Mr. -Sword as the separate one from you by mail; and now I have in hand -everything I could wish. - -My attention was specially directed to the protocol of the 24th of -September, 1844, recording the break-up between Mr. Calhoun and Mr. -Pakenham, and I can understand the hopeless prospect it seemed to leave -to the new administration. When I used to brood over that protocol last -winter, and recall what passed in Mr. Gallatin’s negotiation in ’26 and -in mine of ’24, and weighed the long inflexibility with which England -had adhered to the Columbia as her basis; and remembered also, as I -freshly could and did, the solemnity—I have no doubt sincerity too at -that time—with which Huskisson used to tell me that he and their whole -cabinet thought _even that line_ a great concession to us, I did not see -how war was to be avoided after the President’s bold and brilliant -message when Congress opened. One of the Paris papers, the -_Constitutionnel_, speaking of the settlement of the dispute, said that -the English journals pretended that England had given to the United -States a lesson of wisdom and moderation; but they might add, said the -same paper, that “the Government of the United States, on its part, has -given to all powers in relation with England a lesson of firmness.” This -is the truth. I again own, that I did not think England would have -yielded as much as she has; and although it appears from Mr. McLane’s -communications that terms something better might have been finally -obtained, but for the Senate, history will be justified in pronouncing -the President’s course under the complications of the occasion (Mexico -and everything else) wise and advantageous for the country, and one to -draw a just fame to himself and the administration. England had got very -near to her fighting point, and the settlement marks a great epoch in -our annals—one not unlike, under some parallels that might be drawn, the -war of 1812 in its acceleration of our national character. - -The last article in the last _Edinburgh Review_, headed “Colonial -Protection,” is an argument for us touching the West India trade with -England, its principle covering full reciprocity as to our _shipping_ as -well as traffic, though the Reviewers do not utter the former word; and -now that the Whigs are in, it may be hoped that they will think so, and -that Sir Robert Peel will co-operate with them, as on the sugar -question. Sir Robert having done so much already, might now set about -pushing Lord John Russell into farther liberality! What a curious -spectacle this would present in the British parliament; yet things more -remarkable have been happening there lately, and much more so than if -they were at length to admit our tobacco almost duty free. - -I am gratefully sensible to the friendly invitation you give me to your -hospitable roof while going on with the investigation I spoke of, though -am now through your kindness supplied with sufficient materials. Whether -I shall venture upon another volume or not, I am quite undetermined. -Sometimes I feel half inclined; then again the other scale kicks the -beam. The latter is the case whenever I think of Hannah More’s comment -upon Pope, who when quoting the line from him which says the greatest -art in writing is “_to blot_,” says there is a greater—“the art _to -stop_.” - -If I live as long as my mother, who was out here this week at 86, in -good health, I shall have time to make up my mind. Excuse this flight, -as well as so long a letter, and pray believe in the friendly and -perfect respect and esteem with which I am, my dear sir, - - Sincerely yours, - - RICHARD RUSH. - -Mr. McLane, at his own request, was recalled from London after the -settlement of the Oregon question, and Mr. Bancroft, who had been -Secretary of the Navy, in October, 1846, became Mr. McLane’s successor. -The following private letters may fitly close the present chapter: - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO HON. GEO. BANCROFT.] - - WASHINGTON, October 6, 1846. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I cannot suffer you to depart from the country without saying from the -heart, God bless you! May your mission be prosperous, and Mrs. Bancroft -and yourself happy! I sorely regret that we have lost your services in -the Navy Department, and still more that we have lost your society; and -this I do, without any disparagement to your successor, whom I highly -esteem. My feelings, both in regard to Mrs. Bancroft and yourself, are -warmly entertained by Mrs. Polk, with whom I have recently held a -conversation on the subject. - -The two most important objects of your mission will be to have the -duties on tobacco diminished, and to obtain a relaxation of the present -arrangement regulating our trade with the British West Indies and -American provinces. Free trade is now the order of the day, and I am not -without hope that these objects may be accomplished. I have omitted to -instruct you on the former subject on your own suggestion. I desire that -you should enjoy all the credit of the movement. I think a despatch -embracing all the statistical and other information on the subject, with -your own views, might do both the country and yourself much good.[94] In -regard to the latter subject, I have not had sufficient time to give it -a thorough investigation. - -There is still much sickness in Washington, though not of a dangerous -character. The centre of the city, F Street and the avenue, is -comparatively healthy. Both Marcy and Mason have had intermittents,—they -were, however, at the cabinet to-day. Miss Annie[95] appears to be -entirely well, and is again as gay as a lark. Miss Clem.[96] is still -very weak, and has not yet left her chamber, unless she has done so -to-day. - -With my kindest regards for Mrs. Bancroft, I remain, as ever, sincerely -and respectfully, - - Your friend, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - - [BANCROFT TO BUCHANAN.] - - October 8, 1846. - -MY DEAR MR. BUCHANAN:— - -My heart sunk within me as I read your letter containing new evidences -of your friendship and regard; because it made me feel more sensibly how -much I lose in parting from immediate co-operation with you. Your hint -about tobacco I shall adopt, and will make it my special business to -collect all the details. On the other subject also, which is of less -immediate necessity, I propose to enter upon its consideration fully, -first, however, submitting to you the paper which I may prepare. You -must always deal with me frankly, giving me advice as freely as you -would to a younger brother. You may be sure of my acting with caution; -and I shall always aim to carry out your views in the manner that I -think will be most satisfactory to you. I shall hope to hear from you -very often privately, as well as officially. - -Your parcels came yesterday safely to me, about an hour after I wrote to -you. - -Mrs. Bancroft joins me in expression of the most cordial regard. - - Ever most truly yours, - - GEORGE BANCROFT. - - [BANCROFT TO BUCHANAN.] - - LONDON, November 3, 1846. - -MY DEAR MR. BUCHANAN:— - -I must add a line to you if it be but to remind you personally of me. -To-night I shall see a good deal of Lord Palmerston. The tone in England -is, towards us, one of respect. Public opinion is in favor of letting us -alone, and people are beginning to say that it would be a blessing to -the world if the United States would assume the tutelage of Mexico. This -country is neither in the disposition, nor in the ability, to interrupt -its friendly relations with us. The good understanding between the -British cabinet and the French is quite broken up, and they use in the -newspapers and in private very harsh language towards each other. But by -the next steamer I shall know more. - -The paper at Springfield, Mass., which I named to you for the -publication of the laws was the “_Hampden Post_,” the old Democratic -newspaper with which I fought many a hard battle against the worst sort -of malignant Whigs. - -“Give my love to Mr. Buchanan,” says Mrs. Bancroft. So give my love to -Clementina and Annie, say I, and wish them all happiness and abundant -health. I wish them good husbands and you a good wife. - - Ever faithfully yours, - - G. BANCROFT. - - [FROM MR. CALHOUN.] - - FORT HILL, August 30, 1845. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I enclose a letter to ——, the minister appointed by the Dominican -Republic to our Government, which I will thank you to have forwarded to -his address. - -He informs me that Mr. Hogan’s report will shortly be made. I hope if it -should be favorable, the administration will not fail to recognize the -independence of the republic, as soon as it can be done according to -what has been usual in such cases. St. Domingo is, perhaps, the most -fertile and best of all the West India Islands. It was lost to -civilization and commerce through the insane movements of France during -her revolution. Should the Dominican Republic sustain itself, it opens a -prospect of restoring the island again to the domains of commerce and -civilization. It may one day or another be one of the great marts for -our products. It can sustain a population of many millions. It belongs -to us to take the lead in its recognition. - -I have good reason to believe that our recognition would be acceptable -to both France and Spain...... - -I regret to learn that the prospect is so discouraging in reference to -the settlement of the Oregon question by the parties. I regard it as -very important that it should be settled. If it should not be, there is -great danger of its leading to a rupture between the two countries, -which would be equally disastrous to both. It is beyond the power of man -to trace the consequences of a war between us and England on the subject -of Oregon. All that is certain is, that she can take it and hold it -against us, as long as she has the supremacy on the ocean, and retains -her Eastern dominions. The rest is left in mystery. - -As to my going again into the Senate, I do not contemplate to return -ever again to public life. I am entirely content with the portion of the -public honors which have fallen to my share, and expect to spend the -rest of my days in retirement, in my quiet retreat near the foot of the -mountains. I find ample and agreeable occupation both of mind and body. - - With great respect, yours truly, - - J. C. CALHOUN. - - NOTE ON THE OREGON QUESTION. - -Mr. Justin McCarthy, in his “History of our own Times,” passes very -lightly over the Oregon controversy, leaving his readers to infer that -the only element of danger was the popularity which any President would -have gained by forcing England into a war. Nearly the whole of his -“history” of this question is condensed into the following sentences: -“The joint occupancy was renewed for an indefinite time; but in 1843 the -President of the United States somewhat peremptorily called for a final -settlement of the boundary. The question was eagerly taken up by -excitable politicians in the American House of Representatives. For more -than two years the Oregon question became a party cry in America. With a -large proportion of the American public, including, of course, nearly -all citizens of Irish birth or extraction, any President would have been -popular beyond measure who had forced a war on England. Calmer and wiser -counsels prevailed, however, on both sides. Lord Aberdeen, our foreign -secretary, was especially moderate and conciliatory. He offered a -compromise which was at last accepted.” - -A true understanding of any past controversy between England and the -United States is of importance in the future, not only that justice may -be done to individual statesmen, but that the methods by which war has -been averted and mutual respect and good feeling have been preserved, -may have a salutary influence in all time to come. This is the chief -value of the history of such international controversies. The truth is, -that in this Oregon matter there were undoubtedly popular tendencies in -this country, which, if they had been yielded to, might have enabled any -President to force a war upon England, if he had been disposed to have -one. But it is not true that there was anything precipitate or -peremptory in the call for a final settlement of the boundary, or that -the American Government was disposed at any time to go further in -compliance with the popular demand than it was bound to go, by a proper -regard for the rights of the country and the interests of the settlers -in the national domain, who looked to it for protection. Moreover there -was at one time quite as great a probability that a war on this question -of Oregon would find backers in England, as there was that it would be -popular in America. There were interests and passions in both countries -that had strong tendencies to provoke a war: and the war would have -occurred at a time when, to repeat the words of Mr. Webster, it “would -have kindled flames that would have burned over the whole globe.” - -When the President’s message of December, 1845, communicating to -Congress the correspondence down to that period reached England, the -British press became excessively violent and even abusive. Worse things -could not have been said of any government or people than were said of -the American nation and their rulers; and it is just as true, -historically, that a war would have been popular in England, as it was -that it would have been popular in America. In the House of Commons -there were by no means wanting strong proofs of an unnecessary -excitement. - -In estimating the causes which produced the real peril of a war, it -would not be just to overlook the loose, not to say careless, manner, in -which the negotiation was at first conducted by and through the British -minister in Washington. His rejection of Mr. Buchanan’s offer of the -49th parallel, without a reference to his own government, made in terms -that were not well considered—that were in fact scarcely respectful—put -it out of the power of the President to do anything but to reassert the -American claim, and to leave the British government to renew the -negotiation by other steps, or to take the consequences of a termination -of the joint occupancy. It is not to be questioned that Lord Aberdeen’s -subsequent course became moderate and conciliatory. But in the earlier -stages of this business, Sir Robert Peel’s ministry had on hand a most -serious domestic question. To borrow the pithy words of Mr. McCarthy -himself, used in reference to that question: “Peel came into office in -1841 to maintain the corn laws, and in 1843 he repealed them.” It was in -fact with Peel one long struggle between his former connections and the -new opinions forced upon him by the circumstances in which he was -placed; and although, in dealing with the relations between England and -this country, in the earlier part of his ministry, there were manifested -great care, prudence, and conciliation, it is quite certain that in the -later controversy about Oregon, which had not been settled by the treaty -of 1842, the British foreign office did not act at first with the same -attentive circumspection, and was not represented at Washington with -anything like the same ability and wisdom, as it was in the time of Lord -Ashburton’s special mission. And how was it that public opinion and -official persons in England were brought to a sense of the peril in -which both nations stood in 1845–6? So far as salutary influences could -be exerted on this side of the Atlantic and be felt in either country, -great merit is due to two of our statesmen, Mr. Buchanan and Mr. -Webster; the one having the duty of conducting the negotiation to a -peaceful issue; the other the duty of watching it, and of using all his -influence at home and abroad to produce caution, moderation, and a just -sense of the responsibility that would rest upon those in either country -who should unnecessarily lead the two nations into a war. - -To Mr. Buchanan the praise is due, that he conducted the negotiation -throughout with skill and firmness, with entire good temper, and without -any wish to gain for the President or himself the cheap popularity that -might have followed their propitiation of the war spirit among their -countrymen. Mr. Webster’s admonitions, uttered with his accustomed -solemnity, both on the popular platform and in the Senate, were -addressed alike to both governments and both nations; but they were -chiefly designed to affect opinion and feeling in England, and this -design was, in a considerable degree, accomplished. - ------ - -Footnote 91: - - William R. King of Alabama. He was a Senator in Congress from that - State for a period of nearly twenty-five years, from 1819 to 1844. He - resigned his seat in the Senate and accepted the mission to France, to - which he was appointed in April, 1844, by President Tyler. He was an - accomplished statesman of broad and liberal views. A strong friendship - had existed between him and Mr. Buchanan, from the time when the - latter entered the Senate. Mr. King was at first under the impression - that Mr. Buchanan had declined the judgeship, and on the 1st of - January he wrote to express his gratification that the matter had - taken this turn. But in fact the appointment was never offered. - -Footnote 92: - - This does not refer to Mr. Justice Grier, who became the successor of - Judge Baldwin. - -Footnote 93: - - This refers to the measure for free trade in corn. - -Footnote 94: - - Mr. Bancroft informs me that he subsequently advised Mr. Buchanan not - to open a negotiation for a reduction of the British taxes on tobacco, - knowing that it would be a useless effort to endeavor to persuade - England to change that part of her financial system. - -Footnote 95: - - The niece of Mrs. Madison. - -Footnote 96: - - Miss Clementina Pleasonton. - ------ - - - - - CHAPTER XXI. - 1845–1848. - -ORIGIN OF THE WAR WITH MEXICO—EFFORTS OF MR. POLK’S ADMINISTRATION TO - PREVENT IT. - - -The administration of President Polk inherited the Texas question from -the preceding administration of President Tyler. The mode in which it -was finally proposed to bring the republic of Texas into the American -Union has been already described. When Mr. Polk became President of the -United States, Texas had been for nine years practically an independent -power, with a form of government modelled on that of the United States, -with the exception of the fact that Texas consisted of a single State. -The emigration which had flowed into it from the south-western region of -the United States had made it a slaveholding country. From the time when -its independence was acknowledged by the American Government, the -question whether it should remain a separate nation, or be absorbed into -the American Union, became a very serious one. The leading men who had -gone thither, had made the revolution which claimed to have expelled, -and had practically expelled, the Mexican power; and together with the -great bulk of the inhabitants, they looked upon the United States as -their mother country. There were great difficulties attending either of -the two courses that remained open for the American Government. On the -one hand, if Texas should be left as a separate nationality, to continue -her war with Mexico, which still lingered after the battle of San -Jacinto, that war was quite certain to end in efforts of the Texans to -invade and conquer Mexico. This would have been resisted by England, and -with her aid Mexico would in turn have invaded Texas. The power of -England once introduced into Mexico, she would in all probability have -shared the fate of India. On the other hand, the introduction of Texas -into the American Union was proposed at a time when the “Abolitionists” -of the North had long been pressing forward the immediate and -unconditional abolition of slavery everywhere, by what they regarded as -“moral means,” without any consideration for the feelings or -apprehensions of the Southern people. To make a large addition to the -area of slavery by the annexation of Texas, a slaveholding State, was -regarded in the South as a necessary means of strengthening the -political power of that section against the control of the General -Government, which, it was feared, might eventually be obtained by a -sectional combination of the Northern States on questions relating to -the whole subject of slavery. It was a hazardous mode of meeting the -dangers arising from the Northern anti-slavery agitation, because it -placed the people of the South in the attitude of seeking a -preponderance of political power upon a sectional issue, at a time when -the people of the North were not seeking to obtain such a sectional -preponderance, and when there was only an apprehension that they might -do so. But at the time when President Polk succeeded to the management -of this delicate matter, it was believed by him and by many of his most -considerate Southern supporters, that the repose of both North and South -could be, and required to be, secured by an arrangement with the -executive government of Texas, before her admission into the Union, -fixing the northern boundary of slavery at the Missouri compromise line -of 36° 30´ north latitude, by extending that line westward. North of -that line and west of Missouri, it was believed that negro labor could -not be valuable, and that the negro could not encounter the climate. -These were the views entertained by Mr. Buchanan when he accepted the -position of Secretary of State; and he had reason to know that they were -the views of Mr. Polk before his election. To Mr. Buchanan the Missouri -compromise line recommended itself as a practicable mode of giving -effect to the principle of equality among the States in regard to the -common territories of the United States. - -The precise attitude of the Texas negotiation, and the relations of the -United States with Mexico, at the time when Mr. Buchanan took charge of -the State Department, must now be stated, together with some reference -to the previous history of the project of annexation. The first formal -overture of annexation came from the government of Texas, in the time of -President Van Buren, after the independence of Texas had been recognized -by the United States. Mr. Van Buren declined the proposal, because he -considered it inexpedient to open the constitutional questions involved, -and because of our friendly relations with Mexico under existing -treaties of amity and commerce. The secret treaty of annexation -negotiated by Mr. Upshur under President Tyler was rejected by the -Senate. Mr. Calhoun’s plan for bringing Texas into the Union as a State, -through the action of Congress, was arranged by him with the government -of Texas, after he became Secretary of State in March, 1844, and in the -following December this plan and the correspondence with the executive -government of Texas were submitted to Congress by President Tyler at the -opening of the session. The motive was fully disclosed. It was plainly -made known that the American executive believed that the British -government was about to interpose to cause the people of Texas to -abolish slavery in their country. This it was considered would leave the -Southwestern States of this Union on what Mr. Calhoun described as the -“exposed frontier” of a free state, into which their slaves would be -induced to escape, and from which the foreign and the American -abolitionists would be able to operate upon slavery in the domains of -those States.[97] - -The objections urged against this measure, when the resolutions for -accomplishing it were finally adopted, three days before Mr. Polk became -President, were the great extent of territory which it would add to our -dominions, the increase of slavery and slave representation, and its -tendency to produce a war with Mexico. It could not be said, however, -that under the circumstances Mexico would have a clearly just cause for -war if the annexation should be accomplished, whatever she might have -had at an earlier period. Texas was now actually independent of Mexico. -The United States had not only recognized her independence, but had made -treaties and carried on commerce with her, in entire disregard of the -claim of Mexico to the sovereignty of this revolted province. And Mexico -had during all this period made no attempt at reconquest. She had -practically acquiesced in the recognition of Texan independence by the -United States and other powers; and therefore it could not be said, -after such a lapse of time, that a new and just cause for war would -arise if Texas should be annexed to the American Union.[98] There was -undoubtedly much danger that Mexico would not regard the annexation in -this light; and, therefore, what the new Secretary of State had to do -was to conduct the whole matter, under the resolutions of Congress, so -as to preserve peace, if possible. - -His first official duty was to answer a protest addressed to the -Government of the United States by General Almonte, the Mexican minister -at Washington. Mr. Buchanan’s answer was regarded by Mr. Webster as -“mild and conciliatory.” It was, in substance, that Mexico had no right -to complain of such a transaction between independent states; that the -Government of the United States would respect all the just rights of -Mexico, and hoped to bring all pending questions with her to a fair and -friendly settlement; but that the annexation of Texas must now be -considered as a thing done. Still, a period of sixty or seventy days -must elapse before it could be known how the government of Texas had -taken the passage of the joint resolutions. At that time, there were -instalments of money due from Mexico to the United States, under an -existing treaty, to meet claims of citizens of the United States to a -large amount. These Mexico might choose to withhold; perhaps she might -decree non-intercourse with the United States; but that she would go to -war was not regarded as probable by the best informed persons at -Washington. In the meantime, Mr. Buchanan had not only to manage the -relations between the United States and Mexico, under circumstances of -great delicacy, with firmness, as well as conciliation, but also to keep -a watchful eye upon the course of England and France in reference to -this measure. It must be remembered that Mr. Buchanan had succeeded, as -Secretary of State, to the management of the Oregon question with -England, as well as to the completion of the arrangements for annexing -Texas to the United States. He was informed, both privately and -officially, by the ministers of the United States at London and Paris, -of the danger of an intervention by England and France in the affairs of -Mexico; and soon after he became Secretary of State, he had some reason -to apprehend that the settlement of the Oregon difficulty might be -delayed for the purpose of keeping open the unsettled questions in -regard to the final disposal of Texas. Mexico was at this time about to -undergo one of its many revolutions, and it might become difficult to -find an executive government with which to establish diplomatic -relations. In this posture of affairs, an interference by either France -or England, or both, might render it impracticable to carry out the -annexation of Texas to the United States, and might lead to very serious -complications. Writing from London on the 3d of March, at the moment -when the resolutions providing for the annexation of Texas had just -passed, but before they could have become known in London, Mr. McLane -said, in a private letter to Mr. Buchanan: - -“Allow me to add a word in regard to Mexico. I stated in an early -despatch that the policy here would be to keep open our difficulties -there, to await the issue of the Oregon question; and of that I have -very little doubt. But why not disappoint such calculation? Even if our -affairs with Great Britain are to end in a rupture, that result, with -proper precaution, may be postponed until the expiration of the year’s -notice. Then why not act promptly and decisively in regard to Mexico? -...... Every day is leading to machinations in Europe to interfere with -the settlement of the Mexican government.” - -On the 25th of March (1845,) Mr. Buchanan sent the following official -despatch to Mr. King, the Minister of the United States at Paris: - - [BUCHANAN TO KING.] - - DEPARTMENT OF STATE, } WASHINGTON, March 25, 1845.} - -SIR:— - -Your Despatch, No. 11, under date of the 27th ultimo, has been received -and submitted to the President. In commencing his administration, he had -confidently hoped, that the government of France was animated by the -same kind spirit towards the United States which inspires the Government -and people of this country in all their conduct towards their ancient -Revolutionary ally. This agreeable impression was made upon his mind by -the emphatic declaration of his Majesty to yourself on the 4th July -last, when speaking on the subject of the annexation of Texas to our -Union, “that in any event no steps would be taken by his government, in -the slightest degree hostile or which would give to the United States -just cause of complaint.” The President was also gratified with the -subsequent assurance of M. Guizot, given to yourself, that France had -not acted and would not act in concert with Great Britain for the -purpose of preventing annexation, but that in any course she might -pursue she would proceed independently of that power. You may then judge -of the surprise and regret of the President, when he discovered from -your last despatch, that the governments of France and Great Britain -were now acting in concert and endeavoring by a joint effort to dissuade -the government and people of Texas from giving their consent to -annexation. Nay, more, that so intimate has been their alliance to -accomplish this purpose, that even “the instructions of the French -government to its representative in Texas had been communicated to Lord -Aberdeen.” - -The people of Texas are sovereign and independent. Under Providence they -hold their destiny in their own hands. Justice to them requires that -they should have been left free to decide the question of annexation for -themselves without foreign interference and without being biassed by -foreign influence. Not a doubt exists but that the people of the two -Republics are anxious to form a re-union. Indeed, the enthusiastic -unanimity which has been displayed by the citizens of Texas in favor of -annexation is unexampled in the history of nations. Little reason then -had we to anticipate that whilst the two Republics were proceeding to -adjust the terms for accomplishing this re-union that France in concert -with Great Britain, and under the lead of that power, should interpose -her efforts and influence to paralyze and obstruct the free action of -the people of Texas, and thus place herself in an unfriendly attitude -towards the United States. - -The President leaves it to your sound discretion to decide whether you -ought not to embrace a favorable opportunity to communicate, formally or -informally, to the government of France, the painful disappointment -which he has experienced from a review of these circumstances. - - I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - -At the time when this despatch was written, the British and French -agents in Texas, in conjunction with certain of the principal officials -of that country, were making efforts to produce dissatisfaction with the -terms of annexation proposed by the American Government. The people of -Texas were by a very large proportion in favor of the annexation. The -terms offered by the United States could be made the means of preventing -it. Writing privately to Mr. Buchanan, on the 25th of April, Mr. King -said: - -...... There is scarcely any sacrifice which England would not make to -prevent Texas from coming into our possession. France is acting in -concert with her, so far as influence goes, but will stop there. She -will make no pecuniary sacrifices. I have weighed well the contents of -your last despatch, and as you give me full discretion in the matter, I -have come to the conclusion that in the present threatening state of our -relations with England, no good purpose could be effected by convicting -M. Guizot of the gross duplicity of which he has been guilty; and -especially as it is to be hoped that the question of annexation has -before this been definitely settled. The notice taken of the President’s -inaugural on the Oregon question in both Houses of Parliament has roused -up a war spirit in that country which pervades all classes, and caused -the detention of the steamer which should have left on the 4th, to take -out despatches to Mr. Pakenham. As the excitement was then at its -height, it was supposed that their instructions contained an ultimatum -which was to yield nothing beyond the Canning proposition. Should this -be the determination of that government, negotiation must cease, for to -such terms we can never accede. I am induced, however, to believe, from -conversations I have held with Mr. Ellis, now in Paris, who is connected -with the ministry, being a brother-in-law of Lord Ripon, and himself a -privy councillor, that Mr. Pakenham’s instructions will be of a -conciliatory character; and that they have great hopes of being able to -settle the matter upon fair and liberal terms. But of this you are -probably much better informed than he is. I am still of the opinion that -we should not hesitate to divide the Territory [Oregon] by fixing our -northern boundary at latitude 49°. To settle the question, I would yield -something more and take the southern shore of the Strait of Fuca, and -thus give to England the whole of Vancouver’s Island. Such a variation -of the proposition, which was rejected by Mr. Canning, would afford Sir -Robert Peel ground to stand on, and might facilitate an arrangement. I -fully understand the difficult position you occupy as regards this -question, looking to the generally received opinion that our title to -the whole of the Territory is unquestionable. - -As Mr. King, under the discretion given to him, did not think it best at -that moment to make a formal complaint of the conduct of the French -government, it became necessary for Mr. Buchanan to encounter the -intrigues of the British and French diplomatic agents in Texas to -prevent the government of that country from acceding to the proposal of -annexation. Satisfied that the people of Texas, with a very near -approach to unanimity, desired the annexation, Mr. Buchanan, with the -approbation of the President, instructed the representative of the -United States in Texas, Major Donaldson, to assure the government and -people of that republic that if they accepted the terms of annexation -offered by the joint resolutions of the American Congress, they might -rely on the United States to make fair and equitable arrangements with -them on all points not covered by those resolutions. He also despatched -to Texas other trustworthy persons, on whom he could rely, in an -unofficial character, to watch the movements of the British and French -agents, and to aid Major Donaldson in counteracting them. The Texan -Congress was not in session when the resolutions of our Congress were -received there. Whether action would be taken upon them with sufficient -promptness to prevent foreign interference from encouraging Mexico to -invade Texas, depended upon the willingness of the executive of Texas to -call that body together before its usual time of assembling. That -interference would be attempted by the English and French agents, the -American Government was well assured. That England would take the lead -in efforts to make the government and people of Texas prefer -independence to annexation to the United States, and that France would -second these efforts, there could be no doubt. There could be as little -doubt that, whatever might be the motive of either power, there could be -no solid justification for their interference between the United States -and a country which had been practically independent of Mexico for nine -years. There was no just ground on which any European power could assume -that the United States was dealing unfairly with Mexico; and it should -have been remembered that there were then pending questions between the -United States and Mexico, quite independent of this matter of Texas, -with which no foreign power could have the least right to interfere, and -which the Government of the United States might find it necessary to -settle along with the questions of Texas. Nevertheless, an intrigue was -now set on foot in Texas, by the British agent, Captain Elliott, -seconded by the French agent, M. Saligny, to induce the executive -government of Texas to accept the guarantee of England and France that -Mexico should be made to acknowledge the independence of Texas, provided -that her annexation to the United States should be refused. An offer to -make Texas independent was actually obtained from the power then ruling -in Mexico. That this was done with the knowledge and consent of the -President of Texas is true. He was, as he afterwards said, willing to -have such an offer drawn from Mexico, because he believed that it would -strengthen the cause of annexation and place it on higher grounds with -the world. The truth is that the executive government of Texas and -leading persons in that country hesitated for some time in regard to the -best course to be pursued. They listened to the representations of -Captain Elliott and postponed the call for the meeting of their Congress -at his instigation. Elliott believed that if the Texan authorities -should delay action, or even if the terms of annexation offered by the -United States should now be accepted, the consummation would be defeated -in the next session of the American Congress, and that in the meantime -England and France would come forward and guarantee the independence of -Texas. He made these representations to the President of Texas early in -May, and he and M. Saligny then left the country, without making known -whither they were going; and at about the same time it became known that -the Texan secretary of state had suddenly departed for Europe. It was -believed in Texas that Elliott had gone to the United States to confer -with some of the prominent opponents of annexation, and to bring back -proofs that the whole measure would be finally rejected by the Congress -and people of the United States. These occurrences aroused the people of -Texas to such a degree of earnestness and determination, that their -executive was compelled to call the Congress together, for the purpose -of summoning a convention to ratify the annexation and to form a State -constitution. The meeting of the Congress was fixed for the 16th of -June. When this was announced, the people of Texas in general regarded -the annexation as settled, and they turned their attention to the -subject of their new constitution.[99] - -The Texan Congress, when assembled, adopted the basis of annexation -proposed by the United States, and made provision for a convention to be -held at Austin on the 4th of July. Captain Elliott was then convinced -that further opposition would be useless. He was reported to have said: -“The hunt is up. I retire and await orders from Her Majesty.” The -annexation was ratified by the convention in the month of July. - -There were of course no United States troops in Texas at the time of -this action of its convention; but after this event it was thought best -to place a small force there, and this force was to arrive in the early -part of July. But before the convention had assembled, namely, in the -last week in June, Mexican troops were put in motion towards the Rio Del -Norte. A new election of a President was to take place in Mexico before -the close of the year. Whoever might aspire to that position would find -his chief means of success in stimulating the war feeling of the nation. -In the latter part of July, Mr. Buchanan had left Washington for a short -absence in Pennsylvania. He was recalled by the following letter from -the President, inclosing one from Mr. Bancroft, the Secretary of the -Navy: - - [PRESIDENT POLK TO MR. BUCHANAN.] - - WASHINGTON CITY, August 7, 1845. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I enclose to you a letter from Mr. Bancroft, and will add to what he has -said, that the information from Mexico comes in so authentic a shape as -to entitle it to entire credit. The strong probability is that a Mexican -army of eight or ten thousand men are now on the western borders of -Texas. Should they cross the Del Norte, as no doubt they will, our -forces at present in the country will be inadequate to resist them in -their march upon Texas. Orders will be issued to-day to increase our -forces as far as our disposable troops will enable us to do so. The -necessary despatches from your department to Major Donaldson, or (in the -event that he has left the country), to the United States Consul at -Galveston, will of course be prepared by Mr. Mason. I wish it were so, -that while these important steps were being taken, we could have the -benefit of your advice. - -Before you left you requested me to inform you, if anything should occur -which in my judgment would make it necessary for you to return earlier -than you intended. We are in daily expectation of receiving further -information from Mexico, which may, and probably will, confirm the -statement given you by Mr. Bancroft. The news of the action of the -convention of Texas was despatched from New Orleans to Vera Cruz by the -Mexican Consul on the 15th ult., and would probably be conveyed to the -city of Mexico by the 21st or 22d. Upon receiving this information, some -decisive action no doubt took place. - -In addition to these reasons, which make it very desirable to have the -benefit of your counsel, I must confess that the developments which are -taking place, as well as my daily reflections, make it, in my opinion, -more and more important that we should progress without delay in the -Oregon negotiation. You may consider me impatient on this subject. I do -not consider that I am so, but still I have a great desire, that what is -contemplated should be done as soon as it may suit your convenience. I -have felt great reluctance in saying this much, because I desired not to -interfere with your arrangements during the short recreation which you -have taken from your arduous labors. - - I am, very faithfully and truly, your friend, - - JAMES K. POLK. - -P. S.—If you determine to anticipate the period of your return to -Washington, you will see the propriety of leaving Bedford in a way to -produce no public sensation as to the cause of your departure. That it -may not be known that you leave on receiving a letter from me, I will -not place my frank on this letter. - - Yours, &c., - - J. K. P. - - [MR. BANCROFT TO MR. BUCHANAN.] - - WASHINGTON, August 7, 1845. - -MY DEAR MR. BUCHANAN:— - -You remember I told you, before you left, that Baron Gerolt[100] -predicted war on the part of Mexico. Yesterday morning, at the -President’s request, I went to see him, and found him very ready to -communicate all his intelligence, concealing only the name of his -informant, and desiring that his own name may not be used. - -His letters came by way of Havana, and Charleston, S. C., and are from -Mexico city, of the date of June 28th. He vouches for the entire -authenticity and good opportunities of information on the part of his -correspondent. - -General Arista, with three thousand men, chiefly cavalry, himself the -best cavalry officer in Mexico, had been directed to move forward -towards the Del Norte; but whether he had orders to cross the Del Norte -was not said. - -At San Louis Potosi, General Paredes, the commander-in-chief, had his -general quarters, with an army of seven thousand men. These also were -directed to move forward, in small divisions, towards the Del Norte. - -From Mexico City, General Felisola, the old woman who was with Santa -Anna in Texas, was soon to leave with three thousand men to join the -army of Paredes. - -Thus far positive information. It was stated by the baron as _his -opinion_ that Mexico would certainly consider the armistice with Texas -broken by the action of the Texas convention; that she would shun -battles and carry on an annoying guerilla warfare; that she would -protract the war into a very expensive length; that she would agree to -no settlement of boundary with us, but under the guarantee of European -powers. - -On these opinions I make no comment. The seemingly authentic news of -hostile intentions has led Governor Marcy,[101] under proper sanctions, -to increase his little army in Texas, and Mr. Mason has written all the -necessary letters. I do not see but that the sun rises this morning much -as usual. The President, too, is in excellent spirits, and will grow fat -in your absence, he sleeps so well _now_, and sees nothing before him -but the plain, though steep and arduous path of duty. - -So wishing you well, - - Your faithful friend, - - GEORGE BANCROFT. - -Mr. Buchanan had already determined what course to advise the President -to pursue in regard to Mexico. This was to re-establish diplomatic -relations with her, by sending a minister with special instructions and -authority to negotiate a settlement of all questions between the two -countries, including the western boundary of Texas. To select a suitable -person for this mission and send him into Mexico with an uncertainty of -his being received, or of his being received and treated with, was a -delicate matter. The appointment had to be made, and to be kept a -profound secret, until it could be known what reception the minister -would meet with. It was settled early in the autumn that this -appointment should be offered to Mr. John Slidell of Louisiana. His -acceptance of the position was made known to the President in September. -The following private letter to Mr. Buchanan is somewhat amusing in its -earnestness respecting the secrecy which had been enjoined upon the -writer:[102] - - [MR. SLIDELL TO MR. BUCHANAN.] - - NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 25, 1845. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -You can scarcely imagine how much I was surprised to-day by receiving -your most kind and friendly letter of the 17th inst. - -I have never at any time believed that we should have war with Mexico. I -have looked upon the rhodomontades of the press and the manifestoes of -secretaries, as alike having but one object in view, the presidential -contest; and in this point of view I consider it of little consequence -who shall be elected. He who had been most strenuous in proclaiming war -as indispensable to the vindication of Mexican honor, would, when -installed in the presidential chair, “roar you an ’twere any -nightingale.” The truth is that although I have no very exalted idea of -...... yet I cannot imagine that any one who could possibly be elected -president, could have so small a modicum of sense as to think seriously -of going to war with the United States. But strong as I have been in -this belief, I had not thought that the government would have been -prepared so soon to receive from us an accredited agent. I think with -you that they desire to settle amicably all the questions in dispute -between us. But will they dare in the present distracted state of the -country, to give so great a shock to what is their settled public -opinion. They have stimulated popular prejudice to a degree that it may, -under any appearance of disposition to treat with us, be fatal to the -new administration. But of this you have infinitely the best means of -judging, and I shall hold myself in readiness to receive your -instructions. I feel most deeply the importance of the mission, and I -confess, now that it is probable I shall soon enter upon it, I have some -misgivings about it. I hope that you will not consider this as an -affectation of modesty and humility. I assure you I am perfectly -sincere, but will probably grow in better favor with myself when the -work is fairly commenced. I am truly grateful to you for the proof of -your friendship and esteem, and am flattered by the confidence reposed -in me by the President. I shall endeavor to justify them. The President -has enjoined on me the strictest secrecy; he even goes so far as to say -that I should not communicate what he had said to me to a single human -being. I have told him that I was obliged to make an exception in favor -of Mrs. S., but as I could not well enter into particulars with him on -this subject, pray let me explain it to you. If I had made an unreserved -pledge to the President, I could not have felt myself at liberty to hint -it even to my wife. I could have made no preparations for my voyage -without her knowing it. We were making our arrangements to proceed -shortly to Washington. If I were mysterious with her, she would be -shrewd enough to guess what was in the wind. She would have some theory -to guide her, because you may recollect that when you first broached -this subject with me, I told you that I had no secrets for her. Now I am -not one of those who believe that a woman cannot keep a secret. I know -_she_ can, for I am sure that she has never breathed a word, respecting -it, to any one, not even to her mother. Besides she is living in the -country, where we seldom see any one, and where there is little -gossiping. Pray, explain this to the President, who might perhaps -consider my disobedience of his injunction as an inauspicious omen in -the opening of my diplomatic career. It is a matter of great regret to -me not to have the opportunity of full personal communication with you -before going to Mexico. I feel that it will be a great disadvantage, but -I must rely upon your alleviating it as far as possible by your -communications and instructions.... I will not fail to convey your very -flattering message to Mrs. S. I think I must get her to write to you to -remove an impression which I fear you have taken up. She will tell you -that I am one of the best tempered men living. I have written in great -haste, having barely had time to save the mail. - - Believe me, my dear sir, most truly and respectfully, - - Your friend and servant, - - JOHN SLIDELL. - -Mr. Slidell was at Pensacola in the middle of November (1845), prepared -to embark for Vera Cruz, on his way to the City of Mexico. He was -somewhat disturbed by a rumor that Mr. Buchanan was about to retire from -the State Department, but this proved to be unfounded. His instructions -came from Mr. Buchanan, and were received before he reached the capital -of Mexico, where he arrived in the early part of December. At this time -there were two unpaid instalments of money which became due from Mexico -to the United States in April and September, 1844, under a convention of -April 11th, 1839, and a large amount of claims of citizens of the United -States against Mexico which had arisen subsequent to that convention. -Mr. Slidell was now authorized to make an offer that the Government of -the United States would assume the payment of all just claims of -citizens of the United States against Mexico down to that time, which -could be established by proofs according to the principles of right and -justice, the law of nations, and the existing treaties between the two -countries. He was further authorized to include in the new treaty which -he was to negotiate an adjustment of the western boundary of Texas; to -stipulate for the payment by the United States, in cash, of an ample -equivalent for such a settlement of the boundary as the United States -desired, and to agree to make the payment on the exchange of -ratifications. By such a settlement, while the United States would -secure incalculable advantages, Mr. Buchanan believed that Mexico would -be more than indemnified for the surrender of her doubtful right to -reconquer Texas, and for the establishment of the boundary which the -Government of the United States intended to claim. - -In the latter part of the year (1845), General Paredes procured himself -to be declared President of Mexico, by a process which is described in -the following private letter to Mr. Buchanan, written by Mr. Slidell -from the City of Mexico: - - [SLIDELL TO BUCHANAN.] - - MEXICO, January 10, 1846. - -MR DEAR SIR:— - -I am sending to Vera Cruz, to be forwarded by the first merchant vessel -my despatch respecting the instalments of April and September, 1844. - -The facts are not as completely developed as I could have wished, but it -is impossible to obtain any further information at present...... -Paredes, notwithstanding his solemn protestation that he would accept no -place in the government, has been elected president by a junta of -notables of his own choice, and, as you may readily imagine, -unanimously. The government is now really, although not in form, a -military despotism. Many of the states have already given in their -adhesion, and from present appearances, Paredes is likely to establish -his authority throughout the republic. He seems to possess considerable -energy, and he is believed to have pecuniary honesty. He will probably -maintain himself for some time, if he can arrange the difficulties with -the United States. Unless he does this, he will soon find himself -without means to pay his troops, for the capitalists will not advance -him a dollar in the present state of our relations. So soon as he was -elected, I applied wholly through the consul, to the military -commandant, for an escort—the cabinet was not appointed for some days -after his election. The commandant replied that while Paredes was in -opposition to the government, he could not furnish the escort. On the -7th inst. the Minister of Foreign Relations was appointed, when Mr. -Black applied in writing for an escort, and received yesterday a reply -“that public order not having been yet completely restored, the -president could not spare the force necessary for an escort.” Now Puebla -has submitted to the government, and nearly the whole of the army is in -the capital and on the road to Vera Cruz, this answer looks very much as -if the government did not wish him to leave the city, and I should not -be at all surprised to receive very soon an intimation of a disposition -to receive me. - -General Almonte is Secretary of War, and understood to be the soul of -the cabinet. The Secretary of State is Mr. Castillo y Zurgas, who was -for some years chargé des affaires at Washington. I met with him at -Jalapa, where I saw him much, and conversed freely with him during my -stay of ten days. He is an intelligent and well educated man, and seemed -to have the most friendly feelings towards the United States, and spoke -without reserve of the absolute necessity of a friendly settlement of -our difficulties. I have not seen him since his appointment, and avoid, -indeed, all intercourse with people in any way connected with public -affairs, because I am well satisfied that any manifestation of a -disposition to approach the new government would only tend to -procrastination, if not defeat my object. I think that I shall have a -better chance of succeeding than with the former government, for Paredes -has the nerve to carry through any arrangement that he may consider -expedient, and calculated to promote his continuance in power. - - Believe me, my dear sir, faithfully, - - Your obedient servant, - - JOHN SLIDELL. - -Although at the date of this letter it appeared probable that Paredes -would receive the general submission of the people of Mexico, and that -he must be regarded as at least the _de facto_ President, it could not -be considered that a counter-revolution of some kind was not likely to -take place. The Mexican Congress was to assemble on the 1st of January -(1846). Before Mr. Buchanan had received Mr. Slidell’s private letter of -January 10th, he sent to Mr. Slidell the following official despatch: - - [MR. BUCHANAN TO MR. SLIDELL.] - - DEPARTMENT OF STATE, - - (No. 5.) WASHINGTON, January 20, 1846. - -SIR:— - -I have the honor to transmit herewith your commission as Envoy -Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of -America to the Mexican Republic, under the appointment made by the -President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. - -Your despatches, Nos. 2 and 3, under date respectively, the 30th -November and 17th December, have been received; and I shall await the -arrival of others by the Porpoise with much solicitude. Should the -Mexican government, by finally refusing to receive you, consummate the -act of folly and bad faith of which they have afforded such strong -indications, nothing will then remain for this Government but to take -the redress of the wrongs of its citizens into its own hands. - -In the event of such a refusal, the course which you have determined to -pursue is the proper one. You ought, in your own language, so to conduct -yourself as to throw the whole odium of the failure of the negotiation -upon the Mexican government; point out in the most temperate manner the -inevitable consequences of so unheard of a violation of all the usages -which govern the intercourse between civilized nations, and declare your -intention to remain in Mexico until you can receive instructions adapted -to the exigencies of the case. This sojourn will afford you an honorable -opportunity to watch the course of events, and avail yourself of any -favorable circumstances which, in the mean time, may occur. Should a -revolution have taken place before the first of January, the day -appointed for the meeting of Congress, an event which you deemed -probable; or should a change of ministry have been effected, which you -considered almost certain; this delay will enable you to ascertain the -views and wishes of the new government or administration. The desire of -the President is that you should conduct yourself with such wisdom and -firmness in the crisis, that the voice of the American people shall be -unanimous in favor of redressing the wrongs of our much injured and long -suffering claimants. - -It would seem to be the desire of the Mexican government to evade the -redress of the real injuries of our citizens, by confining the -negotiation to the adjustment of a pecuniary indemnity for its imaginary -rights over Texas. This cannot be tolerated. The two subjects must -proceed hand in hand. They can never be separated. It is evidently with -the view of thus limiting the negotiation, that the Mexican authorities -have been quibbling about the mere form of your credentials; without -even asking whether you had instructions and full powers to adjust the -Texan boundary. The advice of the Council of Government seems to have -been dictated by the same spirit. They do not advise the Mexican -government to refuse to receive you; but, assuming the fact that the -government had agreed to receive a plenipotentiary to treat upon the -subject of Texas alone, they infer that it is not bound to receive an -envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary without this -limitation. - -In the mean time, the President, in anticipation of the final refusal of -the Mexican government to receive you, has ordered the army of Texas to -advance and take a position on the left bank of the Rio Grande, and has -directed that a strong fleet shall be immediately assembled in the Gulf -of Mexico. He will thus be prepared to act with vigor and promptitude -the moment that Congress shall give him the authority. - -This despatch will not be transmitted to you by the Mississippi. That -vessel will be detained at Pensacola for the purpose of conveying to you -instructions with the least possible delay, after we shall have heard -from you by the Porpoise; and of bringing you home in case this shall -become necessary. - -By your despatch No. 2, written at Vera Cruz, you ask for an explanation -of my instructions relative to the claim of Texas on that portion of New -Mexico east of the Del Norte; and you state the manner in which you -propose to treat the subject in the absence of any such explanation. I -need say nothing in relation to your inquiry; but merely to state that -you have taken the proper view of the question, and that the course -which you intend to pursue meets the approbation of the President. - - I am, &c., - - JAMES BUCHANAN. - -It is now necessary to recur to the military movement referred to in -this despatch. In August, 1845, General Zachary Taylor was encamped at -Corpus Christi, in Texas, in command of a small American force of -fifteen hundred troops. In the following November, his force was -recruited to about four thousand men. On the 8th of March, 1846, acting -under the President’s orders, given in anticipation of a refusal of the -Mexican authorities to receive or to treat with Mr. Slidell, Taylor -moved towards the Rio Grande, and on the 28th his little army reached -the banks of that river, opposite the town of Matamoras. In a despatch -written on the 12th of March to Mr. Slidell, Mr. Buchanan said: - -It is not deemed necessary to modify the instructions which you have -already received, except in a single particular; and this arises from -the late revolution effected in the government of the Mexican Republic -by General Paredes. I am directed by the President to instruct you not -to leave that republic, until you shall have made a formal demand to be -received by the new government. The government of Paredes came into -existence not by a regular constitutional succession, but in consequence -of a military revolution by which the subsisting constitutional -authorities were subverted. It cannot be considered as a mere -continuation of the government of Herrera. On the contrary, the form of -government has been entirely changed, as well as all the high -functionaries at the head of the administration. The two governments are -certainly not so identical that the refusal of the one to receive you -ought to be considered conclusive evidence that such would be the -determination of the other. It would be difficult, on such a -presumption, in regard to so feeble and distracted a country as Mexico, -to satisfy the American people that all had been done which ought to -have been done to avoid the necessity of resorting to hostilities. - -On your return to the United States, energetic measures against Mexico -would at once be recommended by the President; and these might fail to -obtain the support of Congress, if it could be asserted that the -existing government had not refused to receive our minister. It would -not be a sufficient answer to such an allegation that the government of -Herrera had refused to receive you, and that you were therefore -justified in leaving the country after a short delay, because, in the -meantime, the government of Paredes had not voluntarily offered to -reverse the decision of his predecessor. - -The President believes that, for the purpose of making this demand, you -ought to return to the City of Mexico, if this be practicable, -consistently with the national honor. It was prudent for you to leave it -during the pendency of the late revolution, but this reason no longer -continues. Under existing circumstances your presence there ought to be -productive of the most beneficial consequences...... - -The time when you shall ask to be received by the government of Paredes -is left to your own discretion. The President thinks this ought to be -done speedily, unless good reasons exist to the contrary. Your demand -ought to be couched in strong but respectful language. It can no longer -be resisted on the ridiculous pretence that your appointment has not -been confirmed by the Senate...... - -In regard to the time of your departure from the Mexican Republic, the -President is willing to extend your discretion. In the present -distracted condition of that republic, it is impossible for those at a -distance to decide as correctly what ought to be your course, in this -particular, as you can for yourself upon the spot. The intelligence -which you have communicated, “that the department of Sinaloa has -declared its independence;” “that the garrison of Mazatlan has -pronounced against Paredes;” and “that the authorities of the -departments of Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas, Chihuahua, Michoacan, and -Queretero have protested in strong terms against the usurpation of -Paredes; and refusing to continue in the exercise of their functions, -have dissolved,” may well exercise an influence on your decision. -Indeed, you suppose “that appearances justify the belief that Paredes -will not be able to sustain himself until the meeting of the constituent -congress; that his government will perish from inanition, if from no -other cause. In this critical posture of Mexican affairs, it will be for -yourself to decide the question of the time of your departure according -to events as they may occur. If, after you shall have fulfilled your -instructions, you should indulge a reasonable hope, that by continuing -in Mexico, you could thus best subserve the interests of your country, -then you ought to remain, provided this can be done with honor. The -President reposes entire confidence in your patriotism and discretion, -and knows that no temporary inconvenience to yourself will prevent you -from performing your duty. It may be that when prepared to take your -departure another revolution might be impending, the result of which -would enable you, by a timely interposition, to accomplish the great -objects of your mission. Besides, in the present distracted condition of -Mexico, it is of importance that we should have an able and discreet -agent in that country to watch the progress of events, and to -communicate information on which this department could rely. Jalapa is -probably not so favorable a position for observation as the City of -Mexico. - -We have received information from different quarters, in corroboration -of your statement, that there may be a design on the part of several -European powers to establish a monarchy in Mexico. It is supposed that -the clergy would generally favor such a project, and that a considerable -party already exists among the people, which would give it their -countenance and support. It is believed by many that this party will -continue to increase in consequence of the successive revolutions which -may afflict that country, until at length a majority of the people will -be willing to throw themselves into the arms of a monarch for security -and protection. Indeed, rumor has already indicated the king, in the -person of the Spanish Prince Henry, the son of Francisco de Paula, the -rejected suitor of Queen Isabella. - -These may be, and probably are, idle speculations; but they come to us -in such a shape that they ought not to be wholly disregarded. It will be -your duty to exercise your utmost vigilance in detecting this plot and -its ramifications, if any such exists...... - -This despatch will be transmitted to you by the Mississippi (which is -placed at your disposal), and will be delivered to you by an officer of -that vessel. There will always be a vessel of war at Vera Cruz, ready to -bear your despatches or yourself to the United States. - -In conclusion I would remark that it is impossible, at this distance -from the scene of action, to anticipate all the contingencies which may -occur in a country in a state of revolution, as Mexico is at present, -and to provide for cases of sudden emergency. Much must necessarily be -left to the discretion of the envoy, who, on the spot, can take -advantage of circumstances as they may arise: and the President is happy -in believing that you possess all the qualifications necessary for the -crisis. - -P. S.—To provide for possible contingencies, two letters of credence are -transmitted to you: the one directed to General Paredes by name, and the -other to the President of the Mexican Republic. - -The government of Paredes refused to receive Mr. Slidell, and he -consequently retired from Mexico to New Orleans, and on the 9th of April -he wrote thence to Mr. Buchanan the following private letter: - - [SLIDELL TO BUCHANAN.] - - NEW ORLEANS, April 9, 1846. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -When I left here a few months since I little thought, or rather I never -dreamed, that I should so soon return. Had I found a fair field in -Mexico, I believe that I would have justified your good opinion and the -confidence which the President, through your recommendation, reposed in -me. But the fates have willed it differently, and I return an -unsuccessful, and of course in the estimation of the public generally, -an inefficient diplomatist. I flatter myself that such will not be your -opinion and that of the discreet few, and I must console myself with -that reflection. Be that as it may, I shall never cease to entertain the -warmest recollections of your kindness and friendship. - -I hope to hear from you in a few days; if you express any desire to see -me in Washington, I shall leave immediately. I shall probably defer my -departure until the end of the month. I most sincerely hope that your -anticipations of embarrassment to the Oregon question from my return -will not be realized, but if such be the case, the publication by the -Mexican government of my correspondence rendered the mischief -irreparable. - -Mrs. Slidell begs me to present her to your recollection. She will soon -have an opportunity of thanking you in person for your many kind -remembrances. - -Believe me, my dear sir, most faithfully, your friend and servant, - - JOHN SLIDELL. - -Within a little more than a month after the date of this letter a state -of war was declared by an act of Congress to exist between the United -States and Mexico. This peculiar declaration came about in consequence -of events which had occurred after Taylor had taken up a position on the -Rio Grande opposite to Matamoras. The Mexican General Arista, commanding -a large force at Matamoras, menaced Taylor with hostilities, if he did -not retire to a position beyond the river Neuces. The threat was -disregarded, and, in a short time, a small reconnoitering party of -Taylor’s troops were attacked by the Mexicans and captured. This -occurrence, and the refusal of the Paredes government to receive Mr. -Slidell, were regarded by President Polk as tantamount to actual war. By -a special message sent to Congress on the 11th of May, 1846, Mr. Polk -officially informed Congress of all the facts which he regarded as -establishing a state of war, and asked for its recognition. On the 12th -of May the act recognizing the war was passed, and provision was made -for its vigorous prosecution. The main justification relied upon by the -administration for the presence of an American army on the Rio Grande -was, that it was encamped upon territory which had already become part -of the United States, and that it was the duty of the United States -Government to defend this territory from invasion, especially as the -only existing executive government of Mexico had refused to receive an -American envoy, through whom an adjustment of all questions of boundary -and all other pending difficulties could have been negotiated. - - [SLIDELL TO BUCHANAN.] - - NEW YORK, July 1, 1846. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -As I have not heard from you, and have seen no notice in the newspapers -of the matter which was the subject of our last conversation, I feel -happy in the belief that your application to Mr. A. has resulted in a -satisfactory explanation. By this time you must have decided the -question so important for the country, as well as decisive of your -future political fortunes, whether you will remain in your present post -or accept the vacant judgeship. You might not think me altogether a -disinterested adviser were I to urge you not to leave the Department of -State; and indeed I myself feel that a certain degree of selfishness may -render me a somewhat unsafe counsellor; but of one thing I am sure, -unless some absolute necessity exist for an immediate decision, you -should not take a step which cannot be recalled, and which you may -hereafter regret, until the tariff question has been definitively acted -on. That stumbling block out of your way, I should most deeply regret to -see you shelved upon the Supreme Bench. - -There may be here and there in this part of the world, some extreme -54–40 men who disapprove of the settlement of the Oregon question, but I -have not as yet met with one of them; and if we acquire California, the -specimens will be equally rare in the Western States; it will soon be -indeed an extinct race, and two years hence it will be as difficult to -make an issue on that question as on the Mexican boundary. - -Our people are essentially practical; they look ahead only; no party can -be organized on matters that are past. The President has made most -judicious promotions in the army and selections for the volunteers, and -now that he has got rid of this source of uneasiness, he must feel -himself in very smooth water. We have most shocking weather. So soon as -it becomes a little more summer like, we shall go to Saratoga. Mrs. -Slidell begs me to present her regards. - - Believe me, very faithfully yours, - - JOHN SLIDELL. - -War having been declared General Scott demanded of the Government, as -his “right,” to be appointed to lead our armies into Mexico. Whether it -was because his “right” was recognized, or because he was regarded as -the fittest general for the chief command, his appointment to that -position was made, notwithstanding the brilliant victories gained by -General Taylor as soon as the war opened.[103] The military history of -the war does not come within the scope of this work. During its -progress, the American Government kept a diplomatic agent in Mexico, Mr. -N. P. Trist, ready to agree on terms of peace. The treaty of Guadalupe -Hidalgo, negotiated between him and three plenipotentiaries on the part -of the Mexican Republic was signed on the 2d of February, 1848, and was -ratified by the Senate of the United States on the 16th of March. It -ceded to the United States New Mexico and California, and settled the -western boundary of Texas. The private letters given below are of the -years 1845 and 1846, and with them the present chapter must close. - - [SLIDELL TO BUCHANAN.] - - NEW ORLEANS, November 5, 1846. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I reached home about a fortnight since, and was met by the unpleasant -intelligence of our overwhelming defeat in Pennsylvania. I have -persuaded myself that this can only be a temporary reverse, and that -Pennsylvania must very soon retake her position in the Democratic ranks. -I should feel much better satisfied, however, to have this opinion -confirmed by you. I do not know what to think of Santa Anna’s movements, -letters, etc. It may be that he is only mystifying his countrymen, but -the more reasonable solution seems to me to be that he has not found -himself as strong as he expected, and has not thought it prudent to -declare his real sentiments. I believe that he is fully impressed with -the necessity of making peace, but whether he will be able to carry out -his views is another question. When I last saw you, the course to be -pursued, if Mexico refused to treat, had not been decided upon. It is -time that this question should be decided. The present system of -operation involves the most enormous expense. That would be a minor -consideration were adequate results produced. I believe that if the -Mexican Congress refuse to treat, the war may be ended in the course of -the next year by the capture of the capital. This, if pursued with vigor -and under a competent commander-in-chief, would be the better course. I -doubt if General Taylor possesses the capacity for operations on so -extended a scale; and yet, until he has committed some grave and -palpable error, it would be a very unsafe step to supersede him. I have -seen many persons from the army; they all think Worth the most competent -man. Kearney, perhaps, is equal to Worth. I do not know enough of Butler -to have any fixed opinion as to his capacity. The fate of the -administration depends on the successful conduct of the war. - -There are but two modes of carrying it on—to march upon the capital with -such a force as will ensure success, or to hold the northeastern -provinces and California, with the ports of Vera Cruz and Tampico, -keeping up a rigid blockade of both coasts, and requiring the enemy to -supply all the provisions we may require. For this purpose we should not -require more than fifteen thousand effective men. If we do not march -upon Mexico, it is every way essential to take San Juan de Ulloa. The -navy should have an opportunity to distinguish itself, and the people -_must_ have something to huzza about. - -There is a Doctor Mesa here, just arrived from Victoria, the capital of -Tamaulipas. He brings letters, stating him to be a man of character and -influence, and that he is authorized to speak the sentiments of the -leading men of Tamaulipas. He says that the people of that department -are willing to separate from Mexico, if they can have assurances of -protection from us, and that they would be joined in the movement by the -neighboring departments. I of course did not pretend to say what would -be done by the administration, but suggested that at present it would be -indiscreet to guarantee a northern confederation, but that we would be -under the strongest obligations of honor, in making a treaty of peace, -to stipulate for full protection in person and property to all those who -might take part in the movement. He will proceed to Washington, and I -have taken the liberty of giving him a letter of introduction to you. I -shall patiently await the expiration of the month of December; if by -that time Mexico has not signified her wish to treat, I shall no longer -continue to look forward to a renewal of my mission. I have written to -the President, and I have felt it my duty to say what I have heard from -almost every quarter, that General —— (of whose qualifications I -personally have no knowledge whatever), does not command the confidence -of the army. Do you know General Pillow? Has not the President -exaggerated views of his military talents? - -Believe me, my dear sir, very faithfully and respectfully, - - Your friend, etc., - - JOHN SLIDELL. - - [MR. SLIDELL TO PRESIDENT POLK.] - - NEW ORLEANS, January 6, 1847. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -The tenor of all the advices from Mexico is such as to satisfy me that -[the Mexican] Congress will not authorize the opening of negotiations, -and that we are not to have a peace until its terms are dictated by a -victorious army before the walls of the capital. The public interest -may, and probably will, require that you should make, under such -circumstances, other arrangements for future negotiations than those -which you had heretofore proposed, and my object in now addressing you -is to state, as I do with the most entire frankness, and without the -slightest reservation, that I do not expect or desire that my previous -mission, or any understanding that has existed in regard to its -resumption, should interfere in the remotest degree with any new -selection that you may consider it expedient to make. While I shall ever -entertain the warmest sense of the distinguished and unsolicited mark of -your good opinion in charging me with one of the most important trusts -which has ever been confided to a citizen of the United States, I feel -that I should be unworthy of its continuance if I permitted any claims -of mine, real or supposed, to embarrass you for a single moment. - -General Scott, when he passed through this place, considered himself, in -consequence of my relation to Mexican affairs, at liberty to communicate -in confidence to me, as he did fully, his plan of the campaign, and I -was highly gratified to learn that Vera Cruz was to be attacked by a -force that will insure the possession of that most important position. I -am not so well satisfied, however, that the shortest road to Mexico is -the best, and while I take it for granted that the topography, resources -and climate of Mexico have been maturely studied, and due weight given -to all the considerations which should decide the choice of routes, yet -I can not but feel some misgiving as to the result. At all events, the -most abundant resources of men and materials should be placed at his -disposition. There is one subject connected with this, of which I have -long been thinking of writing to you, but have been restrained by -feelings which you can understand and appreciate. I fear that the -commander of our squadron has not the qualities of energy and decision -which are imperatively required for an emergency like the present. -Commodore Conner is a brave man, an accomplished officer, and a good -seaman, but his health is, and has been for some time past, so much -impaired as, in a great degree, to neutralize these qualities; the sound -mind, in military matters especially, is not sufficient without the -strong body; and frequent violent attacks of a most painful nervous -affliction, the tic-douloureux, cannot fail to affect the clearness of -his perception and the vigor of his action. To my mind this has been -abundantly demonstrated by his two abortive attempts at Alvarado. On -this point there is little difference of opinion among the officers -under his command. Alvarado might have been taken without difficulty on -either occasion. He does not command the confidence of those who serve -under him, and confidence is the vital principle of success. I make -these remarks with great diffidence and still greater reluctance, for I -have the highest regard for Commodore Conner, as an officer and a -gentleman, and were it not for his bodily ailments, there are few men in -the navy whom I consider better fitted for so important a command. I -trust that you will pardon me for suggestions which may perhaps be -considered misplaced, but I am sure that you will do justice to the -feeling that has dictated them. Your own fame, the success of your -administration, the great interests of the country are staked upon a -brilliant termination of the war, and the feelings of an individual are -but dust in the balance of such momentous issues. This is the scale in -which I wish my own to be weighed, and be assured, my dear sir, that so -far as I am concerned, I shall most cheerfully and cordially acquiesce -in any decision which you may think proper to make. - - Yours ever, - - JOHN SLIDELL. - - [HON. RICHARD RUSH TO MR. BUCHANAN.] - - SYDENHAM, NEAR PHILADELPHIA, October 7, 1846. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I am half ashamed to be again sending you little bits of my -correspondence from abroad; but you, who have so much to do with heads -of governments and nations, will know how to appreciate even general -expressions from those who live in daily intercourse with sovereigns, -and are constantly hearing them talk—yet whose discretion and training -guard them against mentioning names. The enclosed letter, received by -the last steamer, is from Lady Lyttleton, and I naturally am disposed to -infer that the words I have pencilled, mean Queen Victoria; or that they -_include her—at the least_. This Lady L. is the widow of the late Lord -Lyttleton, and daughter of Earl Spencer, and holds the post of chief -governess to the queen’s children; for which she was selected from among -England’s highest women for virtues and accomplishments, to aid in -forming their principles and conduct. Her home is chiefly Windsor -Castle, but she dates now from “Osborne House,” the queen’s marine -residence at the Isle of Wight, where she was at the time of writing, -with the queen and children. The queen is understood to hold her in the -greatest esteem and confidence: and the little pencilled words, dropping -from such a quarter in this private letter, do seem to me to import that -this little successor to Queen Elizabeth personally likes your treaty, -full as much as when Lord Aberdeen writes officially that it is -approved; and so may be taken as a veritable addition to all the other -evidences you have on that head; and this must be my excuse for sending -the letter to you—which can be returned at your perfect convenience. I -need not stop to explain the little allusions it has to my family or -self, as they are the mere common courtesies of an amiable lady. The -“niece” in question, is the wife of Colonel Bucknall Estcourt, known to -you as lately in our country under a commission from the British -government. - -This good lady’s letter done with, I am tempted to go on and remark, as -somewhat growing out of it, that if those who could doubt the -President’s consistency in agreeing to the Oregon treaty, or yours in -supporting him in it, be not convinced by the articles now in course of -publication in the _Pennsylvanian_ (following up the powerful -discussions in the _Union_ on the same point), that there _was_ perfect -consistency, we may say of them what Hume says of the sturdy Scotch -Jacobites who declared for the innocence of Mary of Scots; viz, that -they are beyond the reach of reason and argument, and must be left to -their prejudices...... - -I have just been reading my last _Union_. The Santa Fe army of the West -appears to have done, and to be doing, nobly; but war, war, war all over -Mexico, by land and sea, say I for one. All else is leather and prunella -just now, and would be inhumanity to ourselves in the end. If a blow can -be struck at Vera Cruz, so much the better. _That_ would tell through -the world; which, otherwise, _will_ say, in spite of the different -circumstances, that the French took the castle, whilst we, with all our -naval resources so much nearer, could not. A thousand of our seamen -would do the business. Let them land by night, armed to the teeth, -during, or at the close of, a furious bombardment, we having bomb -vessels and heavier ships perhaps than now, and they will go right into -the works—nothing can stop them—carrying all before them as surely as -Decatur succeeded at Tripoli, when, in the face of all their soldiers, -batteries, gun-boats, and the guns of the frigate, odds twenty to one -more against him than there would be against our squadron in the gulf, -he and his mere handful of gallant men, so signally triumphed. There are -Decaturs somewhere in our squadron now, or those who have their mantle. -Nothing more certain. They would put the gulf in a blaze of glory for -us, if you let them try it. - -I have been writing a good deal for my little paper; ever a sort of -privilege to irresponsibility, joined, if not to entire ignorance, at -least to want of full knowledge. But I console myself with the -reflection that it must be ever a sort of relief to a high official man -with his hands full of engagements, on getting quite through a letter to -him, to find at last, as you do with this, that it makes no complaints, -taxes him with no business, nor even demands any answer. - -And now I will conclude with begging you to accept the assurances of -esteem and friendship with which I desire, my dear sir, to subscribe -myself, - - Very faithfully yours, - - RICHARD RUSH. - - [RUSH TO BUCHANAN.] - - SYDENHAM, NEAR PHILADELPHIA, June 2d, 1846. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -A rumor catches my eye in one of the morning papers that General Scott -has claimed of the administration his _right_ to lead our army into -Mexico. This may or may not be true. I am little inclined to believe all -I see in the newspapers, or the half of it; but I know what _is_ true, -viz: That when General Brown died, Scott _did_ claim, in the most -objectionable manner, his _right_ to succeed to the command of the army. -He addressed a series of letters to the Secretary of War, then Governor -Barbour,[104] to prove, as he confidently supposed that he did, his -alleged right, all of them written in a highly improper tone. One of the -members of the cabinet likened them, by a figure of speech, as I -remember, to taking the Government by the throat, and demanding its -surrender upon his own terms. Being then of the cabinet myself, invited -by Mr. Adams from the English mission, where I had been some seven -years, (in which country, to give the devil his due, I had observed the -military to be always _de facto_ as well as in theory, wholly -subordinate to the civil power, above all the supreme executive power), -I heard all his letters read, and confess that I was astounded at them. -So out of place were they conceived to be as addressed to a member of -the cabinet, and thus in effect to the President, that there were those -of the body (I am sure there was one) who would have been in favor of -striking his name from the army without more ado, and this in the face -of the gallant manner in which he did his duty last war in the field, on -the mere footing of the spirit of insubordination and dangerous temper -for a military man which these letters bespoke. In the end, as you know, -Macomb was appointed Brown’s successor, over both Scott and Gaines, for -the latter had put in his somewhat imperious claims too, urging it -offensively, though in a less degree than Scott. I presume that Scott’s -letters are on file in the War Department. The whole history of the -affair is curious. It would not do for me to write, or for me to make -public, but if ever the opportunity happens to occur to me in -conversation, you might be amused to hear some of its details. It came -near to breaking Mr. Adams’s cabinet to pieces at the time. - -Has not the case occurred for the balancing principle we have been -threatened with, and might it not be well to forestall its application? -Prevention is better than cure. If we promptly get possession of the -Mexican capital, and make them sign a treaty doing us full justice at -last, it would be too late for Guizot and company to interfere. They -would see too clearly its utter hopelessness. “The burying would have -gone by,” as our Judge Yates was fond of saying. It would be the _a -posteriori_ argument rather than the _a priori_. These are crude -thoughts, occurring while I write, which, of course, you have all been -more fully weighing in Washington; but one more I must indulge in, not -crude, which is, that really our whole operations in regard to Mexico, -compared to the ultimatum of the French Minister Deffands, which -preceded the bombardment of Vera Cruz by Admiral Baudin and the Prince -de Joinville, quite naturally remind us of Fontaine’s fable of the -beasts who accuse each other of their sins. The lions, the wolves and -the bears are pardoned everything, while the lamb is devoured for -nibbling a little grass. - -I had intended only to mention confidentially those letters of General -Scott which, if on file, may be seen by all; but I cannot conclude -without congratulating the President and yourself on General Taylor’s -victories as equally glorious and pure. They are the former by all the -best titles that can be laid to efficient and splendid achievements in -arms, with greatly inferior numbers, and the latter from having been -gained on our own soil in repelling hostile aggressions, following upon -“long continued and unredressed injuries.” A people who have thus -deliberately commenced a war upon this patient and long forbearing -Republic have surely invited its vigorous recoil upon themselves, -whatever the consequences to themselves. Such must be the calm voice of -history, pronouncing her judgment on well authenticated facts when party -spirit is forgotten. - - I remain, my dear sir, very sincerely yours, - - RICHARD RUSH. - - [RUSH TO BUCHANAN.] - - SYDENHAM, NEAR PHILADELPHIA, August 18,1845. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I have to pray your excuse for the trouble of this letter. - -I wish to have all the documents respecting Oregon that accompanied the -President’s message to the Senate of the 21st of July. They were given -in the _Union_, which I take, but so often miss, through one bad chance -or other at the post office, that I have not these documents; and as -they are generally published in the pamphlet form, I would feel greatly -indebted to you if (having a copy to spare) you would have the goodness -to direct it to me, as I know not where else to seek it. Sometimes I am -meditating one more volume on our relations with England, the Oregon -question closing the list of the historical ones growing out of our -revolution; and I desire at any rate to gather up the authentic -documents bearing on that question which seem to me, with the facts they -furnish, to supply the materials perhaps of some reflections also, at -this new and remarkable epoch in our affairs. On the whole, I think you -made a wise settlement of that long pending difficulty. My own -impression was ever very strong, that England was ready to appeal to the -sword, unless she got territory and advantages south of 49°; and I will -candidly own to you that she took up with _fewer_ at last than I -supposed she would have done. This I ascribe to the energy and whole -course of our Government since Mr. Polk came in, at which I was a little -startled at first; but it came out nobly, and what a fine prospect the -settlement now offers to us of intercourse with England, in connection -with our new tariff. - -On this latter head, will not England now do something for our tobacco, -and become wholly liberal in the arrangements of her West India trade -with us? Our new tariff may well justify us in urging her on these and -other points in which she is still much behind the liberality of our own -system. - -I am sincerely glad that your services are retained in the Department of -State. If I might claim to speak, I should say that it is due both to -your country and yourself, that, having accomplished so much of good in -that station already, you should continue in it to do more. - -How ill-judged, I would almost say criminal, in the Senate, to have -refused the President the small sum he asked towards the executive plans -with Mexico! Reading lately a life of Mirabeau, I was much struck with a -remark quoted from Madame de Sévigné, that “_there is nothing so -expensive as want of money_.” What may be the executive plans precisely -in regard to Mexico, I of course know not; but I can conceive that to -have given the President those two millions in hand he asked for, might -have saved the ultimate expenditure of fifty or a hundred millions. - -I remain, my dear sir, with sincere respect, very faithfully yours, - - RICHARD RUSH. - - [MR. PICKENS TO MR. BUCHANAN.] - - EDGEWOOD (SOUTH CAROLINA), July 5th, 1846. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I owe you a letter; but, as in your last, you said you were so much -overwhelmed in business, I thought it would be wrong to inflict a letter -upon you until you might have more leisure. And as I see you have -disposed of the Oregon question and its difficulties, I suppose now you -must be resting upon your triumphs and honors, and have some time to -read a humdrum letter from a quondam friend, who assures you in advance -that he is not going to beg you for any office whatever. - -You wrote me you were about to give a letter of introduction to me for -an English lady who was to travel South, etc. I looked a long time for -this distinguished visitor, and had my household put in order to receive -her, particularly as I heard she was about to write a “book,” and I -desired to figure largely in English history. - -By the by, I see it stated by “letter-writers,” who now constitute a -distinguished fraternity illustrious for the intimate knowledge they -possess of everything, that you are going to England yourself, and I see -it also stated in the same quarter that you will take with you a very -brilliant cousin of mine. Now, I will not tell you how I think you will -represent us at the court of St. James, but I have no hesitation in -saying that she will do us honor in any court in Europe. Is this all -true? Where is King? Is he going to quit Paris? I hope if he comes home -he will bring a French lady—it would suit him well. He was a little -French before he went, and he must be very much so now. Tell him if he -does intend to bring out a lady, for God’s sake, let it be no French or -Italian countess. They say you were not satisfied with the settlement of -the Oregon question, but that you wanted more rocks, and ice, and -muskrats. I think it all turned out right, and would have been settled -much earlier if the “notice” had passed at the first of the session. I -know you are satisfied. I suppose it is about like what they used to say -of you in relation to the tariff, that you wanted thirty-six dollars a -ton on iron and prohibition on coal, etc., and yet I always knew you did -not care a fig for the tariff, except some of your people were rising -about it. I think I can tell what you do desire now above all things, -and that is the luxurious feeling of honest independence enjoyed in the -retirement of your beautiful homestead at Lancaster. If there is one -feeling sweeter to man than any other, it is, after leaving cabinets, -and courts, and politicians to breathe once more the pure air of one’s -native hills and valleys. - -What are you going to do with the Mexican war? I hope there will be no -treaty without the acquisition of California. The loss of California to -Mexico will be nothing, as it will aid in consolidating her government, -and finally strengthen it, while its acquisition will be immense to us. -In fact we have already conquered it, as there is no force between us -and the North provinces to keep us out of it. - -If we had California with its vast harbors, in the next fifty years we -could control the commerce of the Pacific, and the wealth of China and -India, and the future destiny of our glorious Republic would be to -accumulate as vast wealth and power on the Pacific as we have on the -Atlantic. Some people seem to have very tender consciences of late as to -conquests, etc. I should like to know if half the earth is not now owned -by the rights of conquests. - -Some time since, when the Mexican war broke out, I wrote the President -cordially approving of what had been done, etc.; but I have never heard -a word. I hope he has no one to select letters for his eye, and to keep -others from him, as used to be done by others who preceded him. This -remark is suggested by the fact that I see lately some of his important -appointments in this quarter have been made from his bitterest and most -malignant opponents. I say this to you in confidence. - -If you have time I should be glad to hear from you; and tell me who is -to be the next President; and who I must pull off my cap to shout for, -etc. - -I expect to take my family North this summer, and if so may pass through -Washington on my way to Saratoga and the lakes. If nothing happens, I -may call to see you about the commencement of the dog-days, if you have -not left Washington before that. I believe I will also go to see Van -Buren, and console him for the split in the Democratic party of New -York, and the political death of Wright, etc. I always liked the stoic -indifference with which Van Buren took everything, and the easy way in -which he lolled in an armchair. He looked like he would make a good -fisherman. The truth is, he was a very firm and sagacious man, but made -very poor selections for office. If he had changed his cabinet, and -selected young, talented, and ambitious men he never would have been -turned out, but he had old men about him who loved ease as well as -himself. - -I have written you a rambling letter, as I had nothing else to write. If -you had been a planter, I would have written you about cotton and our -crops. You know I am engaged entirely on my estates at present, and -solely occupied, thank God! in the finest and noblest pursuit, the -cultivation of the soil. And I hope, if they reduce the tariff, as they -ought to do, if there is any honesty at Washington, that I may be able -next year to sell my cotton at nine cents to some Pennsylvania -manufacturer, and get my iron from your iron-masters cheap enough to use -more ploughs and axes for next crop. - - Very truly your friend, - - F. W. PICKENS.[105] - -The following lively letters were written by an English lady, who was a -good while in this country, and who soon afterwards published a little -book called “The Statesmen of America in 1846”: - - [FROM MRS. MAURY.] - - CINCINNATI, April 14, 1846. - -MY DEAR MR. BUCHANAN:— - -Your letter reached me shortly after my arrival in New Orleans, and at -once made Mrs. Maury a great lady at the St. Charles. I have been -anxiously waiting some information from various quarters, which might -decide my plans for the next few weeks, but as yet I have received none. -The Unicorn can hardly have sailed at the time we have supposed. I do -not wish to remove further from the seaports until I shall be assured -that my husband and his anxious charge do not yet require my presence. I -have, of course, no news of Dr. Hughes, and therefore have no idea when -and where he will wish me to meet him. Mr. Clay is still at St. Louis, -and his return to Lexington very uncertain. I have been suffering from a -slight indisposition for the last few days, and am not yet ready for -travelling. This is a tolerable list of perplexities for a lady. In -addition, I cannot avoid feeling great interest and some degree of alarm -at the scenes which have lately transpired in Congress.[106] ... -Winthrop is a gallant advocate, but neither his noble spirit nor his -truthful nature should be wasted thus. For Mr. Ingersoll, to whom, as -you know, my personal attachment is very strong, I have felt most -keenly; his temperature is warm, and his susceptibilities as exquisite -and acute as those of a woman; and I, who admire his mind, and enjoy his -wit, and love his worth, cannot endure to think of the abusive epithets -which Mr. Webster has heaped upon him. Nevertheless, I always considered -his first allusion to the affair of McLeod an indiscretion, and felt -certain from the first that evil would arise from it. I can only -attribute his turning back to that period, to the historical habits of -his mind, which led him to take a new view of affairs subsequent to that -event, from the information he had received from Governor Seward. The -Governor is intrepid, and will give the unvarnished truth, nothing -adding thereto, nor diminishing aught therefrom. I cannot for one moment -conceive that Ingersoll has been instigated by personal resentment, -because he was in the habit of expressing to me his private opinions of -every public man in Washington, and I have never heard from his lips one -vindictive word against Mr. Webster.... - -To proceed, however, to a less painful theme. I like Cincinnati much -better than New Orleans, feeling myself here once more in America -instead of in some shabby old town of Brittany, listening to _patois_ -French (vulgarly called _gumbo_ French in New Orleans). This city -presents all the interest which a growing community ever possesses, and -Cincinnati is an infant Hercules. We receive from Judge McLean every -attention and hospitality, and I find the Judge as attractive and -estimable in private life as he is gracious and dignified on the bench. -The society here, as elsewhere in America, is excellent, and confirms my -preconceived opinions that good society is the same in Europe and in -America. At the hands of the excellent Dr. Purcell, the Catholic bishop, -I receive every indulgence; he has conducted us in person through his -various institutions, which are all prospering, and intends also to -accompany us to visit his Ursulines. From him I learned the striking -fact that there were present in the cathedral at high mass on Easter -Sunday, 600 persons who are converts to the Catholic faith. Here, as -elsewhere, the Sisters of Mercy, by their devotion and virtue, afford us -proof that even on earth there exist angelic natures. The cotton -factories flourish in Cincinnati, and even at Madison, a small town we -passed on the Ohio, I saw the black tall chimneys, indicative of the -successful progress of the labor going on at its base. It seems to me, -from all I have seen, that notwithstanding all the expected (may I say -hoped for?) approaches to free trade, that the manufactures of this -country are now too firmly established to suffer. I think you know me -well enough to be assured that my zeal for the welfare of America is -second only to that I feel for the prosperity of that fair and distant -Isle to which I owe my birth, which has been the cradle of my children, -and the happy home in which for eighteen years I have been the cherished -wife of a husband to whom time has made me more dear. How ardently I -wish that every feeling of affection which I shall ever preserve for the -people of America were shared by my countrymen. - -I hope yet to visit Mrs. Catron—instead of challenging each other for -the sake of the chairman, we will take your advice, and share his esteem -and regard between us. He being our Oregon territory, and each lady -having determined not to give notice—of course the treaty of joint -occupancy must remain in force. Moreover, on my side, I shall refuse -arbitration, either by citizen or sovereign—and I think Mrs. Catron will -be of my mind, viz., that the division of a lover’s heart is not a -proper subject for interference by foreign powers. Should we ultimately -find that we cannot _get along_ with the joint occupancy, but that we -are continually shouldering one another, as you, dear sir, are friendly -to us both, will you give us permission to ask your advice, as to the -most satisfactory mode of dividing equitably between us the heart and -head of the honorable gentleman in dispute. I presume, of course, that, -like the Oregon territory, he will be content with being contended for -by two fair dames, without putting in one word about his own ultimate -destiny. - -I hope, dear Mr. Buchanan, that I have not tired your patience. I am -writing in bed, and still somewhat of an invalid; separated from home, -it is a source of great pleasure to write to one who has expressed so -much regard for me as you have done. - -Believe me always, most sincerely and gratefully, - - Your obliged friend, - - SARAH MYTTON MAURY. - -Will you give my love to Mrs. Plitt, and say to her that I wished for -her presence much yesterday, when Judge McLean was eulogizing the -talents and virtues of the Secretary of State. - - [FROM MRS. MAURY.] - - WASHINGTON, Friday Morning, 10 A. M., June 10, 1846. - -MY DEAR MR. BUCHANAN:— - -I would have called to see you this morning, but had so much fear of too -frequently intruding on your patience that I abstained. - -I have had a very interesting conversation with Mr. Calhoun upon the -subject of his going out to England. He urged his age, his various -engagements, the allotment he had already made of the few remaining -years of his life, the use that he can render to his country by staying -here, and many other reasons. I replied that his age was no objection, -that he is not old, and that no duties could be higher than those he -would fulfil by going to England; that the effects of his mission would -be not only beneficial at the present moment, but throughout all future -time; and urged him by every principle of patriotism, utility and -devotion, to accept the trust. He yielded at length to my entreaties, -and said: “If I can be convinced that it is my imperative duty, then, as -duty is above all things, I will go.” - -I can scarcely describe the emotions with which I heard this concession, -and requested his permission, which was at once granted, to mention it -publicly. Of course you are the first to whom I have named it. - -On my return, Mr. Calhoun will do himself the pleasure of visiting you, -and has promised me the happiness of accompanying him. He wishes to see -you in friendly style at your own house, and in an evening; so I shall -inquire from Mr. Plitt if you are at home. I hope to be here in less -than ten days. - -I have seen Mr. Winthrop and Mr. Crittenden. Both highly approve of Mr. -Calhoun for the appointment to England. Also Mr. Benton, who would -cordially assent; and Mr. Hannegan expressed the highest respect for Mr. -C. The two first answered for their party and the country. Benton -thought it would be a universally popular movement. Hannegan included -his party in his own expressions of respect. - -I could not, my dear Mr. Buchanan, leave Washington happily without -telling you these circumstances, and confiding them to your wisdom and -experience for any use you may deem them eligible. - -Looking forward to seeing you shortly again, I remain always, with the -highest respect, your obliged and grateful friend, - - SARAH MYTTON MAURY. - - [FROM MRS. MAURY.] - - WASHINGTON, June 14, 1846. - -MY DEAR SIR:— - -I was sorry to find that you have suffered from indisposition. I went to -Coleman’s last night to inquire for you, but found Mr. and Mrs. Plitt -absent. - -Will you tell me that you are well, or at least better? and will you let -me come and see you? and say how soon. - -I have a letter, or rather a lecture, from the bishop this morning; not -on religion, but morality. He has, however, made me a proposition so -singularly flattering and unexpected that I wish to tell you of it. - -If you are going to England, how delighted I should be if you were to go -in the same steamer with myself and my son, the Great Britain of the -first August. But perhaps you would have a ship of war. - -I think you would like England and the English upon a near acquaintance, -and your sincerity of purpose and warmth of heart would interest their -esteem and affections most strongly. But how could you be spared from -home, for there is _no other Secretary of State in the Cabinet_? My -hopes of the Ministry to England, if you do not go, are for Calhoun, -because he could set the people there right on the slave question, and -also, I believe, he would do much to get the duties on tobacco reduced -in England. - -Though the treaty (making) is on the 49th, I shall, in writing, enforce -the superior claims of America, and treat the whole arrangement as a -concession on the part of the United States. Yours it will be, yours it -must be; and however unpopular may be this doctrine in England, such -inevitably will be the ultimate conclusion. To-morrow Mrs. Madison takes -me under her wing to pay my farewell respects to Mrs. Polk. I will also -call on the President for five minutes before I leave Washington. - -The Emigrant Surgeon’s Bill will be lost, but, thanks to the admonitions -of the excellent bishop and to your expressions of praise and sympathy, -I shall bear the disappointment without repining, and trust to do more -for those unfortunates at a future time. - -How can I ask you to read this long note, and to see me too? But you -have made me bold by indulgence, for you have never refused me any one -request. - -Believe me, my dear Mr. Buchanan, most respectfully your sincere and -grateful friend, - - SARAH MYTTON MAURY. - - [FROM MRS. MAURY.] - - BARNUM’S HOTEL,} - BALTIMORE, Friday, July 10, 1846 } - -MY DEAR MR. BUCHANAN:— - -I received your kind and considerate note, and have laid it with the -letter you wrote to me in New Orleans to carry home for my husband. - -Mr. Calhoun called at eleven, and stayed some time with me. Though I -assured him over and over again that I only repeated, both to the -President and to you, the exact words which he himself had used, and -that I mentioned at the same time distinctly that the whole -responsibility was mine,—and mine alone,—still Mr. Calhoun is fearful -that you should misunderstand him—I therefore said that in a few days I -promised myself the pleasure of writing to you, and that I would again -mention to you his scrupulous delicacy of feeling on this subject. I -thought of you, dear Mr. Buchanan, on Sunday, and wished that I could -have been present at your interview—the conversation of two -distinguished men is the highest privilege and advantage that a woman -can enjoy, and I should have derived more pleasure from listening than I -ever do from talking;—though my reputation for silence is not, I fear, -very well established—at least so says our playful friend Ingersoll. - -We have visited Emmittsburg since we left Washington, and all the -institutions in Baltimore—among others the Penitentiary, where they -permitted three English prisoners to come and speak with me—they were -well looking men, all acknowledging the justice of their punishment, and -apparently cured of their evil propensities. This evening we take the -boat for Philadelphia, a cooler and pleasanter mode for travelling than -the railroad, and shall arrive about four in the morning. After spending -Sunday there we shall reach New York on Monday afternoon. - -This hotel has many guests at present, among them are some Creole -families—all very pleasant and intelligent—they are full of anecdotes of -the war, and all the ladies are in love with the Captain-general La -Vega. Mrs. Commodore Stewart, of somewhat eccentric character, is of the -number, and informs me that the Mexican enjoys himself greatly, and is -most hospitably entertained. - -How shocked you must have been at the death of Mrs. Ogle Tayloe. I had -sat an hour with her on Friday. She was then very ill, and our -conversation became serious. Our acquaintance had been only general, and -had entirely arisen from her hospitality towards me; but I imagine that -often previous to solemn events, we become intimate and confidential, -and thus it was with us, and truly she was a good and pious woman. From -what I learned at Mrs. Madison’s door on Saturday, there is much to fear -both for her and her niece, and how sad it is to think of. Sometimes I -am led to marvel at the singular favor which has been hitherto granted -to me, that of perfect health to all my little ones, and restored health -to myself and son during our long absence from home. When I shall arrive -there and find all well, I shall not fail to write and tell you, for I -flatter myself that the advances which I have made in your good opinion -will never be obliterated by my absence, whether temporary or permanent, -and truly I shall ever hear of you either as presiding in the councils -of the Republic, or adorning the ease and elegance of private life, with -sincere and heartfelt interest. - -I paid my respects to-day to the Chief Justice;[107] he bestowed a -delightful half hour upon me, and gave me his parting benediction and -kindest wishes. His health is much improved since the winter. - -In Baltimore as in Washington the same perplexity exists about a -Secretary of State. No one is spoken of, and it would almost seem that -people do not realize your resignation. _Must_ it be so? You know that -in England we have abandoned the precedent of the minister’s retiring on -a change of measures. Such, if I remember right, was the course of Earl -Grey, he withstood even the majorities against the Reform Bill, and -continued at the helm. - -To make Mr. Calhoun feel satisfied that you should understand him -thoroughly, I have written the above, but you have encouraged me to -speak freely with you on all matters, and therefore I shall add as _my -supplement_ to his message, that in case you should see the advantage of -Mr. Calhoun’s holding office, _I sincerely hope that you and the -President will make out a strong case, and overrule his delicacy; -besides, he is very powerful_. My confidence in him is as unlimited as -it is in you, for you are both equally noble, finely tempered, faithful -and pure. - -Dear Mr. Buchanan, do not forget me, for I shall relate in England the -considerate solicitude which you have exercised in my behalf. At your -hands I have received all the assistance, all the protection which I had -anticipated from the minister of my country, and my advice to all who -like myself are alone and unattended will be, trust yourselves to the -courtesy of the Americans, they will never fail you. - -Always believe me, most sincerely, most gratefully, - - Your English friend, - - SARAH MYTTON MAURY. - -P. S.—I think I should add in confidence to you that should any -difficulties arise out of the Mexican war between the United States and -England, Mr. Calhoun would consider it his _duty_, if requested by the -President, to give his services in an official capacity;—of course I -leave it to your judgment, to use this information as you think best, -and I believe Mr. Calhoun would at once acquiesce, should such a case -present itself. - - [FROM MRS. MAURY.] - - LIVERPOOL, November 3, 1846. - -MY DEAR MR. BUCHANAN:— - -I am wearying to write you a long letter, and first let me offer you my -best congratulations on the recent successes in Monterey;—this Mexican -war must give you much anxiety, from the various difficulties which -General Taylor has had to encounter in a country scarcely known, and -where the climate was new and therefore trying to his troops. I was -delighted to observe that the President had made offers of peace, -because such a step is worthy of a great, and powerful, and magnanimous -nation; thus a wise parent offers to his refractory child, or a -forbearing friend to his companion, constant and kindly proposals of -peace, pitying the recklessness and stupidity which continue to prompt a -refusal of their proffered tenderness. - -The ill-fated Great Britain carried myself and my doctor home in safety. -Our passage was agreeable, and the recollection of it makes me feel much -for the ship, and for her commander. Poor Captain Hawkens had taken -leave of his wife, who was not expected to live many hours, just before -he sailed. She has since rallied, but only for a season. In a few -moments he seemed to lose everything that would render life -desirable—his fortune and his fame, and the partner of his life. There -is no doubt that the Great Britain had outrun her reckoning. My husband -who is the chairman of the Marine Insurance Company has voted in favor -of giving her a chance through the aid of a well-experienced engineer; -but nothing can be done until the spring, and she will have much to -suffer during the winter, besides the danger of rusting. - -I have had a most pleasant chit-chat letter from Mrs. Plitt, giving me -all the details of our various friends; I have also heard from the -bishop who is still suffering from the refractory tooth, and still with -extraordinary pertinacity refusing “to pluck it out, and cast it from -him.” I am going this day to write and upbraid his “holiness” with -neglecting to practise what he preaches. Mr. Ingersoll tells me that he -is again a candidate for Congress, and I most earnestly hope he will be -successful on account of the vexatious affair which occurred in the -spring. Nothing has contributed more to my happiness than your -gentlemanly and considerate expressions of unabated regard for my -guardian. His letter is like himself, unreserved in confidence, and -always a most pleasant mingling of smiles and tears. - -I called with my husband to pay our respects to Mr. and Mrs. Bancroft. -They had a stormy passage, and Mrs. B. was suffering from the effects of -it. The American Chamber of Commerce, of which my husband is the -treasurer, waited upon the minister with their best wishes and welcome. -He made a very appropriate speech, and acquitted himself extremely well. -His manners are less popular than those of McLane, but I predict that he -will be highly esteemed and respected here. Mrs. B. is quite a nice -woman, and the American ladies have a naïveté which I hear is much -admired as a contrast to the sameness of manner which necessarily exists -among the aristocratic ladies of an old country. They see none but the -artificial phases of society. - -I have been in London a month, and have had an interview with the -commissioners of the board of emigration, Mr. Elliot and Mr. Rogers. -They entered fully into the subject of the Emigrant Surgeon’s Bill. I -told them your opinion, and gave them among other documents the report -of the expenses of whaling vessels for sickness; they regard it as a -very important statement in our favor. I believe them both to be in -earnest, and the more especially as they requested me to procure for -them various kinds of information relative to the supply of surgeons -having taken out diplomas in Liverpool, Dublin, New York, etc. Of course -I have lost no time in setting the requisite machinery to work. The -commissioners frankly stated that the shipowners would make the same -difficulties that Mr. Grinnell had conjured up on the other side. As the -bill will have to go through parliament, of course it will be some time -before I hear anything from the board; but as soon as I do, I shall -hasten to inform you who have been so valuable an ally to me. - -Accompanied by my husband, I had afterwards an interview with Lord -Palmerston, and after showing him the letter which I wrote in January -last from Washington, on the subject of Pakenham’s unfitness for his -position there, I fortified the report by several anecdotes. The -secretary looked perplexed, heard me most patiently, and when I had -ended my story, endeavored as well as he could to defend his -representative. As far as respectful politeness allowed me to go, I -entirely differed from him, and I said that he was quite unequal in -capacity to the men he had to deal with; that he knew nothing of -commerce; received neither the Americans nor the English at his house; -had quarrelled with the chairman of foreign relations in the House of -Representatives; and in fact that this government should send one of -their foremost men to Washington with rank, wealth, good manners, and -ability to carry him through. - -Lord Palmerston then observed: - -“Well, they have got more than they bargained for.” - -Mrs. M.—They will have the whole of Oregon very soon, my lord. - -Lord P.—Do you really think so? - -Mrs. M.—Certainly, and the Pope is doing all he can to help them. He has -just divided the Oregon into an archbishopric and eight bishoprics, and -the Irish and German emigrants will pour in by thousands. - -Lord P.—I had not observed that. Is it so, indeed? - -Mrs. M.—Undoubtedly. - -Here laughing, I rose to take leave. The viscount was extremely -courteous, and expressed much pleasure at having made my acquaintance. -It is somewhat strange that I should have had the opportunity of -expressing these sentiments to yourself and Mrs. Walker in Washington, -in the presence of the British minister, and also in England to the -secretary for foreign affairs. - -And now, my dear Mr. Buchanan, I am going to my old trade of begging -favors, and have still a long story to tell you by way of introduction. -I have wished to prepare a work with the title of “An English Woman’s -Opinions of America,” in compliance with the gratifying wishes of my -friends both here and in America; but I cannot get this ready for some -months, for you know I have eleven children, and found much to do for -them on my return, besides I have had much to do for my husband in the -way of business, and the daily congratulations of my numerous friends -here to receive, and to return. - -In the meantime, however, I am trying to get ready the “Statesmen of -America,” that is, my own sketches of their characters, etc., with -extracts from their works or speeches. While reading over to my husband -the two charming letters you have written to me, it occurred to me that -I would ask your permission to place them before my friends here to show -that the American statesmen are as elegant in their private -correspondence as they are able in their public documents. I have made a -mark with a pencil through the opening of the paragraph relating to Mr. -Calhoun; but I should dearly like to publish your opinion of him. Mr. -Panizzi of the British Museum Library is in love with these letters, and -he is head authority in all literary matters. I enclose them for your -perusal, because I have thought you might wish to see them before -granting me permission to publish them; but whether you grant me this -permission or decline it, pray restore me the letters. I cherish with -jealous care every memorial of those who made me so happy when among -them. - -My husband begs that you will accept his most grateful and respectful -thanks for all your goodness to me. Forgive me, dear Mr. Buchanan, this -unconscionable letter and its long weariness, and believe me always most -respectfully and affectionately your friend, - - SARAH M. MAURY. - - [FROM MADAME CALDERON.[108]] - - NEWPORT, August 1st, 1846. - -DEAR MR. BUCHANAN:— - -As I see a letter for Calderon this morning in your handwriting, I think -it as well to let you know that he has gone to New York on business, in -case there should be any delay in his answer. Calderon tells us that -there is some chance of your coming to New York, which I hope is the -case. I am anxious to inquire into the progress of your domestic -affairs, and whether I have more chance than I formerly had of finding -Mrs. Buchanan when I call at your house. I think, now that you have -settled Oregon and the tariff, and are in a fair way of disposing of -Mexico, it is time for you to look at home, and bring about the -annexation of a certain fair neighbor of ours. Newport is very cool: we -have not had a single really _hot_ day. I hope you have stood the heat -of Washington better than Calderon did. We are living very quietly here -as to society, but with bathing, riding, fishing, etc., pass our time -very agreeably. We are at this moment _nine_ ladies in one house, and -_no_ gentlemen. - -Pray remember me to Mr. Pleasonton and his family the next time you go -there, and especially to my friend Miss Clementina. My sister and nieces -beg their best regards, and I remain - - Yours very truly and respectfully, - - FANNY CALDERON DE LE BARCA. - ------ - -Footnote 97: - - It should in justice be stated that, after it was known to Mr. Webster - in the winter of 1843–44, that a project was on foot for bringing in - Texas by treaty, he, not being at that time in any public position, - made great efforts to arouse a popular opposition to it in New - England, but without any success. It was not until after the executive - Government had become committed to the government and people of Texas - to promote the annexation by Mr. Calhoun’s plan of legislative action, - and after this plan had been submitted to Congress, that there began - to be any considerable opposition to it in the North, coming from - organized popular meetings. During the Presidential election of 1844, - although the Democratic party made the annexation of Texas one of the - measures to be expected from it in case of the election of its - candidate, the Whig party, in consequence of the attitude of their - candidate, Mr. Clay, on this subject, was not in a position to oppose - the annexation on account of the slavery existing in that country. - (Compare the detailed account of the annexation of Texas in the Life - of Mr. Webster, at the passages referred to in the Index, _verb._ - “Texas.”) - -Footnote 98: - - This was not only the view entertained by President Polk and his - political party, but it was the deliberate opinion of Mr. Webster, who - may be said to have represented all the grounds of opposition to the - measure. He re-entered the Senate on the 5th of March, 1845, four days - after the passage of the joint resolutions for the annexation of - Texas. On the 11th he wrote a letter to his son, in which he expressed - with precision the whole of his objections to this measure, and - decidedly maintained that Mexico could now have no just cause for war, - if the measure should be accomplished. He exonerated Mr. Polk and his - cabinet from any desire to provoke a war with Mexico, and in regard to - foreign intervention he said: “Nor do I believe that the principal - nations of Europe, or any of them, will instigate Mexico to war. The - policy of England is undoubtedly pacific. She cannot want Texas - herself; and though her desire would be to see that country - independent, yet it is not a point she would seek to carry by - disturbing the peace of the world. But she will, doubtless, now take - care that Mexico shall not cede California, or any part thereof, to - us. You know my opinion to have been, and now is, that the port of San - Francisco would be twenty times as valuable to us as all Texas.” (See - the entire letter, Life of Mr. Webster, II., 249.) - -Footnote 99: - - Mr. C. A. Wickliffe, who was sent by Mr. Buchanan to Texas as a - confidential agent, and from whose report I have taken the principal - facts above related, writing from Galveston on the 6th of May, said: - “The subject of the terms of annexation, or the result of the measure - when Congress meets, no longer constitutes the topic of conversation - among the people. They speak of this as a subject settled. The - all-engrossing topic among them is the provisions of their - constitution to be adopted. Upon this subject I have been gratified to - listen to the views and opinions of many intelligent men. The deep - interest they feel in the work of making a constitution which shall - secure to Texas and her citizens the blessings of a good government - and social order, gives high hopes of their future destiny. I - undertake to predict that you will be surprised when you shall see - their constitution, emanating from a people of whose disorder so much - has been said.” - -Footnote 100: - - Prussian Minister. - -Footnote 101: - - Secretary of War. - -Footnote 102: - - John Slidell of New Orleans, at this time a Representative in Congress - from Louisiana, was the same person who became famous all over the - world, along with his colleague, Mr. Mason, during our civil war, - after they were seized from on board the British steam-packet Trent, - on their way as Confederate envoys to England, brought to the United - States, imprisoned, and afterwards released. Consult the Index, - _verb._ “Slidell.” - -Footnote 103: - - Colonel Taylor was promoted to the rank of major-general soon after - the first of his victories. - -Footnote 104: - - James Barbour of Virginia, Secretary of War under President John - Quincy Adams. - -Footnote 105: - - Afterwards governor of South Carolina during the first period of - secession. - -Footnote 106: - - This refers to the charges made by Mr. C. J. Ingersoll against Mr. - Webster. See the Life of Webster, Index, _verb._ “Ingersoll.” - -Footnote 107: - - Chief Justice Taney. - -Footnote 108: - - Wife of the Spanish Minister. She was a Scotch lady, _née_ Inglis. - ------ - - - - - CHAPTER XXII. - 1848–1849. - -CENTRAL AMERICA—THE MONROE DOCTRINE, AND THE CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY. - - -To give an account of every public transaction with which Mr. Buchanan -was connected as Secretary of State, would be impracticable within the -limits of these volumes. But there remains one subject which must not be -overlooked—the affairs of Central America, and the position in which -they stood before the negotiation of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. - -The policy of Mr. Polk’s administration towards the States of Central -America and on the subject of the Monroe Doctrine was shaped by Mr. -Buchanan very differently from that adopted by the succeeding -administration of General Taylor, whose Secretary of State was Mr. -Clayton, the American negotiator of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty with Great -Britain. In 1845, when the war between the United States and Mexico was -impending, there was reason to believe that England was aiming to obtain -a footing in the then Mexican province of California, by an extensive -system of colonization. Acting under Mr. Buchanan’s advice, President -Polk, in his first annual message of December 2, 1845, not only -re-asserted the Monroe Doctrine in general terms, but distinctly -declared that no future European colony or dominion shall, with the -consent of the United States, be planted or established on any part of -the North American continent. This declaration was confined to North -America, in order to make it emphatically applicable to California. The -effect was that the British plan of colonization in California was given -up. Two years afterward, when the Mexican war was drawing to a close, -after the capture of the City of Mexico in September, 1847, Mr. Buchanan -turned the attention of President Polk to the encroachments of the -British government in Central America, under the operation of a -protectorate over the king and kingdom of the Mosquito Indians. In his -annual message of December 7, 1847, the President, after reiterating the -Monroe Doctrine, asked for an appropriation to defray the expense of a -chargé d’affaires to Guatemala, the most prosperous and important of the -Central American states. The appropriation was made, and in April, 1848, -the chargé was appointed. But before his departure a state of things -occurred in Yucatan, which made it necessary for the President to make a -fresh and solemn declaration of his purpose to maintain the Monroe -Doctrine at every hazard against Great Britain and all other European -powers. This was the war of extermination waged by the Indians against -the white population of Yucatan in 1847–48. If not actually incited by -the British authorities, the savages were known to be supplied with -British muskets. The whites were reduced to such extremities that the -authorities of Yucatan offered to transfer the dominion and sovereignty -of the peninsula to the United States, as a consideration for defending -it against the Indians, at the same time giving notice that if this -offer should be declined, they would make the same proposition to -England and Spain. By a special message sent to Congress on the 29th of -April, 1848, President Polk recommended to Congress the appeal of -Yucatan for aid and protection against the Indians, but he declined to -recommend the adoption of any measure with a view to acquire the -dominion and sovereignty over the peninsula. But it was necessary for -him to announce what would be his policy should Great Britain or Spain -accept a similar offer. Anticipating that England might take advantage -of such an offer to establish over Yucatan such another protectorate as -that which she claimed to exercise over the Mosquito coast, the -President, at the close of his message, recommended to Congress “to -adopt such measures as, in their judgment, may be expedient to prevent -Yucatan from becoming a colony of any European power, which, in no -event, could be permitted by the United States, and, at the same time, -to rescue the white men from extermination or expulsion from their -country.” - -It then became necessary for Mr. Buchanan to consider how the removal of -the British government from their assumed protectorate over the Indians -of the Mosquito Coast could be best accomplished. He was convinced that -the best thing to be done would be to re-unite the Central States of -America in a federation, so that they could aid each other and be in a -condition to receive aid from the United States. Accordingly, with the -approbation of the President, on the 3d of June, Mr. Buchanan instructed -Mr. Hise, the new chargé to Guatemala, as follows: - -“When the federation of the centre of America was formed, the Government -and people of the United States entertained the highest hopes and felt -the warmest desire for its success and prosperity. Its government was -that of a federal republic, composed of the five states of Guatemala, -Honduras, Nicaragua, St. Salvador, and Costa Rica; and its constitution -nearly resembled that of the United States. This constitution -unfortunately endured but a brief period, and the different states of -Central America are now politically independent of each other. The -consequence is that each of them is so feeble as to invite aggressions -from foreign powers. Whilst it is our intention to maintain our -established policy of non-intervention in the concerns of foreign -nations, you are instructed, by your counsel and advice should suitable -occasions offer, to promote the reunion of the states which formed the -federation of Central America. In a federal union among themselves -consists their strength. They will thus avoid domestic dissensions, and -render themselves respected by the world. These truths you can impress -upon them by the most powerful arguments. - -A principal object of your mission is to cultivate the most friendly -relations with Guatemala. It is now an independent sovereignty, and is -by far the most populous and powerful of the states of the former -federation. Whilst representing your Government at Guatemala, however, -you will enjoy frequent opportunities of cultivating friendly relations -between the United States and the other states of Central America, which -you will not fail to embrace. - -The enemies of free institutions throughout the world have been greatly -encouraged by the constantly recurring revolutions and changes in the -Spanish-American republics. They are thus furnished with arguments -against the capacity of man for self-government. The President and -people of the United States have viewed these incessant changes with the -most profound regret. Both our principles and our policy make us desire -that these republics should become prosperous and powerful. We feel a -deep interest in their welfare; but this we know can only be promoted by -free and stable governments. The enjoyment of liberty and the -maintenance of private rights cannot be secured without permanent order; -and this can only spring from the sacred observance of law. So long as -successive military chieftains shall possess the ability and the will to -subvert subsisting governments by the sword, the inevitable consequences -must be a disregard of personal rights, weakness at home, and want of -character abroad. In your intercourse with the authorities of Guatemala -and other states of Central America, you will not fail to impress upon -them our example, where all political controversies are decided at the -ballot-box. - -I have no doubt that the dissolution of the confederacy of Central -America has encouraged Great Britain in her encroachments upon the -territories of Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica, under the mask of -protecting the so-called kingdom of the Mosquitos. We learn that under -this pretext she has now obtained possession of the harbor of San Juan -de Nicaragua—probably the best harbor along the whole coast. Her object -in this acquisition is evident from the policy which she has uniformly -pursued throughout her past history—of seizing upon every valuable -commercial point throughout the world, whenever circumstances have -placed this in her power. Her purpose probably is to obtain the control -of the route for a railroad and a canal between the Atlantic and Pacific -oceans, by the way of Lake Nicaragua. In a document prepared, as it is -understood, by Mr. Macgregor, and printed by order of the British -Parliament, which has been furnished to me by Mr. Crampton, her -Britannic Majesty’s chargé d’affaires to the United States, Great -Britain claims the whole of the sea-coast for the king of the Mosquitos, -from Cape Honduras to Escuda de Veragua. By this means she would exclude -from the Caribbean Sea the whole of Honduras south of Cape Honduras, and -the entire states of Nicaragua and Costa Rica, as well as the New -Granadian state of Veragua. Under the assumed title of protector of the -kingdom of the Mosquitos—a miserable, degraded and insignificant tribe -of Indians—she doubtless intends to acquire an absolute dominion over -this vast extent of sea-coast. With what little reason she advances this -pretension appears from the convention between Great Britain and Spain, -signed at London on the 14th day of July, 1786. By its first article, -“His Britannic Majesty’s subjects, and the other colonists who have -hitherto enjoyed the protection of England, shall evacuate the country -of the Mosquitos, as well as the continent in general and the islands -adjacent, without exception, situated beyond the line hereafter -described as what ought to be the frontier of the extent of territory -granted by his Catholic majesty to the English for the uses specified in -the third article of the present convention, and in addition to the -country already granted to them in virtue of the stipulations agreed -upon by the commissioners of the two crowns in 1783.” - -The country granted to them under the treaties of 1783 and 1786 was -altogether embraced in the present British provinces of Belize, and was -remote from what is now claimed to be the Mosquito kingdom. The uses -specified in the third article of the convention were merely, in -addition to that of “cutting wood for dyeing,” the grant of the liberty -of cutting all other wood, without even excepting mahogany, as well as -gathering all the fruits or produce of the earth, purely natural and -uncultivated, which may, besides being carried away in their natural -state, become an object of utility or of commerce, whether for food or -for manufactures; but it is expressly agreed that this stipulation is -never to be used as a pretext for establishing in that country any -plantation of sugar, coffee, cocoa, or other like articles, or any -fabric or manufacture, by means of mills or other machines whatsoever. -(This restriction, however, does not regard the use of saw-mills for -cutting or otherwise preparing the wood.) Since all the lands in -question being indisputably acknowledged to belong of right to the crown -of Spain, no settlements of that kind, or the population that would -follow, could be allowed. “The English shall be permitted to transport -and convey all such wood and other produce of the place in its natural -and uncultivated state down the rivers to the sea; but without ever -going beyond the limits which are prescribed to them by the stipulations -above granted, and without thereby taking an opportunity of ascending -the said rivers beyond their bounds into the countries belonging to -Spain.” - -And yet from this simple permission within certain limits to cut and -carry away all the different kinds of wood and “the produce of the -earth, uncultivated and purely natural,” accompanied by the most solemn -acknowledgment on the part of Great Britain that all the lands in -question “belong of right to the crown of Spain,” she has by successive -encroachments established the British colony of the Belize. - -The Government of the United States has not yet determined what course -it will pursue in regard to the encroachments of the British government -as protector of the king and kingdom of the Mosquitos; but you are -instructed to obtain all the information within your power upon the -nature and extent of these encroachments, and communicate it with the -least possible delay to this department. We are also desirous to learn -the number of the Mosquito tribe, the degree of civilization they have -attained, and everything else concerning them. - -The independence, as well as the interests of the nations on this -continent, require that they should maintain an American system of -policy, entirely distinct from that which prevails in Europe. To suffer -any interference on the part of the European governments with the -domestic concerns of the American republics, and to permit them to -establish new colonies upon this continent, would be to jeopard their -independence and ruin their interests. These truths ought everywhere -throughout this continent to be impressed upon the public mind; but what -can the United States do to resist such European interference whilst the -Spanish American republics continue to weaken themselves by division and -civil war, and deprive themselves of the ability of doing anything for -their own protection? - -Mr. Hise was prevented by illness and other causes from reaching -Guatemala until a late period in Mr. Polk’s administration, and before -any despatches were received from him Mr. Polk had ceased to be -President. The plan wisely conceived by Mr. Buchanan and adopted by -President Polk, for uniting the States of Central America in a new -federation, which, by the aid of the United States, could compel the -surrender of the British protectorate, was not carried out by their -successors, although it descended to them in the best possible shape. In -the mean time, the British government, taking advantage of the wretched -internal condition of those States, had undertaken to extend the -dominions of the puppet king of the Mosquitos far beyond their former -pretensions, and in February, 1848, had seized upon the port of San Juan -de Nicaragua, expelled the State from it, and thus deprived her and the -State of Costa Rica of the only good harbor along the coast. To -counteract this encroachment and to enable the Central States, by -uniting them, to demand the withdrawal of the protectorate asserted by -Great Britain, was the purpose for which Mr. Hise was sent to Guatemala. -Instead of taking up and carrying out this policy, the succeeding -administration of General Taylor, without consulting the States of -Central America, entered into the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, concluded April -19, 1850, the ratifications being exchanged July 4, 1850. - -It is necessary to make a brief analysis of this treaty, because Mr. -Buchanan, when he became minister to England under President Pierce, had -to do what he could to unravel the complications to which the ambiguous -language of the treaty had given rise. There were two provisions in the -first article of the treaty which need separate examination. By the -first of them, the contracting parties stipulated that neither of them -should ever exercise exclusive control over the ship-canal that was to -be constructed between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans by the way of the -river San Juan de Nicaragua, or erect any fortifications commanding it. -The treaty then proceeded to declare that neither of the parties shall -ever “occupy, or fortify, or colonize, or exercise any dominion over -Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central -America.” One general objection to this provision was, that so long as -it should remain in operation it would preclude the United States from -ever annexing to their dominions any state of Central America, even if -such state should desire to come into our Union. But the last clause of -the first article of the treaty was the one which led to the subsequent -controversy. Instead of a simple provision requiring Great Britain -absolutely to recede from the Mosquito protectorate, and to restore to -Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica their respective territories, the -treaty declared as follows: “Nor will either [of the parties] make use -of any protection which either affords or may afford, or any alliance -which either has or may have, to or with any state or people, for the -purpose of erecting or maintaining any such fortifications, or of -occupying, fortifying, or colonizing Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito -Coast, or any part of Central America, or of assuming or exercising any -dominion over the same.” - -It soon became the British construction of this clause that it -recognized the existence of the Mosquito protectorate for all purposes -other than those expressly prohibited. Under this construction, Great -Britain claimed that she could still direct and influence the Mosquito -king in the administration of his government; and down to the time when -Mr. Buchanan was sent by President Pierce as minister to England, this -claim was still maintained. On the other hand, taking all its provisions -together and interpreting them according to the fair meaning of the -stipulations as applied to the facts, the treaty was understood in this -country to bind the British government not to exercise in any part of -Central America any “dominion,” either through the name and authority of -the titular king of the Mosquitos, or otherwise; or in other words not -to exercise dominion, either directly or indirectly. Manifestly the -treaty was destined to be a source of discord between Great Britain and -the United States; and when, as will hereafter be seen, it devolved upon -the administration of President Pierce to meet the British construction, -there was an imperative necessity for Mr. Buchanan’s services as -minister to Great Britain, in order that this and other pending -questions between the two governments might be adjusted without further -hazard of more serious collision. - - ------------------ - - NOTE. - -On page 459 of this volume, it should have been stated that the charge -of “treachery” made by Mr. Clay and the Whigs generally against -President Tyler, was chiefly based on the assertions that the first Bank -bill (passed August 6th, 1841), was framed by Mr. Ewing, Secretary of -the Treasury, and approved by the President and his Cabinet; that it was -vetoed on the ground of essential alterations; that the second bill was -framed to meet his special objections, was privately submitted to him -and approved before its passage, but vetoed afterwards. The central -point in the Whig charge is that Mr. Tyler vetoed a bill which he had -promised to approve, and which was first submitted to him in order that -its terms might be altered, or that the whole might be abandoned, if he -could not approve it. - -It has not been my intention in this work to express any opinion upon -the conduct of President Tyler in relation to the Bank bills. In the -Life of Mr. Webster, the reader will find, at pages 69 to 80 of the -first volume, his explanations of the whole difficulty. But since page -459 of the present volume was written and stereotyped, I have thought it -proper to advert, without comment, to the precise character of the Whig -charge against Mr. Tyler, lest it might be said that I have omitted to -refer to an important part of the history. - - Transcriber’s Note - -Errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected, and -are noted here. The references are to the page and line in the original. -On occasion, the indication of quotations is confused. Where it is not -obvious from the context where the quotation marks should have been -properly placed, they are left to stand, and noted below. - - 1.28 arrival in Philade[l]phia>, Added. - - 17.7 his future prospects as a lawyer and a Added. - politician.[”] - - 80.27 meet us and deny to us this reasonable Added. - request.[”] - - 91.13 within the exclusive jurisdic[dic]tion Removed. - - 97.5 duties.[”] Such has been the delay of justice Added. - - 261.34 they reported three resolutio[u/n]s Inverted. - - 283.1 in the Department of Foreign Affairs[”], Removed. - - 284.21 granted under the Constitution to the Replaced. - Pre[a/s]ident. - - 289.41 But he is respons[i]ble Added. - - 302.15 the imputation of any criminal motives.[”] Added. - - 303.41 Dreadful would be the consequences if we Replaced. - poss[s/e]ss - - 310.44 agreed to, _nem. con._[”] Added. - - 311.20 _[“]Resolved_ That the aforesaid Added. - resolve - - 321.39 palpa[p/b]le absurdity. Replaced. - - 346.17 and transmitted th[r]ough Added. - - 346.26 should be carried th[r]ough> Added. - - 354.35 from legal responsibi[li]ty for his conduct. Added. - - 359.38 [“]A citizen of any of the States, _sic_ - - 401.31 Mr. Buchanan. From the gentleman’s _sic_ - [explaination], - - 425.12 described by several gentlem[a/e]n from the Replaced. - South - - 444.1 w[h]ich all must have observed Added. - - 461.19 for relief under this bill[.] Added. - - 482.16 had a splendid system of internal Added. - improv[e]ments - - 524.6 met many New Yorkers at [I/T]owanda. Replaced. - - 601.18 plenipotent[i]aries> on the part of the Added. - Mexican Republic - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Life of James Buchanan, v. 1 (of 2), by -George Tickner Curtis - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LIFE OF JAMES BUCHANAN, V. 1 *** - -***** This file should be named 53186-0.txt or 53186-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/3/1/8/53186/ - -Produced by KD Weeks, David Edwards and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This -file was produced from images generously made available -by The Internet Archive) - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law 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 in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. 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 unprotected by copyright law 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 in the United States and - most other parts of the world 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. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (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 The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, 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 -works not protected by U.S. copyright law 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 in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, 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 - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -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 not protected by copyright 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. - |